the g3 was sold as "the most upgradable machine ever..." the g4, unlike your argument for 486/pentium or p2/pentium... fits in the same slot. uses the same bus speed. etc... there is NO engineeering reason for it not being upgradable. Apple has turned evil, and as much as I would like to have one... no thanks. I will wait and buy one from an oem instead. I will never give apple a dime after seeing this.
Yes, I understand that this in itself does not allow access. It does however, completely compromise the security model of the system by allowing unauthorized services to be installed without knowledge of the sysadmin, which is completely unacceptable.
Cool. Thanks for the url. It certainly seems strange that the people writing the code would not know where the code came from. I think they are lying sacks of shit. please excuse my language,
Why is there a third public key for some "unknown"?
When I purchased NT for my company, I did so under the "assumption" that the 128bit security had 1 and only 1 public key. It was an ignorant assumption, I admit...
I can understand MS being pressured into providing a second key for the nsa, but who is the 3rd key for? microsoft?
I have now removed ALL MS products from ALL machines on these premises. linux/freebsd will now be installed... until then, we will make do with 3x5 index cards.
I have also spent the entire morning on the phone to my customers reccomending they do the same. There is no excuse for a security hole such as this in a "secure" software package.
If you have a registered copy of 95/98/NT, delete it, and write MS and let them know how you feel about it.
I personally hope the rotten bastards, each and every one of them, rot in hell.
I assume you are referring to the navy ship that had to be towed back in because the entire ships system went down over their control box doing a blue screen... I would suspect if it had gotten much better since then we would have heard about it from the microsoft PR trolls.
agreed. There are years of hard work and careful design in the Linux kernel and gnu packages that make up the o/s. It didnt happen by random chance. It makes a perfect Kansas showcase of "intelligent design".
Our current administration seems to be playing the game of pat them on the back so they wont notice your pissing on their leg. They petition congress to monitor all traffic. They petition the world to do away with encryption. Then they throw out a report saying we should allow encryption. hogwash. That report is nothing but a smokescreen to give the impression of friendship. There is none. It may be argued in courts and congress if its needed to continue the charade, but your privacy is gone, and is not coming back, unless we all simply start encrypting everything. heavy encryption. who cares if someone from the other side of the world can see it or not, they can download their own pgp from elsewhere.
ps: in the event you are still not paying attention... and still unable to make simple coorelations... adidas is a relatively modern name brand of sports shoes.
you dont read. you simply react. I told you the "man" tracks had "adidas" printed in the instep. and excuse me... but i dont believe I brought thermodynamics into this conversation. other than to say i dont see that it really applies to this argument as i have heard other claim it does. other than that... you really seem to need a grip.
You certainly seem to be getting hostile over this, and you seem to believe that i have some hidden and dastardly motive for the things ive said. No. I just want an honest unbiased evaluation.
Now. In reference to your opening remarks... I believe I stated pretty clearly that I had never seen this creature prior to locating it on your website in chapter #9 I also stated that this was NOT my field. What I have looked at for so long are rocks. specifically geochemistry as it relates to crystal formation, not fossils.
re: the links I provided... I did a web search looking for pics of the fossil. none are provided in your site. (would be a nice addition). What i found were what I provided.
point 1. I do not yet see that all dating methods consistently agree.
point 2. Your paragraph 3: You believe that and your an idiot. Believe it about me and your still an idiot.
point 3. Archeopteryx. I still believe its a bird. I may change my mind. I may not. Off the top of my head, I would guess that it tasted a lot like chicken.
point 4. NO i did not dismiss your data. Im sure I will continue to read it and continue to evaluate it for years to come. Yes I see some problem areas in the things we have discussed. Yes, I did feel the need to point them out to you, in the event that you had not seen them.
Maybe I should have given you a pat on the back for such an informative page instead of questioning the weak points I see there. Sorry, but I always look for the weak points first. Once I find them, I am in a far better position to judge the data.
I guess where we differ on this critter, is you believe that because it was a dinosaur, it wasnt a bird. I dont agree. I see no reason that this animall could not have been a dinosaur and still be a bird. I understand that you have them under different classifications and they are therefore, in your eyes, different. I dont blindly accept that premise.
Point 5: the preponderance of the evidence
Thus far the "proponderance of the evidence" from both your self and your website is that your far more interested in carrying on your private little war with the creationists, than you are in openly looking at the evidence in an discussion that you initiated.
Im sorry if i dont believe what you say simply because you said it. I rarely believe anything from anyone simply because they said it. That is a matter of trust and quite frankly, I have no reason to do so yet.
You are right. There may not be any point in talking to you further unless you are willing to reconsider your attitude, but if you care to continue this. im nospamsruyle@nstar.net remove nospam and we can move it off of slashdot.
sorry i missed this post earlier. I left early and was at the paluxy river all day. nice place. water was a bit too warm to really be enjoyable in the shallows, but it was nice at the blue hole.
yes. I did see "man" tracks at the paluxy river. They were located maybe 1/4 mile south of the blue hole. They were pretty easily identifiable as a man track because of the word "adidas" written in the middle of instep.
hi re: the Birds. I would and likely will examine why people think they arent birds. I have not simply because i had never encountered one before today.
do i still maintain that there are no transitional forms? yes.
I will read the rising of the mammals from the therapsid reptiles.
Im not saying I dont believe truth if shown truth. merely that i want to be shown all of the data.
re isochron.
the faq is interesting.
I think the mixing model is a bit simplistic, chemistry tends to change not only between flows but within each flow, and between areas of relative heat and cool.
Eutectics are a vicously tough problem to deal with and even if dealing with only 2 substances it can be difficult.even more vicous and subtle are the slight changes in chemistry that occur in crystals during their growth process as a result of a changing growth environment. it is not at all linear. not just from one crystal to the next, but within each one. there are so many variables... its simply not possible to determine the cause of what made this millimeter be this, and the next millimeter be that.
I see that this issue is addressed to some extent here. I will look for the given reference. Faure (1986, Equations 9.5 through 9.10 on p. 142
re: foul look at scientists i agree the truth will come out in time... and in each science, it does. mechanics could not be any more beautiful than laid out by newton.
but to say something is "true" because we have found so and so? It is every bit as scientific as the ether, or the bleeding and the leaches of the day.
re: evaluate carefully. I do. anyway. im out for the night.
no. Archeopteryx is not a transitional form. not from any evidence i see.
I really wasnt aware that it was noted as being bad for gaps. I am still reading the faq. I have noted that it (the faq) also contains references to aristotle. I had not had time to look them up, just thought it was interesting that it was noted on your site.
re: It seems that you are more interested in identifying reasons to NOT accept anything they have to say than in examining the evidence!
No, I have simply learned to trust "scientists" no more than "creationists". Im sorry but i no longer have the view that "scientists" pursue truth so much as research grants. Both sides have an agenda, as shown on both your webiste and the sites of the "begat counters". I accept neither.
To your second statement, I would suggest that I am examining it, and have been for some time.
For instance one question that you refuse to consider is this, if every method of dating is independently bad, then why do they all agree on the relative dates of different layers of rock? Reflect on that and give me a straightforward explanation of this basic fact...
Can you show me an example of this happening? with details as you say?
Im sorry for the misunderstand on rate of decay. yes I'm aware the rate is constant, but i was speaking of leaching effects changing the quantity of material.
Yes, I would expect responsible scientists to take such things as leaching effects into consideration when looking at age of strata. but where do i find any evidence that they have done so?
can you direct me to such a study?
re: You are reading a long FAQ, with a tremendous number of examples, and the one example that you JUST HAPPEN to pick is the one listed as being particularly bad for gaps.
well. matter of fact, i did. tell you what. i picked chapter #9, and you didnt seem to like that one. you pick one.
:) Long example page. lots of links. i'll read it. For brevity here, it is a/. post after all, i chose #9, (reptile to birds). I'll get back to that in a moment. first. re dating methods: c-14 dating (like all of the other dating methods i have seen.) assume perfect linearity in the decay rate of the sample. (they also assume to know its original composition.). works only on organic materials, works only within the range of 50-100,000 yrs or so. It also works only if the samples have not been submerged in water (leaching), or exposed to fire. While i see no evidence that fossil bearing layers have been exposed to fire. (except in areas of magmatic activity or catastrophic event) there is a great amount of evidence of water having existed within those layers, and possibly the covering of it with water was the cause/contributor of the fossilisation. given this data, and the fact that c-14 does not work within the real of geologic time, it is useless for dating fossils. next we have
K-40 U-Th-Pb Rb-87
only the last two are useful within the time range we are discussing, but they are succeptable to the same leaching effect as c-14. Water is a powerful solvent. Water can/will absorb lots of material, and is quite capable (by thermal transport and other methods) of carrying even more material than it may hold at any given time. While these methods are at least useful within the time scale, they must be used only within the areas of samples of known histories, or the results are useless.
The dozen or so other radiometric dating techniques... same problem.
Essentially i see this as the broad problem with any and all radiometric dating method and as the strongest argument against the validity of such dating.
Dating by analysis of magnetic orientation of molecules with the structure? yes it works. but it assumes the same linearity as radiometric dating does. and assumes more knowlegde of the history of the specimin than is actually to be had. I hold these to be invalid assumptions. Im sure there are many other dating methods. they dont come freshly to mind.
This is not my field, but i do have a great interest in rocks, and in how our planet came to be in the condition its in.
back to the birds.
As I understand birds, they first appeared in the jurassic, some 150 million yrs ago +- 50%.
On chapter 9 of your example page where this is discussed, We get all the way down to the bottom of the page before we meet our very first birdlike transitional friend Archeopteryx. seemed to have lived within the right period. (if the above mentioned dating methods worked ) the problem here is the complete lack of anything that points to a reasonable ancestor outside of its own era,or outside of its own species. nor do we have successors. my guess is it died of "survival of the fittest". but that it was simply a variation of "bird".
Ill read the rest of the chapters. I do hope they offer more conclusive evidence than this though. later steve
actually it was indeed once the theory of gravity. but has been changed to the status of a law. also. i have read newtons principia mathmatica where its first described.
the theory of quantum mechanics. nope. i know too little about quantum mechanics to argue for or against ANY stance on it.
really had not planned on making this a life long project... but ill look for it.:) i do not remember the book. i will however look for the reference for you.
I have no problem with survival of the fittest. that much seems self evident, and proven. Where i see the problem is in the fossil record.
We see no evidence of cross species evolution, only changes within each species, ie: survival of the fittest
We find a complete lack of transitional forms, which "should" grossly outnumber the existing forms.
I realize this has nothing to do with this discussion but, i guess what really started this for me was a discussion with a geologist, who, when asked how you date the age of a fossil, stated that "You date the age of the fossil by the layer its found in" and when asked how you date tha age of the layer, replied "You date the age of the layer by the fossils it contains." He never saw the circular nature of his reasoning and was appalled by my ignorance when i pointed it out. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of this though.
the argument about evolution going against the 2nd law of thermodynamics... i frankly dont see. i think thats a semantic issue.
Slashdot Mirror
the g3 was sold as "the most upgradable machine ever..."
the g4, unlike your argument for 486/pentium or p2/pentium... fits in the same slot. uses the same bus speed. etc... there is NO engineeering reason for it not being upgradable.
Apple has turned evil, and as much as I would like to have one... no thanks. I will wait and buy one from an oem instead. I will never give apple a dime after seeing this.
I ran a bsd once. Freebsd. I was very impressed with the way it ran. Yes, Openbsd is likely a very good choice.
Yes, I understand that this in itself does not allow access. It does however, completely compromise the security model of the system by allowing unauthorized services to be installed without knowledge of the sysadmin, which is completely unacceptable.
Cool. Thanks for the url.
It certainly seems strange that the people writing the code would not know where the code came from.
I think they are lying sacks of shit.
please excuse my language,
Why is there a third public key for some "unknown"?
When I purchased NT for my company, I did so under the "assumption" that the 128bit security had 1 and only 1 public key. It was an ignorant assumption, I admit...
I can understand MS being pressured into providing a second key for the nsa, but who is the 3rd key for? microsoft?
I have now removed ALL MS products from ALL machines on these premises. linux/freebsd will now be installed... until then, we will make do with 3x5 index cards.
I have also spent the entire morning on the phone to my customers reccomending they do the same.
There is no excuse for a security hole such as this in a "secure" software package.
If you have a registered copy of 95/98/NT, delete it, and write MS and let them know how you feel about it.
I personally hope the rotten bastards, each and every one of them, rot in hell.
If there is no source code, Do NOT install it.
As noted previously on Slashdot. /house is.
/home is where
divide by zero is a common error in application coding... there is no excuse for an o/s to crash because of it.
I assume you are referring to the navy ship that had to be towed back in because the entire ships system went down over their control box doing a blue screen... I would suspect if it had gotten much better since then we would have heard about it from the microsoft PR trolls.
agreed.
There are years of hard work and careful design in the Linux kernel and gnu packages that make up the o/s. It didnt happen by random chance. It makes a perfect Kansas showcase of "intelligent design".
Our current administration seems to be playing the game of pat them on the back so they wont notice your pissing on their leg. They petition congress to monitor all traffic. They petition the world to do away with encryption. Then they throw out a report saying we should allow encryption. hogwash. That report is nothing but a smokescreen to give the impression of friendship. There is none. It may be argued in courts and congress if its needed to continue the charade, but your privacy is gone, and is not coming back, unless we all simply start encrypting everything. heavy encryption. who cares if someone from the other side of the world can see it or not, they can download their own pgp from elsewhere.
ps:
in the event you are still not paying attention...
and still unable to make simple coorelations...
adidas is a relatively modern name brand of sports shoes.
you dont read. you simply react.
I told you the "man" tracks had "adidas" printed in the instep.
and excuse me...
but i dont believe I brought thermodynamics into this conversation. other than to say i dont see that it really applies to this argument as i have heard other claim it does. other than that...
you really seem to need a grip.
You certainly seem to be getting hostile over this, and you seem to believe that i have some hidden and dastardly motive for the things ive said. No. I just want an honest unbiased evaluation.
Now. In reference to your opening remarks...
I believe I stated pretty clearly that I had never seen this creature prior to locating it on your website in chapter #9 I also stated that this was NOT my field. What I have looked at for so long are rocks. specifically geochemistry as it relates to crystal formation, not fossils.
re: the links I provided... I did a web search looking for pics of the fossil. none are provided in your site. (would be a nice addition). What i found were what I provided.
point 1. I do not yet see that all dating methods consistently agree.
point 2. Your paragraph 3: You believe that and your an idiot. Believe it about me and your still an idiot.
point 3. Archeopteryx.
I still believe its a bird. I may change my mind. I may not. Off the top of my head, I would guess that it tasted a lot like chicken.
point 4. NO i did not dismiss your data. Im sure I will continue to read it and continue to evaluate it for years to come. Yes I see some problem areas in the things we have discussed. Yes, I did feel the need to point them out to you, in the event that you had not seen them.
Maybe I should have given you a pat on the back for such an informative page instead of questioning the weak points I see there. Sorry, but I always look for the weak points first. Once I find them, I am in a far better position to judge the data.
I guess where we differ on this critter, is you believe that because it was a dinosaur, it wasnt a bird. I dont agree. I see no reason that this animall could not have been a dinosaur and still be a bird. I understand that you have them under different classifications and they are therefore, in your eyes, different. I dont blindly accept that premise.
Point 5: the preponderance of the evidence
Thus far the "proponderance of the evidence" from both your self and your website is that your far more interested in carrying on your private little war with the creationists, than you are in openly looking at the evidence in an discussion that you initiated.
Im sorry if i dont believe what you say simply because you said it. I rarely believe anything from anyone simply because they said it.
That is a matter of trust and quite frankly, I have no reason to do so yet.
You are right. There may not be any point in talking to you further unless you are willing to reconsider your attitude, but if you care to continue this. im nospamsruyle@nstar.net
remove nospam and we can move it off of slashdot.
sorry i missed this post earlier. I left early and was at the paluxy river all day. nice place. water was a bit too warm to really be enjoyable in the shallows, but it was nice at the blue hole.
yes. I did see "man" tracks at the paluxy river. They were located maybe 1/4 mile south of the blue hole. They were pretty easily identifiable as a man track because of the word "adidas" written in the middle of instep.
later
steve
hi
re: the Birds.
I would and likely will examine why people think they arent birds. I have not simply because i had never encountered one before today.
do i still maintain that there are no transitional forms? yes.
I will read the rising of the mammals from the therapsid reptiles.
Im not saying I dont believe truth if shown truth.
merely that i want to be shown all of the data.
re isochron.
the faq is interesting.
I think the mixing model is a bit simplistic, chemistry tends to change not only between flows but within each flow, and between areas of relative heat and cool.
Eutectics are a vicously tough problem to deal with and even if dealing with only 2 substances it can be difficult.even more vicous and subtle are the slight changes in chemistry that occur in crystals during their growth process as a result of a changing growth environment. it is not at all linear.
not just from one crystal to the next, but within each one. there are so many variables... its simply not possible to determine the cause of what made this millimeter be this, and the next millimeter be that.
I see that this issue is addressed to some extent here. I will look for the given reference.
Faure (1986, Equations 9.5 through 9.10 on p. 142
re: foul look at scientists
i agree the truth will come out in time...
and in each science, it does. mechanics could not be any more beautiful than laid out by newton.
but to say something is "true" because we have found so and so? It is every bit as scientific as the ether, or the bleeding and the leaches of the day.
re: evaluate carefully.
I do.
anyway. im out for the night.
no. Archeopteryx is not a transitional form.
not from any evidence i see.
will read your links.
see you later.
I suspect that you are right here.
:)
thanks for the clarification.
I really wasnt aware that it was noted as being bad for gaps. I am still reading the faq.
i nks.html
6 3.htm
/ time/jurassic/jura1.htm
y l/TextImages/Nor63.htm
I have noted that it (the faq) also contains
references to aristotle. I had not had time to look them up, just thought it was interesting that it was noted on your site.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/evol
re: Archeopteryx.
I am sorry, I see it as a bird. I also see Im not the only one who does.
http://www.lhl.lib.mo.us/pubserv/hos/dino/owe18
http://www.uky.edu/ArtsSciences/Geology/webdogs
http://courses.ncsu.edu/classes/zo370001/VertPh
re: It seems that you are more interested in identifying reasons to NOT accept anything they have to say than in examining the evidence!
No, I have simply learned to trust "scientists" no more than "creationists". Im sorry but i no longer have the view that "scientists" pursue truth so much as research grants. Both sides have an agenda, as shown on both your webiste and the sites of the "begat counters". I accept neither.
To your second statement, I would suggest that I am examining it, and have been for some time.
For instance one question that you refuse to consider is this, if every method of dating is independently bad, then why do they all agree on the relative dates of different layers of rock?
Reflect on that and give me a straightforward explanation of this basic fact...
Can you show me an example of this happening?
with details as you say?
Im sorry for the misunderstand on rate of decay. yes I'm aware the rate is constant, but i was speaking of leaching effects changing the quantity of material.
Yes, I would expect responsible scientists to take such things as leaching effects into consideration when looking at age of strata. but where do i find any evidence that they have done so?
can you direct me to such a study?
re: You are reading a long FAQ, with a tremendous number of examples, and the one example that you JUST HAPPEN to pick is the one listed as being particularly bad for gaps.
well. matter of fact, i did.
tell you what. i picked chapter #9, and you didnt seem to like that one. you pick one.
http://webug.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys150/fall 97/slides/lect08/sld001.htm
v .html
a ls/chap3/chap3_5.html
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Orbits/newtongra
http://www.msms.doe.k12.ms.us/ap_physics/tutori
looks like a law to me.
no. i accept "dog" as a generic form. with all the possible mutations of that.
:) /. post after all, i chose #9, (reptile to birds). I'll get back to that in a moment.
Long example page. lots of links. i'll read it. For brevity here, it is a
first.
re dating methods:
c-14 dating (like all of the other dating methods i have seen.) assume perfect linearity in the decay rate of the sample. (they also assume to know its original composition.). works only on organic materials, works only within the range of 50-100,000 yrs or so. It also works only if the samples have not been submerged in water (leaching), or exposed to fire. While i see no evidence that fossil bearing layers have been exposed to fire. (except in areas of magmatic activity or catastrophic event) there is a great amount of evidence of water having existed within those layers, and possibly the covering of it with water was the cause/contributor of the fossilisation. given this data, and the fact that c-14 does not work within the real of geologic time, it is useless for dating fossils.
next we have
K-40
U-Th-Pb
Rb-87
only the last two are useful within the time range we are discussing, but they are succeptable to the same leaching effect as c-14. Water is a powerful solvent. Water can/will absorb lots of material, and is quite capable (by thermal transport and other methods) of carrying even more material than it may hold at any given time.
While these methods are at least useful within the time scale, they must be used only within the areas of samples of known histories, or the results are useless.
The dozen or so other radiometric dating techniques... same problem.
Essentially i see this as the broad problem with any and all radiometric dating method and as the strongest argument against the validity of such dating.
Dating by analysis of magnetic orientation of molecules with the structure?
yes it works.
but it assumes the same linearity as radiometric dating does. and assumes more knowlegde of the history of the specimin than is actually to be had.
I hold these to be invalid assumptions.
Im sure there are many other dating methods.
they dont come freshly to mind.
This is not my field, but i do have a great interest in rocks, and in how our planet came to be in the condition its in.
back to the birds.
As I understand birds, they first appeared in the jurassic, some 150 million yrs ago +- 50%.
On chapter 9 of your example page where this is discussed, We get all the way down to the bottom of the page before we meet our very first birdlike transitional friend Archeopteryx. seemed to have lived within the right period. (if the above mentioned dating methods worked ) the problem here is the complete lack of anything that points to a reasonable ancestor outside of its own era,or outside of its own species. nor do we have successors. my guess is it died of "survival of the fittest". but that it was simply a variation of "bird".
Ill read the rest of the chapters.
I do hope they offer more conclusive evidence than this though.
later
steve
interesting...
will give it some thought.
actually it was indeed once the theory of gravity. but has been changed to the status of a law.
also.
i have read newtons principia mathmatica where its first described.
the theory of quantum mechanics. nope. i know too little about quantum mechanics to argue for or against ANY stance on it.
really had not planned on making this a life long project... but ill look for it. :)
i do not remember the book. i will however look for the reference for you.
ok. but may i start with just two?
I have no problem with survival of the fittest. that much seems self evident, and proven.
Where i see the problem is in the fossil record.
We see no evidence of cross species evolution, only changes within each species, ie: survival of the fittest
We find a complete lack of transitional forms, which "should" grossly outnumber the existing forms.
I realize this has nothing to do with this discussion but, i guess what really started this for me was a discussion with a geologist, who, when asked how you date the age of a fossil, stated that "You date the age of the fossil by the layer its found in" and when asked how you date tha age of the layer, replied "You date the age of the layer by the fossils it contains." He never saw the circular nature of his reasoning and was appalled by my ignorance when i pointed it out. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of this though.
the argument about evolution going against the 2nd law of thermodynamics... i frankly dont see. i think thats a semantic issue.
re punctuation: sorry.
re FACT:
hahahah
Try reading a book sometime, maybe even a real physical science book.
If evolution were a fact it would be called a "law", as in the "law" of gravity.
why? so punctuation nazi's like yourself can be happy? get a grip.
to any others, i apologize for my poor spelling and punctuation.
I will try to do better.