Where do we get this screwed up notion that we should be "defending ourselves" instead of the police force that we as society have tasked with that (and they do a damn fine job, I might add)?
Are you trolling, or are you really this stupid?
Do you honestly think that the police are an omnipresent force everywhere in this country?
Their job is not to "defend" the populace. Disagree? Well, the USSC says otherwise.
I work in a university. Policy is not to have the Windows firewall turned on because it supposedly conflicts with a few needed applications. There is no hardware firewall whatsoever between the internal network and the outside world.
Oh, and standard policy is to have user accounts set up as Administrator at all times.
Cleaning up infected machines is a never-ending endeavour. Oddly, the few departments run by competent admins (as in, not the university's IT department) where user accounts are set up only as Users (among other things) don't have any security problems at all. I wonder why..
Oh, and before anyone blames me: I'm a grunt with no authority whatsoever. I've voiced my objections to the way things are run, but I can do little more than that.
Having RTFA, it looks like a spammer's accomplice was convicted based upon inadmissable evidence, which I must begrudgingly admit is an acceptable ruling.
I stand by my statement on email spammers, though.
Not really. The die-hard creationists would just come up with endless excuses to explain why the life really wasn't on Mars -- at least not originally. Expect to hear tales of contamination from previous probes and even accusations of outright fraud by NASA should any native life of any kind ever be found outside of Earth.
If AoE cannot be run under a Power Users account (heck, I can't imagine why games wouldn't need anything beyond Users), then yes, I will blame the vendors for either incompetence of malice. There is no other reason for forcing a gamer to have admin rights.
I said it about Ion Storm with Thief 3, and I said it about EA/Maxis with The Sims 2 (though the latter apparently learned their lesson and fixed the problem in a later update).
For example, what if they didn't let an administrative user log in interactively, and you actually had to run Windows as a normal user. Then, of course, use "Runas" to run admin apps. I'll bet that tens of thousands of third party apps would break.
I wish that MS would do something like that. I'd blame the software vendors, not Microsoft.
Any software company that releases a product that requires elevated privledges to run when the functionality of the software in no way should require such privledges is inherently broken and should be recalled.
Phone numbers (In the US, at least) are limited to 10 digits because research shows the average person can only memorize 10 digits,
Actually, the indication is that people can only store 5-9 (seven, give or take two) items in short-term or working memory at any given time. Phone numbers are actually divided into three units, not ten -- there's the area code, then the prefix, then the exchange.
A passphrase could be as easy or easier to remember than a password. A seven-word passphrase wouldn't be any harder to remember than a seven-character password provided that said seven-character password was not a common dictionary word (and honestly, too many people use common dictionary words or names for passwords).
Seems that when I normally hear about incidents even less severe than this -- for example, a student sending out a popup window with the NET SEND command -- the consequences are far more more harsh. Expulsion, possible felony charges......where is sane thinking actually prevailing in this country?
Otherwise, two problems could be solved in one fell swoop: Have users SSH into the ISP email server, and use a simple client like Pine to send and receive their email.
I still do that today. I see no need to clutter my home setup with a mail client when my ISP has been providing a perfectly usable client on their UNIX server since I signed up in 1994.
A motion to dismiss was already filed and rejected. The judge is clearly an incompetent idiot who should be tossed from the bench and possibly shot. Apparently this judge thinks that it's perfectly reasonable for Jay, who has never been to the state of New Jersey or done business there, to be sued in New Jersey.
Atriks is run by criminals, and -- as I said before -- the plaintiffs should be killed.
The defendant should kill the spammers...
on
Spammers Sue Spamee
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
...and argue self-defense against robbery. This is nuts. Spammers are sociopathic criminals. They should all be killed.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit should be slowly tortured to death, and if they have lawyers who have taken the case, their lawyers should be put to sleep.
Next, explain to us how packets from computer A with ISP X on one side of the world, can possibly attack computer B with ISP Y on the other side of the world without going through at least two routers.
#2 makes a claim without substantiating it. Information in DNA is not like information in spoken languages, despite the dishonest creationists who continue to make this comparison. Essentially, you've gone from not wanting to make an argument by "because I said so" by instead deferring to someone else who does exactly the same thing.
#3 is just outright false. The person writing the article is either woefully misinformed or an outright liar.
#4 is an appeal to the debunked "law of thermodynamics" argument. Only complete and total morons appeal to this attempt to assert that evolution violates the principle that entropy always increases in closed systems. It doesn't help their argument that earth is not a closed system.
The "2nd law of thermo" argument is one that Answers in Genesis even says that creationists should NOT use. The author of the piece really demonstrates his fundamental lack of education on the matter.
#6 is a common claim from creationists who don't bother to actually understand the evidence. It's funny how many creationists assert that one fossil is "A man, just a man!" while other creationists claim that the same fossil is "an ape, just an ape!".
#7 is outright false. There are multiple dating methods, and no single method is ever used at one time. Findings are always cross-checked with multiple dating methods in order to rule out a possible discrepency with one of the methods involved. Yes, there are conditions that can skew dating methods, but those conditions are often known and worked around in advance, and for the unknowns, there is cross-referencing to detect such discrepencies. Creationists frequently nitpick dating methods without knowing a single thing about how the dating methods are used.
#8 is a fundamental lack of understanding of the meaning of "vestigal". Vestigal organs are not necessarily completely unused, it simply means that they do not serve the same function as they did in the past.
#9 is an outright lie. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing whatsoever about how life ultimately came to exist. Once again, the author demonstrates that when he can't attack evolution with facts (or rather, with his total lack of understanding of facts), he's willing to use lies to support his claims.
It is a common creationist tactic to attack "spontaneous generation", and they also misrepresent the work of Louis Pasteur -- who simply demonstrated that fully grown flies do not emerge spontaneously from rotting meat, NOT that life cannot emerge from non-life under any circumstances whatsoever -- as an attack on evolution. This is because creationists don't actually bother studying evolution before they consider themselves educated enough to attack it. It would be like someone attacking the "absurdities" of Christianity without reading a single page of the Bible.
#10 is an assertion that we can never draw conclusions about past events based on evidence. By this reasoning, we can never claim to know anything about history, and our criminal justice system will fall apart, because there's no way to "prove" that a murder ever occured, much less that an accused committed it.
I am aware of multiple definitions of the word "theory". By attempting to insist that any one definition can be swapped out with another when the discussion is clearly over the matter of a scientific theory, you are demonstrating that you are willing to stoop to outright dishonesty in an attempt to make your point.
This is sadly typical amongst anyone who makes a case for creationism and/or ID (Same thing). Once they no longer have an excuse to plead ignorance, they simply start lying.
Creationism is a contrary world view to evolution, and they are often pitted against each other. Quite often, schools don't dedicate -any- time to creationism,
Why should schools be dedicating time to teaching religious myth in a science classroom? "Creationism" is not science. Creationism is a religious assertion, nothing more. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. "Creationism" differs depending on the religious person telling the story, and it has no foundation in real evidence whatsoever.
while essentially call evolution fact by not refering to it as a theory at all.
When I learned it, I was taught that it was 'theory', as sound and valid as any other 'theory' in science. Then again, I was also instructed as to what, exactly, makes an explanation a 'theory'. I guess that I had a rather skilled biology teacher.
It is nearly beyond my comprehension that someone who trusts in evolution,
Well, I can understand that you're having comprehension problems, given that you think that it's a matter of "trust" rather than an acceptance of the overwhelming mountains of evidence.
can then say that the "entire" field of biology is in agreement with this "theory."
Like I said, it's your comprehension problem. However, to be fair, I will admit that there is a small 1% of biologists who have expressed doubts with the theory. Typically, however, their claims demonstrate their own lack of expertise when examined, rather than actual flaws with evolution.
Especially macroevolution.
What's wrong with "macroevolution"? What stops "microevolution" from accumulating into "macroevolution"?
To say that we, as human beings, were not created as such... that we evolved from some lower life form is ridiculous.
Argument from incredulity. Logical fallacy. You could at least try to justify your claim rather than just wave your hands about and admit that you just don't want to accept reality.
Actually, within the context of science, a "theory" must meet specific criteria. While you are clearly fundamentally ignorant on evolution, it is a fact that the theory of evolution meets the requirements to be called a "theory" within the context of science.
Evolution is a laughing stock
Yes, I know that many creationists like to "laugh" at evolution because of various "problems" that are actually a result of a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory, but please understand that the entire field of biology is not laughing with you, they are laughing at you.
Slashdot Mirror
Where do we get this screwed up notion that we should be "defending ourselves" instead of the police force that we as society have tasked with that (and they do a damn fine job, I might add)?
Are you trolling, or are you really this stupid?
Do you honestly think that the police are an omnipresent force everywhere in this country?
Their job is not to "defend" the populace. Disagree? Well, the USSC says otherwise.
University of Louisville, dipshit.
I work in a university. Policy is not to have the Windows firewall turned on because it supposedly conflicts with a few needed applications. There is no hardware firewall whatsoever between the internal network and the outside world.
Oh, and standard policy is to have user accounts set up as Administrator at all times.
Cleaning up infected machines is a never-ending endeavour. Oddly, the few departments run by competent admins (as in, not the university's IT department) where user accounts are set up only as Users (among other things) don't have any security problems at all. I wonder why..
Oh, and before anyone blames me: I'm a grunt with no authority whatsoever. I've voiced my objections to the way things are run, but I can do little more than that.
Having RTFA, it looks like a spammer's accomplice was convicted based upon inadmissable evidence, which I must begrudgingly admit is an acceptable ruling.
I stand by my statement on email spammers, though.
The third way to look at this is that Free Speech has won the day.
Email spamming != Free Speech. Free Speech does not entail the right for you to use my private property to dump your unwanted advertising.
All email spammers should be put to sleep, as should this idiot judge.
Great, so we can expect to see Starbuck crash-land on an "old-west" town midway through season 2? And she'll have to outgun a Cylon gunslinger?
No thanks.
Not really. The die-hard creationists would just come up with endless excuses to explain why the life really wasn't on Mars -- at least not originally. Expect to hear tales of contamination from previous probes and even accusations of outright fraud by NASA should any native life of any kind ever be found outside of Earth.
Okay, you got me (I'm not a strategy game fan). Yes, the MS division that produced Age of Empires is either incompetent or malicious.
Like...uhm...the vendor of Age of Empires?
If AoE cannot be run under a Power Users account (heck, I can't imagine why games wouldn't need anything beyond Users), then yes, I will blame the vendors for either incompetence of malice. There is no other reason for forcing a gamer to have admin rights.
I said it about Ion Storm with Thief 3, and I said it about EA/Maxis with The Sims 2 (though the latter apparently learned their lesson and fixed the problem in a later update).
For example, what if they didn't let an administrative user log in interactively, and you actually had to run Windows as a normal user. Then, of course, use "Runas" to run admin apps. I'll bet that tens of thousands of third party apps would break.
I wish that MS would do something like that. I'd blame the software vendors, not Microsoft.
Any software company that releases a product that requires elevated privledges to run when the functionality of the software in no way should require such privledges is inherently broken and should be recalled.
Phone numbers (In the US, at least) are limited to 10 digits because research shows the average person can only memorize 10 digits,
Actually, the indication is that people can only store 5-9 (seven, give or take two) items in short-term or working memory at any given time. Phone numbers are actually divided into three units, not ten -- there's the area code, then the prefix, then the exchange.
A passphrase could be as easy or easier to remember than a password. A seven-word passphrase wouldn't be any harder to remember than a seven-character password provided that said seven-character password was not a common dictionary word (and honestly, too many people use common dictionary words or names for passwords).
*cough* innocent until proven guilty in a court of law *cough*
If you need a court of law to tell you that http://www.tfisec.com/ is a fake bank site, then you need to turn off your computer now.
I hope you go back and check every few minutes, to see if they're back up, and add them back to the list
Not "every few minutes", but once a site is "dead", periodic checks are done to make sure that it doesn't come back up.
Spam-supporters are, in many ways, like spammers. They lie. MCI, when they claim to prohibit spam, is lying.
Seems that when I normally hear about incidents even less severe than this -- for example, a student sending out a popup window with the NET SEND command -- the consequences are far more more harsh. Expulsion, possible felony charges... ...where is sane thinking actually prevailing in this country?
Otherwise, two problems could be solved in one fell swoop: Have users SSH into the ISP email server, and use a simple client like Pine to send and receive their email.
I still do that today. I see no need to clutter my home setup with a mail client when my ISP has been providing a perfectly usable client on their UNIX server since I signed up in 1994.
A motion to dismiss was already filed and rejected. The judge is clearly an incompetent idiot who should be tossed from the bench and possibly shot. Apparently this judge thinks that it's perfectly reasonable for Jay, who has never been to the state of New Jersey or done business there, to be sued in New Jersey.
Atriks is run by criminals, and -- as I said before -- the plaintiffs should be killed.
...and argue self-defense against robbery. This is nuts. Spammers are sociopathic criminals. They should all be killed.
The plaintiffs in this lawsuit should be slowly tortured to death, and if they have lawyers who have taken the case, their lawyers should be put to sleep.
Next, explain to us how packets from computer A with ISP X on one side of the world, can possibly attack computer B with ISP Y on the other side of the world without going through at least two routers.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1149.txt?number=1149
When God...
Sorry, but you've just left the realm of science by invoking the supernatural.
#1 relies on the debunked "irreducible complexity" argument. Supposedly "irreducible" functions in organisms already have a rather detailed explanation. Some information on the claims of irreducible complexity.
#2 makes a claim without substantiating it. Information in DNA is not like information in spoken languages, despite the dishonest creationists who continue to make this comparison. Essentially, you've gone from not wanting to make an argument by "because I said so" by instead deferring to someone else who does exactly the same thing.
#3 is just outright false. The person writing the article is either woefully misinformed or an outright liar.
#4 is an appeal to the debunked "law of thermodynamics" argument. Only complete and total morons appeal to this attempt to assert that evolution violates the principle that entropy always increases in closed systems. It doesn't help their argument that earth is not a closed system.
The "2nd law of thermo" argument is one that Answers in Genesis even says that creationists should NOT use. The author of the piece really demonstrates his fundamental lack of education on the matter.
#5 is a subjective claim. There is a plethora of transitional fossils and living forms, but creationists always seem to want N+1 no matter how many N specimens are found. Here's just a small sample of evidence of transitional forms.
#6 is a common claim from creationists who don't bother to actually understand the evidence. It's funny how many creationists assert that one fossil is "A man, just a man!" while other creationists claim that the same fossil is "an ape, just an ape!".
#7 is outright false. There are multiple dating methods, and no single method is ever used at one time. Findings are always cross-checked with multiple dating methods in order to rule out a possible discrepency with one of the methods involved. Yes, there are conditions that can skew dating methods, but those conditions are often known and worked around in advance, and for the unknowns, there is cross-referencing to detect such discrepencies. Creationists frequently nitpick dating methods without knowing a single thing about how the dating methods are used.
A bit of information on Isochron dating.
#8 is a fundamental lack of understanding of the meaning of "vestigal". Vestigal organs are not necessarily completely unused, it simply means that they do not serve the same function as they did in the past.
#9 is an outright lie. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing whatsoever about how life ultimately came to exist. Once again, the author demonstrates that when he can't attack evolution with facts (or rather, with his total lack of understanding of facts), he's willing to use lies to support his claims.
It is a common creationist tactic to attack "spontaneous generation", and they also misrepresent the work of Louis Pasteur -- who simply demonstrated that fully grown flies do not emerge spontaneously from rotting meat, NOT that life cannot emerge from non-life under any circumstances whatsoever -- as an attack on evolution. This is because creationists don't actually bother studying evolution before they consider themselves educated enough to attack it. It would be like someone attacking the "absurdities" of Christianity without reading a single page of the Bible.
#10 is an assertion that we can never draw conclusions about past events based on evidence. By this reasoning, we can never claim to know anything about history, and our criminal justice system will fall apart, because there's no way to "prove" that a murder ever occured, much less that an accused committed it.
I am aware of multiple definitions of the word "theory". By attempting to insist that any one definition can be swapped out with another when the discussion is clearly over the matter of a scientific theory, you are demonstrating that you are willing to stoop to outright dishonesty in an attempt to make your point.
This is sadly typical amongst anyone who makes a case for creationism and/or ID (Same thing). Once they no longer have an excuse to plead ignorance, they simply start lying.
Creationism is a contrary world view to evolution, and they are often pitted against each other. Quite often, schools don't dedicate -any- time to creationism,
Why should schools be dedicating time to teaching religious myth in a science classroom? "Creationism" is not science. Creationism is a religious assertion, nothing more. It has no scientific validity whatsoever. "Creationism" differs depending on the religious person telling the story, and it has no foundation in real evidence whatsoever.
while essentially call evolution fact by not refering to it as a theory at all.
When I learned it, I was taught that it was 'theory', as sound and valid as any other 'theory' in science. Then again, I was also instructed as to what, exactly, makes an explanation a 'theory'. I guess that I had a rather skilled biology teacher.
It is nearly beyond my comprehension that someone who trusts in evolution,
Well, I can understand that you're having comprehension problems, given that you think that it's a matter of "trust" rather than an acceptance of the overwhelming mountains of evidence.
can then say that the "entire" field of biology is in agreement with this "theory."
Like I said, it's your comprehension problem. However, to be fair, I will admit that there is a small 1% of biologists who have expressed doubts with the theory. Typically, however, their claims demonstrate their own lack of expertise when examined, rather than actual flaws with evolution.
Especially macroevolution.
What's wrong with "macroevolution"? What stops "microevolution" from accumulating into "macroevolution"?
To say that we, as human beings, were not created as such... that we evolved from some lower life form is ridiculous.
Argument from incredulity. Logical fallacy. You could at least try to justify your claim rather than just wave your hands about and admit that you just don't want to accept reality.
Actually, within the context of science, a "theory" must meet specific criteria. While you are clearly fundamentally ignorant on evolution, it is a fact that the theory of evolution meets the requirements to be called a "theory" within the context of science.
Evolution is a laughing stock
Yes, I know that many creationists like to "laugh" at evolution because of various "problems" that are actually a result of a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory, but please understand that the entire field of biology is not laughing with you, they are laughing at you.