I'm glad we can agree on this, even as we disagree!
In fact, Creation Science is probably the best example of how ad hoc adjustments can be made to save any claim, no matter how consistently and how thoroughly it fails.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. When you have a scientific theory, and new evidence proves a small part of the theory to be false, isn't adjusting the theory to take this new piece of knowledge into account the appropriate thing to do? As new discoveries are continually made, the theory will continually be shown to be false - but that doesn't mean we're holding to the old version of the theory in spite of the new data.
They actually even explain the lack of evidence for one Biblical miracle with several more non-Biblical ones!
Can you give any specific examples of what you're referring to? There are certainly a lot of holes in the theory of Creation, questions that haven't been answered (and perhaps some questions that, by their nature, can't be answered - we have no way to way to travel back into the past and observe what really DID happen, we can only try to figure out what COULD have happened, based on the remaining evidence available). Some of these holes have been filled with speculation - often, different competing speculations. Sometimes, a particular idea is shown to be false, which lends credibility to competing ideas, perhaps too much credibility - just because one of two ideas is shown to be false doesn't make the other true.
Of course, each one of these falsifiable claims has been falsified.
As you might suspect, this is where we disagree. I mentioned radiometric dating being a problem; if you accept it to be accurate, then clearly the existence of fossils or rocks or whatever that date back to before the time of Creation would prove the Creation theory false. I'll leave that issue alone for now. However, people have claimed Creation can't be true for a variety of other reasons (e.g. there's no way Noah could have fit two of every kind of animal into a boat), and these claims have usually been refuted. On both sides I think, we often only hear one side of an issue, and never hear the response from the other side.
Another problem is that a lot of evidence supporting Creation doesn't get a lot of press, and it becomes very difficult to distinguish between an independent scientist who has done legitimate research and discovered significant new evidence, and some crackpot who just made something up. In many cases, both are reported as truth by whichever side the claim supports, without much investigation. Here's an example I just happened to come across about dinosaur an dhuman footprints discovered side-by-side; notice the italicized note at the bottom. While I believe dinosaurs and humans did coexist, I have no idea whether this particular discovery is legitimate or not. I heard once that somebody took rock samples from various different strata within the Grand Canyon, ground them up, mixed them together, let them settle in a wave tank, and they settled (based on density) into the same order that they appear at the Grand Canyon. Strong evidence to support Creation if it's true, but I've never heard it corroborated by anyone.
Anyway, I'm tired and rambling, so I'll shut up now. Welcome to my friends list.
My most favorite trick is requiring a name, company, and phone number in order to unsub an email. These people get a holler with a threat to call the FBI for phishing (data mining, more likely but still).
Ever get spam with an unsubscribe link that asks you to enter your e-mail address, and if you enter "test@example.com" or something similarly bogus, you're rewarded with a confirmation page promising that your address was successfully removed from their list? Yeeeeeah.
The bigger problem as an end user is the allegedly legit companies.
I have recently come to the conclusion that Creationism is scientific (it's falsifiable and has made predictions) while ID isn't (it's a philosophy that has nothing to do with anything scientific whatsoever). Creationism has a religious base, but people have built a scientific theory on top of that base.
The primary disagreement, I think, is in the accuracy of accuracy of radiometric dating. Creationists say that radiometric dating is inaccurate, and any age greater than 6,000-10,000 years is wrong.
So he sits home and chat all day? that sounds like a pretty empty and dull life to me.
As opposed to, say, sitting in an office and talking on the phone all day? That's pretty empty and dull too... until you get off work in the evening, and go do something else. Despicable as it may be, this is essentially his job, and he makes money by working, just like the rest of us do. Sure, what he does is illegal and wrong, but that doesn't mean his personal life is any more empty and dull than yours.
Au contraire: of course they care about the law; that's why they're taking the side of the law instead of the side of the government in this issue. Please try to understand that the two are not synonymous.
I continue to cling to the delusion that positive tip/negative ring is the standard, and everyone who does it the opposite way is backwards. Just imagining that this standard exists and is frequently violated makes me feel better than the idea that something so simple has never been standardized.
Was it commercial? Yes. Unsolicited? Yes. Sent to the wrong person (in this instance)? Yes. A b-i-t-c-h to stop? Yes. Does having a NASDAQ ticker symbol mean it is not spam? This is on the level with Sony's free pass...
Had you done business with them before? Paid them money? In doing so, did you (perhaps inadvertently) agree to receive those e-mails? Then it wasn't technically unsolicited, even if it was unwanted and obviously commercial. And, the reason it was such a bitch to stop was, they have procedures in place to make stopping it very simple and easy... but due to some sort of problem, that wasn't working in your case. It sucks that it happened, and it sucks that it took them that long to figure out what the problem was so they could get it fixed, but it was not their intention for this to happen.
No, having a NASDAQ sticker symbol doesn't give them a free pass. But it does mean that when they unintentionally send you mail you don't want to receive, you at least have somebody to complain to! It took weeks, but they DID fix it. If they hadn't, you could file a complaint with the Better Busines Bureau or maybe the FTC or something, and if enough other people filed similar complaints, action would be taken.
I'm assuming you got on Amazon's mailing list because you were an Amazon customer, and you deliberately gave them your e-mail address when you knowingly signed up for an account with them. That's a big part of what sets them apart from spammers.
While lefties are uniform in their hatred of everything Bush related, on the right we do debate the finer points of various policies.
If the left was uniform on anything else at all, maybe they could actually try to get something done....
Many of us Bush-haters are surprised when we meet reasonable intelligent right-wingers; we so seldom hear from you, among the cheers from the lunatics. I suppose it's the same from the other side, the pot-smoking baby-killing gay hippies probably drown us out too.
KCRW has a weekly podcast called "Left, Right & Center" which I really like; look it up on the iTMS or kcrw.com. Their slogan is "public radio's antidote to the screaming talking heads that dominate political debate."
I certainly didn't intend to imply that I'm the first one to come up with the idea of trying to boot Vista; I had assumed the answer to my question was "yes" but I hadn't heard the results of anyone actually attempting it, nor a reason why it wouldn't work.
I wasn't aware of the UGA issue; that makes sense, and explains why they said they had to use a "hacked vesafb driver to inherit the bootloader's framebuffer."
I've tried the same DVD burner in both a FireWire 400 enclosure and a USB 2.0 enclosure. With FireWire, 16x burns work with no problem. With USB, 16x worked a couple of times, but mostly it failed. At 12x, it worked fine.
Does anyone know what modifications they had to make to the kernel to get it to work?
And has anyone tried sticking in a pre-release DVD of Windows Vista, holding down the D key, and seeing what happens? As I understand it, Intel-based iMacs have mostly standard PC hardware, except for using EFI and not supporting BIOS emulation (which is why they won't run XP, but Vista is supposed to support EFI). What else has to be done?
We're not moving toward whitelist-only default-deny for e-mail. A few people have tried that, but it just isn't realistic. What we're moving toward is using a broader variety of criteria to determine whether a particular e-mail should be blocked, and taking legal action against spammers.
Meng mentioned the Spamhaus SBL. I use the SBL-XBL and other blacklists to block 2500-3000 spams per week, just on my personal server at home. I have removed some other blacklists due to false positives, but the only complaint of a false-positive I've had so far with my current setup has been from someone who just switched to a new IP which apparently had been used by a spammer previously. I directed her to a removal request, and the IP was delisted in less than 24 hours.
On top of the various blacklists I am now running MIMEDefang with a bunch of custom perl functions I've writtem, SpamAssassin, and ClamAV (which detects some phishing scams, in addition to viruses). Quite a bit of spam still gets through, but I just need to add more rules to SpamAssassin.
Just because you're not happy about receiving it doesn't mean it's spam, and confusing unwanted mail with unsolicited mail makes it much harder to fight the latter.
Since I own my own domain, I create a separate e-mail address for each company or organization I need to give an e-mail address to. This way, if I receive spam, I know which company was responsible for sending it or giving out my address. I discovered something interesting: legitimate companies and organizations do not give out my e-mail address, and do not send me unwanted mail I can't unsubscribe from. Spammers scrape my e-mail address off the web (eBay and Mozilla's Bugzilla used to post e-mails publicly; both have fixed this problem), they scrape them from WHOIS records, they guess them randomly (some common usernames get spam even if I've never given them to anyone), and they steal them from other people's address books (nearly all my spam comes to the primary address I actually use, and give out to friends and family).
Companies like Amazon.com are not the problem. If you're an exception, take it up with Amazon, or filter their mail in your client.
the greatest thing about email is it is asynchronous. i can communicate with someone else on my schedule, without my thoughts being interrupted by random claptrap.
And the great thing about a cell phone is, you can get ahold of somebody when you really need them RIGHT NOW and waiting until they get around to checking their e-mail won't work.
Re:Because it solves the wrong problem.
on
Polite Cell Phones
·
· Score: 1
I remember my cell phone in the morning exactly the same way I remember my wallet, my keys, and my watch. I don't think about these things when walking into a restaurant, and I don't think about my cell phone either. I have no idea how I would train myself to turn off my cell phone without thinking of it.
Actually, pastors can get in a lot of trouble for sharing their political views with the congregation. It kind of strikes me as odd really. My pastor got in hot water last year for telling people to do exactly what you said; be politcally active, research the candidates and what they vote for and what they stand for. He didn't endorse a candidate. Just told people to be active, to vote, and to think about who they were voting for.
Got in trouble with whom?
As far as I know, the ONLY legal issue is that a tax-exempt non-profit organization can't endorse a candidate, and if they do, the IRS can revoke their tax exemption. There's absoluitely no reason why your pastor couldn't encourage people to vote, as long as he wasn't endorsing a particular candidate - although the church CAN make literature available to its members that endorses a particular candidate. I'm not entirely sure of the specifics there.
So again, who exactly had a problem with what was going on?
You used church as your example. Why are you there? To talk to God? (sorry, God, I need to take this call...wtf?) Or are you there just to be seen? (yeah, I'm here to look good, but I'm going to be an ass and disrupt the service dealing with my phone...wtf??)
The problem is walking into church and not remembering to set your phone to vibrate. And then, of course, setting your phone down somewhere, forgetting to turn the ringer back on, stepping into the other room, and missing an important call.
Well, the other 97% of us actually need to be productive and work, instead of trying for 3 hours to get some Linsux distro to recognize and mount our CDROM drive.
Oh come on, if you're going to bash Linux, at least bash it for something it actually has a problem with, like WiFi on a laptop.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad we can agree on this, even as we disagree!
In fact, Creation Science is probably the best example of how ad hoc adjustments can be made to save any claim, no matter how consistently and how thoroughly it fails.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. When you have a scientific theory, and new evidence proves a small part of the theory to be false, isn't adjusting the theory to take this new piece of knowledge into account the appropriate thing to do? As new discoveries are continually made, the theory will continually be shown to be false - but that doesn't mean we're holding to the old version of the theory in spite of the new data.
They actually even explain the lack of evidence for one Biblical miracle with several more non-Biblical ones!
Can you give any specific examples of what you're referring to? There are certainly a lot of holes in the theory of Creation, questions that haven't been answered (and perhaps some questions that, by their nature, can't be answered - we have no way to way to travel back into the past and observe what really DID happen, we can only try to figure out what COULD have happened, based on the remaining evidence available). Some of these holes have been filled with speculation - often, different competing speculations. Sometimes, a particular idea is shown to be false, which lends credibility to competing ideas, perhaps too much credibility - just because one of two ideas is shown to be false doesn't make the other true.
Of course, each one of these falsifiable claims has been falsified.
As you might suspect, this is where we disagree. I mentioned radiometric dating being a problem; if you accept it to be accurate, then clearly the existence of fossils or rocks or whatever that date back to before the time of Creation would prove the Creation theory false. I'll leave that issue alone for now. However, people have claimed Creation can't be true for a variety of other reasons (e.g. there's no way Noah could have fit two of every kind of animal into a boat), and these claims have usually been refuted. On both sides I think, we often only hear one side of an issue, and never hear the response from the other side.
Another problem is that a lot of evidence supporting Creation doesn't get a lot of press, and it becomes very difficult to distinguish between an independent scientist who has done legitimate research and discovered significant new evidence, and some crackpot who just made something up. In many cases, both are reported as truth by whichever side the claim supports, without much investigation. Here's an example I just happened to come across about dinosaur an dhuman footprints discovered side-by-side; notice the italicized note at the bottom. While I believe dinosaurs and humans did coexist, I have no idea whether this particular discovery is legitimate or not. I heard once that somebody took rock samples from various different strata within the Grand Canyon, ground them up, mixed them together, let them settle in a wave tank, and they settled (based on density) into the same order that they appear at the Grand Canyon. Strong evidence to support Creation if it's true, but I've never heard it corroborated by anyone.
Anyway, I'm tired and rambling, so I'll shut up now. Welcome to my friends list.
My most favorite trick is requiring a name, company, and phone number in order to unsub an email. These people get a holler with a threat to call the FBI for phishing (data mining, more likely but still).
Ever get spam with an unsubscribe link that asks you to enter your e-mail address, and if you enter "test@example.com" or something similarly bogus, you're rewarded with a confirmation page promising that your address was successfully removed from their list? Yeeeeeah.
The bigger problem as an end user is the allegedly legit companies.
I still disagree.
I have recently come to the conclusion that Creationism is scientific (it's falsifiable and has made predictions) while ID isn't (it's a philosophy that has nothing to do with anything scientific whatsoever). Creationism has a religious base, but people have built a scientific theory on top of that base.
The primary disagreement, I think, is in the accuracy of accuracy of radiometric dating. Creationists say that radiometric dating is inaccurate, and any age greater than 6,000-10,000 years is wrong.
In England they would spell it with an "s" instead of a "z".
This may be an argument for XP, but it's not one for Vista.
Sure, but the GP was asking about Vista vs OSX, not Vista vs XP.
Yes, what he's doing is much worse than that.
So he sits home and chat all day? that sounds like a pretty empty and dull life to me.
As opposed to, say, sitting in an office and talking on the phone all day? That's pretty empty and dull too... until you get off work in the evening, and go do something else. Despicable as it may be, this is essentially his job, and he makes money by working, just like the rest of us do. Sure, what he does is illegal and wrong, but that doesn't mean his personal life is any more empty and dull than yours.
Au contraire: of course they care about the law; that's why they're taking the side of the law instead of the side of the government in this issue. Please try to understand that the two are not synonymous.
A quick glance around my house, in order by voltage:
15v DC, proprietary connector (iSub USB subwoofer)
12v and 5v DC, proprietary connector (USB hard drive)
12v DC, tip positive (speakers, ionic air purifier thing, wireless router, Ethernet switch)
12v DC, ring positive (speakers)
9v DC, tip positive (cordless phone)
9v DC, ring positive (speakers)
9v AC (original old-school Nintendo)
7.5v DC, tip positive (USB hub, cordless screwdriver, Ethernet switch)
6.22v AC, hard-wired (Dust Devil mini vacuum cleaner)
5.9v AC, proprietary connector (cell phone)
5v AC (DSL modem)
3v DC, tip positive (alarm clock)
I continue to cling to the delusion that positive tip/negative ring is the standard, and everyone who does it the opposite way is backwards. Just imagining that this standard exists and is frequently violated makes me feel better than the idea that something so simple has never been standardized.
Was it commercial? Yes. Unsolicited? Yes. Sent to the wrong person (in this instance)? Yes. A b-i-t-c-h to stop? Yes. Does having a NASDAQ ticker symbol mean it is not spam? This is on the level with Sony's free pass...
Had you done business with them before? Paid them money? In doing so, did you (perhaps inadvertently) agree to receive those e-mails? Then it wasn't technically unsolicited, even if it was unwanted and obviously commercial. And, the reason it was such a bitch to stop was, they have procedures in place to make stopping it very simple and easy... but due to some sort of problem, that wasn't working in your case. It sucks that it happened, and it sucks that it took them that long to figure out what the problem was so they could get it fixed, but it was not their intention for this to happen.
No, having a NASDAQ sticker symbol doesn't give them a free pass. But it does mean that when they unintentionally send you mail you don't want to receive, you at least have somebody to complain to! It took weeks, but they DID fix it. If they hadn't, you could file a complaint with the Better Busines Bureau or maybe the FTC or something, and if enough other people filed similar complaints, action would be taken.
I'm assuming you got on Amazon's mailing list because you were an Amazon customer, and you deliberately gave them your e-mail address when you knowingly signed up for an account with them. That's a big part of what sets them apart from spammers.
While lefties are uniform in their hatred of everything Bush related, on the right we do debate the finer points of various policies.
If the left was uniform on anything else at all, maybe they could actually try to get something done....
Many of us Bush-haters are surprised when we meet reasonable intelligent right-wingers; we so seldom hear from you, among the cheers from the lunatics. I suppose it's the same from the other side, the pot-smoking baby-killing gay hippies probably drown us out too.
KCRW has a weekly podcast called "Left, Right & Center" which I really like; look it up on the iTMS or kcrw.com. Their slogan is "public radio's antidote to the screaming talking heads that dominate political debate."
Lawsuits against News Corp.
Thanks for the links, and the informative reply.
I certainly didn't intend to imply that I'm the first one to come up with the idea of trying to boot Vista; I had assumed the answer to my question was "yes" but I hadn't heard the results of anyone actually attempting it, nor a reason why it wouldn't work.
I wasn't aware of the UGA issue; that makes sense, and explains why they said they had to use a "hacked vesafb driver to inherit the bootloader's framebuffer."
I've tried the same DVD burner in both a FireWire 400 enclosure and a USB 2.0 enclosure. With FireWire, 16x burns work with no problem. With USB, 16x worked a couple of times, but mostly it failed. At 12x, it worked fine.
So yeah, USB is teh sux0r.
Does anyone know what modifications they had to make to the kernel to get it to work?
And has anyone tried sticking in a pre-release DVD of Windows Vista, holding down the D key, and seeing what happens? As I understand it, Intel-based iMacs have mostly standard PC hardware, except for using EFI and not supporting BIOS emulation (which is why they won't run XP, but Vista is supposed to support EFI). What else has to be done?
We're not moving toward whitelist-only default-deny for e-mail. A few people have tried that, but it just isn't realistic. What we're moving toward is using a broader variety of criteria to determine whether a particular e-mail should be blocked, and taking legal action against spammers.
Meng mentioned the Spamhaus SBL. I use the SBL-XBL and other blacklists to block 2500-3000 spams per week, just on my personal server at home. I have removed some other blacklists due to false positives, but the only complaint of a false-positive I've had so far with my current setup has been from someone who just switched to a new IP which apparently had been used by a spammer previously. I directed her to a removal request, and the IP was delisted in less than 24 hours.
On top of the various blacklists I am now running MIMEDefang with a bunch of custom perl functions I've writtem, SpamAssassin, and ClamAV (which detects some phishing scams, in addition to viruses). Quite a bit of spam still gets through, but I just need to add more rules to SpamAssassin.
Just because you're not happy about receiving it doesn't mean it's spam, and confusing unwanted mail with unsolicited mail makes it much harder to fight the latter.
Since I own my own domain, I create a separate e-mail address for each company or organization I need to give an e-mail address to. This way, if I receive spam, I know which company was responsible for sending it or giving out my address. I discovered something interesting: legitimate companies and organizations do not give out my e-mail address, and do not send me unwanted mail I can't unsubscribe from. Spammers scrape my e-mail address off the web (eBay and Mozilla's Bugzilla used to post e-mails publicly; both have fixed this problem), they scrape them from WHOIS records, they guess them randomly (some common usernames get spam even if I've never given them to anyone), and they steal them from other people's address books (nearly all my spam comes to the primary address I actually use, and give out to friends and family).
Companies like Amazon.com are not the problem. If you're an exception, take it up with Amazon, or filter their mail in your client.
the greatest thing about email is it is asynchronous. i can communicate with someone else on my schedule, without my thoughts being interrupted by random claptrap.
And the great thing about a cell phone is, you can get ahold of somebody when you really need them RIGHT NOW and waiting until they get around to checking their e-mail won't work.
I remember my cell phone in the morning exactly the same way I remember my wallet, my keys, and my watch. I don't think about these things when walking into a restaurant, and I don't think about my cell phone either. I have no idea how I would train myself to turn off my cell phone without thinking of it.
Actually, pastors can get in a lot of trouble for sharing their political views with the congregation. It kind of strikes me as odd really. My pastor got in hot water last year for telling people to do exactly what you said; be politcally active, research the candidates and what they vote for and what they stand for. He didn't endorse a candidate. Just told people to be active, to vote, and to think about who they were voting for.
Got in trouble with whom?
As far as I know, the ONLY legal issue is that a tax-exempt non-profit organization can't endorse a candidate, and if they do, the IRS can revoke their tax exemption. There's absoluitely no reason why your pastor couldn't encourage people to vote, as long as he wasn't endorsing a particular candidate - although the church CAN make literature available to its members that endorses a particular candidate. I'm not entirely sure of the specifics there.
So again, who exactly had a problem with what was going on?
=companies like Nike, a highly profitable corporation which can charge $150 for a single shoe
;-)
I believe you'll find they only sell them in pairs.
You used church as your example. Why are you there? To talk to God? (sorry, God, I need to take this call...wtf?) Or are you there just to be seen? (yeah, I'm here to look good, but I'm going to be an ass and disrupt the service dealing with my phone...wtf??)
The problem is walking into church and not remembering to set your phone to vibrate. And then, of course, setting your phone down somewhere, forgetting to turn the ringer back on, stepping into the other room, and missing an important call.
OMG it's revolutionary brand new technology! We've... added one more blade, just like we did last time. And the time before that, with the Mach3.
Well, the other 97% of us actually need to be productive and work, instead of trying for 3 hours to get some Linsux distro to recognize and mount our CDROM drive.
Oh come on, if you're going to bash Linux, at least bash it for something it actually has a problem with, like WiFi on a laptop.