Re:Incomplete packages released as Open Source...
on
AOL Jilts Open Source
·
· Score: 1
But with the client and the protocol, you can build a server. Of course, you don't have access to their database... And without their database, it's useless. That's exactly the point. Nobody else can make their own Instant Messaging system that's worth anything, because AOL has the users.
The Bible says it hadn't rained prior to the Flood, therefore the first appearance of a rainbow would not require a change in the laws of physics. Refraction of light through droplets of water would still have occurred prior to the Flood, but nobody probably would have noticed the effect if it hadn't ever rained.
It is generally accepted that the earth changed drastically during the Flood. Not physical laws, but things like geography, atmospheric content, etc. I'm not familiar enough with these theories to explain them adequately here, but I have read about them.
The Bible says that God created the universe in 6 days. That's religion. That has no place in a biology classroom.
Many Creationists believe that the earth is somewhere between 6,000-10,000 years old, and there was a global catastrophic flood a few thousand years after that, which happens to be consistent with the Bible. The Creation model offers an explanation for a lot of scientific facts just as the Evolution model does, although neither model fits all the facts perfectly. This has nothing to do with religion, and should be discussed openly in public schools.
A firm belief in either model as truth requires faith, as neither can be proven. That's starting to get into religion again.
Exactly my point - don't deprive children of alternate origins models. Give them the facts, and let them choose the explanation that seems to make more sense. Don't teach them exclusively that Evolution is fact; give them a couple of different ideas and let them figure out what seems logical. If Evolution fits the facts better, so be it. But don't prevent students from being exposed to alternatives.
If all forms of life evolved from lesser forms, we should find examples of the resulting species alive today, the original species extinct, and the various steps in between in the fossil record.
If the earth and everything on it was created 6,000 years ago, a global catastrophic flood wiped out nearly everything 4,000 years ago, and the universe is in a constant state of decay, we would expect to find some simple species alive, some complex species alive, no weird hybrids between reptiles and birds, many extinct species in the fossil record that may not be closely related to anything alive today, and more species becoming extinct with time.
We still have protozoa, every example I've heard of of a half-bird/half-reptile mix has turned out to be either a hoax, a bird, or a reptile, more and more species are going extinct, and I bet you can't show me exactly what bats evolved from.
It's certainly a bad idea for publically funded institutions such as public schools to promote any particular religion over any other. It is, however, a good idea to educate students about a variety of religious beliefs, without promoting any of them over any others. Most high schools have a World Religions class or similar that does exactly that.
Evolution is not scientifically provable (or disprovable), by nature, and therefore a belief in evolution must be held on faith. Creation is also not scientifically provable (or disprovable), and therefore must also be held on faith. Both are religious beliefs, although one involves a supernatural Creator while the other does not. It is not appropriate to promote either belief exclusively in a public school.
Evolution is often taught as scientific fact. It's not. You can't prove it empirically. You can't prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, because there are too many unknown variables. You can make scientific observations, and form a model to explain the observations, and draw conclusions based on that model that are consistent with facts. However, since most of those facts also fit other models, and other facts conflict with your model, you can't say that your model is any more scientific that any other model which equally fits the available scientific facts. Whether Creation is a good model or not, Evolution isn't perfect and shouldn't be taught as if it were.
There is no indication within the text of the Bible to indicate that the first chapters of Genesis were not intended to be taken completely literally. Whether the story of creation is true or not, the Bible intends it to be taken as true.
The word used for "day" is _only_ used to mean literal days; that word is never used to mean a vague period of time.
A lot of people try to reconcile creation and evolution, saying that the creation story is a metaphore for the evolutionary process over billions of years. First, that contradicts much of what scientists say about evolution as far as the order in which things occurred, etc. Second, it conflicts with the Bible too, because the Bible clearly says it took 6 days, and on the 7th day God rested - the original model of a standard work week.
One thing you are correct about: it was not written with a lot of scientific detail that most people wouldn't understand. Thus, certain things that would be very helpful in figuring out exactly what they meant have been omitted, which is somewhat unfortunate.
Can you prove scientifically - by hypothesizing, observing, drawing conclusions and making predictions - that fruit bats evolved from... anything at all?
Creationism is no more scientific than Evolutionism - which isn't scientific, for exactly those reasons. You can't prove or disprove either theory, because the subject is outside the realm of empirical science.
I would hope that teaching evolution not be banned, but as long as they're not exclusively promoting other models, I'm glad to see this.
The origins of the universe are beyond the realm of empirical science. The scientific method requires that you be able to observe and reproduce things, and you can't observe or reproduce the beginning of the universe. I'm not saying that the evolution model is completely wrong, but I think most people give it far too much credit. There are other scientific models out there that fit just as many facts as evolution.
Is there evidence to suggest that the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years? Yes, but there's also evidence to suggest that the earth has been around for 6,000 years (no, I'm not kidding). Some of the evidence that people assume proves evolution fits the creation model as well. Some of the dating methods used to prove the age of the earth have been proven to be highly inaccurate, but are used anyway whenever it's convenient.
I am opposed to teaching religion in public schools. I don't want the government teaching children about God. However, Creationism, if taught in a secular way alongside of evolution can only encourage people to examine the scientific evidence.
Just as Linux and other operating systems should be made available to anyone who wants to use them instead of the dominant OS, Creation should be made available as an alternative to the dominant origins model for anyone who wants to believe it, and who is looking for a way to deal with the facts that don't fit the Evolution model.
I've been having the same problem; it's very frustrating. Rumor has it that Microsoft has posted the Administrator password, but I can't even find out what that password is, because I can't get to their site! It worked a few days ago, but not recently.
The JavaScript and META tag stuff on the Guestbook was posted through the Guestbook. They need to fix the Guestbook so that kind of thing no longer works; I'm shocked that they didn't do it right the first time (it's not hard to fix). This did not involve having root access to the machine.
In order to have root access, you have to either be at the local console, or you have to telnet in as another user (the account jcarr does exist, but I don't know the password) and then su to root and enter the root password, or you have to figure out some other way in (exploiting a bug in Apache or its CGIs, since that's the only other thing running).
For awhile, they had a message in/etc/issue.net reminding everybody that you can't log in as root. Looks like they took that out.
Looks like their router is looping around in circles, thus making the site inaccessible (again):
6 199.ATM7-0.XR1.SEA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.200.101) 93.535 ms 71.709 ms 69.333 ms 7 195.ATM4-0.GW3.SEA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.201.25) 53.357 ms 53.401 ms 50.472 ms 8 157.130.177.154 (157.130.177.154) 71.568 ms 60.022 ms 58.255 ms 9 207.46.190.82 (207.46.190.82) 58.480 ms 61.652 ms 78.364 ms 10 iuscb11ixc7502-a0-00-1.cp.msft.net (207.46.129.8) 63.725 ms 55.144 ms 50.187 ms 11 iusd27nt5c7201-a2-0-1.cp.msft.net (207.46.168.68) 52.739 ms 49.825 ms 48.650 ms 12 207.46.175.250 (207.46.175.250) 52.931 ms 78.532 ms 85.338 ms 13 iusd27nt5c7201-f4-0.cp.msft.net (207.46.175.249) 59.106 ms 61.572 ms * 14 207.46.175.250 (207.46.175.250) 83.234 ms 51.434 ms 53.155 ms 15 iusd27nt5c7201-f4-0.cp.msft.net (207.46.175.249) 50.808 ms 60.722 ms 70.323 ms 16 * 207.46.175.250 (207.46.175.250) 51.603 ms 50.167 ms 17 iusd27nt5c7201-f4-0.cp.msft.net (207.46.175.249) 75.220 ms 60.949 ms 55.586 ms 18 207.46.175.250 (207.46.175.250) 51.696 ms 51.206 ms 88.515 ms 19 iusd27nt5c7201-f4-0.cp.msft.net (207.46.175.249) 65.363 ms 76.381 ms * 20 207.46.175.250 (207.46.175.250) 115.147 ms 137.363 ms 125.027 ms 21 iusd27nt5c7201-f4-0.cp.msft.net (207.46.175.249) 111.239 ms 67.210 ms 52.556 ms 22 207.46.175.250 (207.46.175.250) 54.301 ms 52.426 ms 63.224 ms 23 iusd27nt5c7201-f4-0.cp.msft.net (207.46.175.249) 49.652 ms 54.781 ms 55.462 ms
Does it seem _really_ weird to anyone else that they listed VirtualPC as an operating system, when it's actually an emulator? I know, it comes with Windows, and that's what they were counting, but it still seems really weird. They definitely need to count OEM sales.
If it's true that "a bunch of dumb teenagers" are now getting involved in the Linux project, I fail to see how their work could possibly affect the operating system's technological merit. If you refuse to run Linux because you disagree with what it stands for (or what you think it stands for), that's reasonable. However, saying that Linux used to be a good OS and has deteriorated to a poor OS doesn't make sense. For starters, older versions are still available.
If you have specific objections to certain aspects of Linux, you're free to change them. That's the beauty of open source. You're also free to pick your favorite distribution - if you think Red Hat has sold out and become too commercial, you're free to choose Slackware, which has very little commercial support and many of the Linux newbies haven't even heard of.
Linus did say that if Linux had 90% market share it would become as bad as Windows. However, last I checked, there wasn't much danger of that, especially as more and more alternative operating systems are growing (really looking forward to Mac OS X Consumer!).
Just kidding. I'm rather fond of BB Edit, and although I don't generally use GUI editors myself, if I did, I'd go with GoLive (formerly GoLive CyberStudio, now Adobe GoLive).
Hmm, I haven't worked with procmail lately; I'm assuming it wouldn't be too hard to set it up to automatically compile everything (I have a shell script at/usr/src/linux/makeall that does that) and, depending on exactly how evil you were feeling, rename the old kernel, copy the new kernel, and re-run lilo. And patch/etc/issue and/etc/issue.net to reflect the new version.
It's no more or less secure than LPD - just a little more understandable to the general public, so junk printing shouldn't be any more of a problem. Umm... Forgive me if I missed something there, but I'm thinking the more people know how to do remote printing, the more people will abuse it. I definitely see cheezy Windows-based GUI portscanners that search the 'Net for open printers and let you send stuff to them, and people sitting in their college computer labs typing in random subnets to scan through a T1 line.
You're right about printer security, but AppleShare file sharing works pretty well. Passwords are only clear-text if somebody doesn't support encryption (and netatalk doesn't, for the same reason encrypted passwords are obnoxious to set up in samba). If you've got two Macs talking to each other, they'll use two-way encryption (and they'll tell you that before you type in your password).
As an added bonus, AppleShare IP runs over TCP/IP instead of AppleTalk.
It'd be pretty cool if Macs could print over TCP/IP too (that would be really funny after reading this article) but they only print over AppleTalk, which is pretty much confined to local networks (much like IPX).
Eventually I'll get lpd set up on my box and end all problems...:-)
Slashdot Mirror
But with the client and the protocol, you can build a server. Of course, you don't have access to their database... And without their database, it's useless. That's exactly the point. Nobody else can make their own Instant Messaging system that's worth anything, because AOL has the users.
The Bible says it hadn't rained prior to the Flood, therefore the first appearance of a rainbow would not require a change in the laws of physics. Refraction of light through droplets of water would still have occurred prior to the Flood, but nobody probably would have noticed the effect if it hadn't ever rained.
It is generally accepted that the earth changed drastically during the Flood. Not physical laws, but things like geography, atmospheric content, etc. I'm not familiar enough with these theories to explain them adequately here, but I have read about them.
The Bible says that God created the universe in 6 days. That's religion. That has no place in a biology classroom.
Many Creationists believe that the earth is somewhere between 6,000-10,000 years old, and there was a global catastrophic flood a few thousand years after that, which happens to be consistent with the Bible. The Creation model offers an explanation for a lot of scientific facts just as the Evolution model does, although neither model fits all the facts perfectly. This has nothing to do with religion, and should be discussed openly in public schools.
A firm belief in either model as truth requires faith, as neither can be proven. That's starting to get into religion again.
Exactly my point - don't deprive children of alternate origins models. Give them the facts, and let them choose the explanation that seems to make more sense. Don't teach them exclusively that Evolution is fact; give them a couple of different ideas and let them figure out what seems logical. If Evolution fits the facts better, so be it. But don't prevent students from being exposed to alternatives.
Predictions:
If all forms of life evolved from lesser forms, we should find examples of the resulting species alive today, the original species extinct, and the various steps in between in the fossil record.
If the earth and everything on it was created 6,000 years ago, a global catastrophic flood wiped out nearly everything 4,000 years ago, and the universe is in a constant state of decay, we would expect to find some simple species alive, some complex species alive, no weird hybrids between reptiles and birds, many extinct species in the fossil record that may not be closely related to anything alive today, and more species becoming extinct with time.
We still have protozoa, every example I've heard of of a half-bird/half-reptile mix has turned out to be either a hoax, a bird, or a reptile, more and more species are going extinct, and I bet you can't show me exactly what bats evolved from.
It's certainly a bad idea for publically funded institutions such as public schools to promote any particular religion over any other. It is, however, a good idea to educate students about a variety of religious beliefs, without promoting any of them over any others. Most high schools have a World Religions class or similar that does exactly that.
Evolution is not scientifically provable (or disprovable), by nature, and therefore a belief in evolution must be held on faith. Creation is also not scientifically provable (or disprovable), and therefore must also be held on faith. Both are religious beliefs, although one involves a supernatural Creator while the other does not. It is not appropriate to promote either belief exclusively in a public school.
Evolution is often taught as scientific fact. It's not. You can't prove it empirically. You can't prove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, because there are too many unknown variables. You can make scientific observations, and form a model to explain the observations, and draw conclusions based on that model that are consistent with facts. However, since most of those facts also fit other models, and other facts conflict with your model, you can't say that your model is any more scientific that any other model which equally fits the available scientific facts. Whether Creation is a good model or not, Evolution isn't perfect and shouldn't be taught as if it were.
There is no indication within the text of the Bible to indicate that the first chapters of Genesis were not intended to be taken completely literally. Whether the story of creation is true or not, the Bible intends it to be taken as true.
The word used for "day" is _only_ used to mean literal days; that word is never used to mean a vague period of time.
A lot of people try to reconcile creation and evolution, saying that the creation story is a metaphore for the evolutionary process over billions of years. First, that contradicts much of what scientists say about evolution as far as the order in which things occurred, etc. Second, it conflicts with the Bible too, because the Bible clearly says it took 6 days, and on the 7th day God rested - the original model of a standard work week.
One thing you are correct about: it was not written with a lot of scientific detail that most people wouldn't understand. Thus, certain things that would be very helpful in figuring out exactly what they meant have been omitted, which is somewhat unfortunate.
I don't have much that I can point you to, and I'm not a scientist myself, but a quick search on the Web yielded these:
d k.shtml g euniverse.shtml m
http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r02.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-066b.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-115b.htm
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/faq/c
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/faq/a
http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.ht
Can you prove scientifically - by hypothesizing, observing, drawing conclusions and making predictions - that fruit bats evolved from... anything at all?
Creationism is no more scientific than Evolutionism - which isn't scientific, for exactly those reasons. You can't prove or disprove either theory, because the subject is outside the realm of empirical science.
I agree with you; I support teaching Evolution as one possible explanation, NOT as proven fact, which is how it's usually taught.
A big enough river running fast enough probably could have. Go read up on catastrophism.
I would hope that teaching evolution not be banned, but as long as they're not exclusively promoting other models, I'm glad to see this.
The origins of the universe are beyond the realm of empirical science. The scientific method requires that you be able to observe and reproduce things, and you can't observe or reproduce the beginning of the universe. I'm not saying that the evolution model is completely wrong, but I think most people give it far too much credit. There are other scientific models out there that fit just as many facts as evolution.
Is there evidence to suggest that the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years? Yes, but there's also evidence to suggest that the earth has been around for 6,000 years (no, I'm not kidding). Some of the evidence that people assume proves evolution fits the creation model as well. Some of the dating methods used to prove the age of the earth have been proven to be highly inaccurate, but are used anyway whenever it's convenient.
I am opposed to teaching religion in public schools. I don't want the government teaching children about God. However, Creationism, if taught in a secular way alongside of evolution can only encourage people to examine the scientific evidence.
Just as Linux and other operating systems should be made available to anyone who wants to use them instead of the dominant OS, Creation should be made available as an alternative to the dominant origins model for anyone who wants to believe it, and who is looking for a way to deal with the facts that don't fit the Evolution model.
Let the flaming begin...
I've been having the same problem; it's very frustrating. Rumor has it that Microsoft has posted the Administrator password, but I can't even find out what that password is, because I can't get to their site! It worked a few days ago, but not recently.
Sorry, FTP is off. Just telnet and Apache.
Ummmm, hello? Dumbass?
/etc/issue.net reminding everybody that you can't log in as root. Looks like they took that out.
The JavaScript and META tag stuff on the Guestbook was posted through the Guestbook. They need to fix the Guestbook so that kind of thing no longer works; I'm shocked that they didn't do it right the first time (it's not hard to fix). This did not involve having root access to the machine.
In order to have root access, you have to either be at the local console, or you have to telnet in as another user (the account jcarr does exist, but I don't know the password) and then su to root and enter the root password, or you have to figure out some other way in (exploiting a bug in Apache or its CGIs, since that's the only other thing running).
For awhile, they had a message in
Looks like their router is looping around in circles, thus making the site inaccessible (again):
6 199.ATM7-0.XR1.SEA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.200.101) 93.535 ms 71.709 ms 69.333 ms
7 195.ATM4-0.GW3.SEA1.ALTER.NET (146.188.201.25) 53.357 ms 53.401 ms 50.472 ms
8 157.130.177.154 (157.130.177.154) 71.568 ms 60.022 ms 58.255 ms
9 207.46.190.82 (207.46.190.82) 58.480 ms 61.652 ms 78.364 ms
10 iuscb11ixc7502-a0-00-1.cp.msft.net (207.46.129.8) 63.725 ms 55.144 ms 50.187 ms
11 iusd27nt5c7201-a2-0-1.cp.msft.net (207.46.168.68) 52.739 ms 49.825 ms 48.650 ms
12 207.46.175.250 (207.46.175.250) 52.931 ms 78.532 ms 85.338 ms
13 iusd27nt5c7201-f4-0.cp.msft.net (207.46.175.249) 59.106 ms 61.572 ms *
14 207.46.175.250 (207.46.175.250) 83.234 ms 51.434 ms 53.155 ms
15 iusd27nt5c7201-f4-0.cp.msft.net (207.46.175.249) 50.808 ms 60.722 ms 70.323 ms
16 * 207.46.175.250 (207.46.175.250) 51.603 ms 50.167 ms
17 iusd27nt5c7201-f4-0.cp.msft.net (207.46.175.249) 75.220 ms 60.949 ms 55.586 ms
18 207.46.175.250 (207.46.175.250) 51.696 ms 51.206 ms 88.515 ms
19 iusd27nt5c7201-f4-0.cp.msft.net (207.46.175.249) 65.363 ms 76.381 ms *
20 207.46.175.250 (207.46.175.250) 115.147 ms 137.363 ms 125.027 ms
21 iusd27nt5c7201-f4-0.cp.msft.net (207.46.175.249) 111.239 ms 67.210 ms 52.556 ms
22 207.46.175.250 (207.46.175.250) 54.301 ms 52.426 ms 63.224 ms
23 iusd27nt5c7201-f4-0.cp.msft.net (207.46.175.249) 49.652 ms 54.781 ms 55.462 ms
Logon failure: user not allowed to log on to this computer.
Anybody know who did it?
Does it seem _really_ weird to anyone else that they listed VirtualPC as an operating system, when it's actually an emulator? I know, it comes with Windows, and that's what they were counting, but it still seems really weird. They definitely need to count OEM sales.
Ummm...
If it's true that "a bunch of dumb teenagers" are now getting involved in the Linux project, I fail to see how their work could possibly affect the operating system's technological merit. If you refuse to run Linux because you disagree with what it stands for (or what you think it stands for), that's reasonable. However, saying that Linux used to be a good OS and has deteriorated to a poor OS doesn't make sense. For starters, older versions are still available.
If you have specific objections to certain aspects of Linux, you're free to change them. That's the beauty of open source. You're also free to pick your favorite distribution - if you think Red Hat has sold out and become too commercial, you're free to choose Slackware, which has very little commercial support and many of the Linux newbies haven't even heard of.
Linus did say that if Linux had 90% market share it would become as bad as Windows. However, last I checked, there wasn't much danger of that, especially as more and more alternative operating systems are growing (really looking forward to Mac OS X Consumer!).
Does anyone else have further comments?
Pico r00lz!
Just kidding. I'm rather fond of BB Edit, and although I don't generally use GUI editors myself, if I did, I'd go with GoLive (formerly GoLive CyberStudio, now Adobe GoLive).
Hmm, I haven't worked with procmail lately; I'm assuming it wouldn't be too hard to set it up to automatically compile everything (I have a shell script at /usr/src/linux/makeall that does that) and, depending on exactly how evil you were feeling, rename the old kernel, copy the new kernel, and re-run lilo. And patch /etc/issue and /etc/issue.net to reflect the new version.
Long live sporks!
It's no more or less secure than LPD - just a little more understandable to the general public, so junk printing shouldn't be any more of a problem. Umm... Forgive me if I missed something there, but I'm thinking the more people know how to do remote printing, the more people will abuse it. I definitely see cheezy Windows-based GUI portscanners that search the 'Net for open printers and let you send stuff to them, and people sitting in their college computer labs typing in random subnets to scan through a T1 line.
Hold on there...
:-)
You're right about printer security, but AppleShare file sharing works pretty well. Passwords are only clear-text if somebody doesn't support encryption (and netatalk doesn't, for the same reason encrypted passwords are obnoxious to set up in samba). If you've got two Macs talking to each other, they'll use two-way encryption (and they'll tell you that before you type in your password).
As an added bonus, AppleShare IP runs over TCP/IP instead of AppleTalk.
It'd be pretty cool if Macs could print over TCP/IP too (that would be really funny after reading this article) but they only print over AppleTalk, which is pretty much confined to local networks (much like IPX).
Eventually I'll get lpd set up on my box and end all problems...