Computers are fast enough to try hundreds of attacks per second; "unlikely" often means "only works 1/1000 times, therefore used every day".
What does that have to do with anything? It's unlikely to be used not because it's unlikely to succeed, but because it's just a neat trick you can do with an already compromised system.
There's a big difference between "difficult to pull off" and "not worth bothering".
"No, I'm vegetarian actually" "Oh, I didn't know" and that's it.
Oh sure, but we were talking about vegans, not vegetarians; it's entirely possible that no one has ever had the above conversation with a vegan - when someone's vegan, you know about it.
Perfectly understandable, but let's not pretend he's a role model for level-headed discourse.
Eh, I don't think anyone's pretending that. Let's also not pretend that any kind of real "level-headed discourse" is possible in this area. There's just not that much of value that the "critical thought" and "dogma" camps can say to each other.
He is willfully antagonistic towards religious groups for no other reason I can find except that some of the assholes in those groups are famously antagonistic towards evolution and/or atheism.
His main position seems to be that it's not OK to let any and all unfounded beliefs slide unchallenged, simply because they are promulgated under the "religion" banner. Since religion is so used to getting a free pass, I guess that makes him a "prick" and an "asshole".
It's all perfectly futile, of course, but at least someone's trying.
Dawkins should promote theism, as those who embrace God are the fittest to survive in our society, due to social stigmatism on atheists..
Dawkins should promote a homogeneous population based on currently prevailing environmental conditions? Methinks someone needs another crack at understanding evolution.
Can't say I agree with your premise, either: the only place where that stigma actually matters is politics, and it's easy enough to fake it there.
(also, the word you are looking for is "stigmatization", but it's still kind of an awkward turn of phrase)
They mock theists for their faith, but there's certainly no way to prove that there's not a god, so aren't they also believing in something independent of scientific proof?
What a novel and exciting argument, no one's thought of that before!
Theism and agnosticism are orthogonal (as the kids say) concepts. Most atheists are agnostic, most theists are gnostic (not to be confused with Gnostic). There are some gnostic atheists out there, but not many - like you say, it's a hard position to end up in.
what about the Mystery Science Theater 3000s and Cinematic Titanics of the future?
The problem is, there's nothing "so bad, it's good" about his movies, they are in what I like to call the "Shat Out With the Least Amount of Effort" category - not much MST3K can do with that.
"undetectable in over 80 percent of machines running antivirus software"
I think they measured the size of the botnet by tracing the traffic the infected machines generate; that most AV software doesn't catch it is a separate point.
Publishing one tirade after another about the subject is hard to consider anything but trolling
What makes you think he isn't sincere in his beliefs?
I'm just curious. I personally don't have much interest in the field of "pop-evolutionary biology" but I think it has its place, and serves a useful purpose.
Words have meanings, and scientific/mathematical words have very precise meanings. Asshole.
And to make things interesting, many words have several meanings, especially scientific terms that also have far more common, and less precise, general meanings. It's not that hard a concept to grasp, really.
Slashdot Mirror
it'd be the battle of the two weirdos and Hans, being the guy in a murder case who hasn't admitted to murdering, probably would have came out on top
So, since Sturgeon's confession is complete bullshit, it seems like a good thing that the judge didn't allow it, no?
But seriously, menstrual fucking can get messy.
Was the blood menstrual? You'd think they would mention that since it a) makes the explanation a lot more convincing and b) is easy enough to prove.
Computers are fast enough to try hundreds of attacks per second; "unlikely" often means "only works 1/1000 times, therefore used every day".
What does that have to do with anything? It's unlikely to be used not because it's unlikely to succeed, but because it's just a neat trick you can do with an already compromised system.
There's a big difference between "difficult to pull off" and "not worth bothering".
Huh, must've glossed over the Department.
Rest assured, I just feel terrible about myself.
The enemy gate is down!
always brings up the image of a battery of laser cannons or special nuclear silo's
... god that movie sucked.
Whereas I always get the image of Bruce Willis in a two and a half hour beer commercial.
"No, I'm vegetarian actually" "Oh, I didn't know" and that's it.
Oh sure, but we were talking about vegans, not vegetarians; it's entirely possible that no one has ever had the above conversation with a vegan - when someone's vegan, you know about it.
It's not MY place to force you to eat healthy
Ah, but it is your place to arbitrarily decide what constitutes eating healthy?
It's amazing to me how such a simple position seems to confuse people.
No one is confused by their position, it's the militant manner in which vegans try to foist their beliefs on others that we find annoying.
Where exactly is this "considered an illegal act"?
How the hell do you "consider" something to be illegal? It either is, or isn't.
How the hell is 12% a "sizeable percentage"?
Someone's really trying hard to make an article out of nothing.
Do you get to keep the goat?
"Psychologists Don't Know Math" is a rather inflammatory, inaccurate, braindead headline, even by local standards.
I think it's quite an understatement, actually; the reality is much worse: nobody knows math.
Um, you are saying sports enhancement drugs are the same a cancer drugs?
No, that is the exact opposite of what he's saying. I recommend Ritalin to improve your reading comprehension.
Energy Independence means that the Middle East doesn't have the power to stop our economy instantly.
Ha! You mean it doesn't have the power to have its ass nuked instantly!
USA! USA! USA!
Perfectly understandable, but let's not pretend he's a role model for level-headed discourse.
Eh, I don't think anyone's pretending that. Let's also not pretend that any kind of real "level-headed discourse" is possible in this area. There's just not that much of value that the "critical thought" and "dogma" camps can say to each other.
He is willfully antagonistic towards religious groups for no other reason I can find except that some of the assholes in those groups are famously antagonistic towards evolution and/or atheism.
His main position seems to be that it's not OK to let any and all unfounded beliefs slide unchallenged, simply because they are promulgated under the "religion" banner. Since religion is so used to getting a free pass, I guess that makes him a "prick" and an "asshole".
It's all perfectly futile, of course, but at least someone's trying.
At least Dawkins is rational and uses his brain.
I was just saying that it's kind of a bummer that those qualities are rare enough to draw admiration.
Dawkins should promote theism, as those who embrace God are the fittest to survive in our society, due to social stigmatism on atheists..
Dawkins should promote a homogeneous population based on currently prevailing environmental conditions? Methinks someone needs another crack at understanding evolution.
Can't say I agree with your premise, either: the only place where that stigma actually matters is politics, and it's easy enough to fake it there.
(also, the word you are looking for is "stigmatization", but it's still kind of an awkward turn of phrase)
They mock theists for their faith, but there's certainly no way to prove that there's not a god, so aren't they also believing in something independent of scientific proof?
What a novel and exciting argument, no one's thought of that before!
Theism and agnosticism are orthogonal (as the kids say) concepts. Most atheists are agnostic, most theists are gnostic (not to be confused with Gnostic). There are some gnostic atheists out there, but not many - like you say, it's a hard position to end up in.
That someone can be famous in the 21st century for being an "advocate of Darwin's evolutionary theory".
what about the Mystery Science Theater 3000s and Cinematic Titanics of the future?
The problem is, there's nothing "so bad, it's good" about his movies, they are in what I like to call the "Shat Out With the Least Amount of Effort" category - not much MST3K can do with that.
"undetectable in over 80 percent of machines running antivirus software"
I think they measured the size of the botnet by tracing the traffic the infected machines generate; that most AV software doesn't catch it is a separate point.
However, this doesn't change the fact that Dawkins is known for attacks on religion far more than his work in science.
:(
Oh yeah, no argument there.
This, I believe, justifies calling him a troll, whether these attacks are a weird practical joke or a genuine obsession.
Depends on your definition of "troll", I guess. I mean, is anyone who is passionate about a controversial subject automatically a troll?
Certainly. A pity that Dawkins's is wasting his time on an ultimately doomed crusade, rather than advancing said field
That's a pretty gloomy outlook. Though by "pop-evolutionary biology" I did mean what Dawkins is doing, as opposed to actual evolutionary biology.
Publishing one tirade after another about the subject is hard to consider anything but trolling
What makes you think he isn't sincere in his beliefs?
I'm just curious. I personally don't have much interest in the field of "pop-evolutionary biology" but I think it has its place, and serves a useful purpose.
Realistic lighting effects ... immersive virtual reality.
Does anyone else feel like maybe there's a step or two missing there?
Words have meanings, and scientific/mathematical words have very precise meanings. Asshole.
And to make things interesting, many words have several meanings, especially scientific terms that also have far more common, and less precise, general meanings. It's not that hard a concept to grasp, really.