What? So evolutionists ignore the facts? That doesn't seem to be a very good statement to make. The facts are that the Bombardier Beetle defies all evolutionist theories. It's no big deal...just keep waiting around for your "missing link" (read: any evidence at all). I'm sure someday you'll come up with SOMETHING believable:)
I think you're forgetting the fact that the government DOES see the bin Laden videos before the media is allowed to show them. This is so they can make sure that there are no "hidden messages" in the tape that allow the terrorist to communicate. I'm not necessarily defending the school's view on this. I think that it's a pretty gray area. On one hand it is essentially free speech. On the other hand by linking the terrorist web site you've allowed them to communicate their views to an entirely new audience (vehicle of communication). I defend the school's right to say that they aren't going to allow this based on the fact that they believe that it is providing terrorists with a means to communicate.
I'm not claiming that it's my logic, but that it's the logic of the school. I defend their right to enforce the law as they interpret it, not necessarily their interpretation. I'll let the courts decide on interpretation.
The problem that I have with that logic in this case is that the Patriot Act does not say that you can't praise terrorists or say how wonderful you think they are or whatever you want. By linking them, the University is contending that you've provided a vehicle by which the terrorists can communicate. At that point it ceases to be about free speech. A more intelligent argument would be about whether or not linking a web site constitutes providing a vehicle of communication...and I would love to see what people think about that. But that is VASTLY different from the subject of free speech.
Hmmm...perhaps you should have read the article. The issue is not free speech. It's the fact that by linking this site the organization is provided the terrorist's with a vehicle for communication, which is clearly in violation of the Patriot Act. Whether or not you agree with the Patriot Act is irrelevant, you cannot question the University's right to attempt to stay compliant with existing laws.
What about turning people into Microsoft for pirating their software? Talk about an effective technique to get people to switch to Linux!! Seriously, we'd all probably lose some friends along the way, but if you think about it the idea in the parent post really won't be that effective without reasonable enforcement. I can tell people I won't give them pirated copies of Windows, but there's always someone out there willing to pirate a copy. Think about it. Have you ever really wanted a piece of Microsoft software and not been able to find someone who had it? If we really want to push this let's start turning people in. The best part of it is that you're doing exactly what Microsoft wants, but in the end it's just going to come back to bite them. As more people find themselves actually being forced to either shell out the cash or go open source, I think Microsoft would find their install base shrinking dramatically.
If you have enough time...
on
RC5-64 Success
·
· Score: 1
...you can crack any algorithm. Encryption algorithms are always going to be time-sensitive. You can brute force anything...it's just a matter of whether or not you can do it in a realistic amount of time. Taking the rate at which technology changes and becomes faster, I don't think that we should ever realistically expect an algorithm to last more than a few years.
Linus didn't develop an OS, he developed a kernel. This is exactly what the FSF is saying...Linux is not an OS, it's a kernel, and the GNU tools play as much a part of the OS as the kernel does. Try to do something in GNU\Linux without a kernel...now try it without GNU software. Neither work.
Nothing like taking Scripture out of context. Read the whole Psalm. It was a song asking God to vanquish the enemies. Granted, it's brutal, but they were asking God to do that to their enemies, not advocating smashing your own kids head off of rocks. Literacy is a wonderful thing when applied correctly.
1) High Divorce rates?
Well, women are more free to make their own choices! It is this reason why, unlike the previous generation, instead of putting up with a crappy marriage they'd rather not be part of such a relationship. Those damn liberal atheists!! If it were not for them liberals the woman folk would still be the one busy serving their husbainds!
Liberals always forget where the REAL women's rights movement started...the Bible. If it wasn't for Christians women would have zero rights. One of the reasons the Christian church was persecuted was for the freedom it gave women. It's called history, try checking it out sometime.
2) Kids killing each other?
Uh, just like their elders? The Crusades? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? The Mujahideen before and after the Taliban? Israeli/Palestinian conflict? IRA in Northern Ireland? More people have been killed in the name of a religion than otherwise... Damn Liberals!!
I forgot that the fact that adults do something automatically makes it right. Kids are killing each other because the Liberals won't let parents discipline their kids.
3) Childern having sex?
Uh, in religious Iran (oh no their God is different than the God of Bible!) the legal age for a bride is 13! In the state of Utah, in some communities, 14 year old brides are very common... Damn liberals!!
They do lots of other things in these countries as well, so you agree with those things, too? Like women having NO rights? Hmmm, you seem to contradict yourself. I don't even know where to begin to refute this since it is so completely irrelevant to the problems of the U.S. Should we really model ourselves after Iran? Another liberal tactic...speak, then think.
4) College Students that can't read?
Uh, with States pushing for creationism like syllabus I am not surprised there... But damn the liberals from preventing childern and college students from readin books other than the Bible? (Which version is the right one though? hmmmm)
Yeah, this has nothing to do with the Liberals telling us that we can't ever give anyone a bad grade because that might "hurt their feelings."
5) Presidents that think it's ok to lie to American people?
Oh I hear ya on this one!! Next election I am writing in Pope's name on my vote! The religious NEVER lie... Oh and the popes of the yesteryears don't count... A preist or Ashcroft like uber-patriot makes a better president than say the one appointed by the Supreme court... I am all in the favor of abolishing electoral college... lets elect presidents by way of popular vote.... Oh I am rambling.... those damn liberals! atheists!!
What does the Pope have to do with anything? You show your lack of education by assuming that because I claim to be a Christian I'm Catholic. I could care less what the Pope or any other Catholic does. I follow Jesus Christ and I assure you that he never lied, and I do everything that I can to follow his example, as should anyone that chooses to take on his name.
I'm not against responsible disclosure, and I'm certainly not trying to appear to be defending the DMCA. I'm simply saying that I think the lines should be much less blurry than they currently are. It shouldn't be considered ok to invade someone else's computer as long as there's "no harm done."
how observant. You're right....and that's kind of the point. The industry (including myself) has adopted this model, but that doesn't make it right. The thinking behind the whole white/grey/black hat thing is flawed. You don't see this in other industries. We don't call burglars black hats and alarm system installers white hats.
traipsing into someone's computer isn't exactly ethically RIGHT
I was under the impression that right and wrong were mutually exclusive. If it's not right then it has to be wrong. If you "traipse" into my computer you will go to jail. Pretty simple. Should I be able to pop the hood on your car if it's in the parking lot of Wal-Mart because I'm curious as to how your car is different from mine. What about your house? I'm interested in the architectural differences between our houses, so I break into your house because of my "curiosity." Please try to refrain from ridiculousness in the future.
IMO, there are hackers, and there are security professionals. If you were a hacker and are now a security professional...great. If you continue to break the law, you should go to jail. Pretty simple, and none of this hat confusion.
The federal government should, however, have the responsibility of protecting life, whether it's that of an unborn born child or a born one. I'm all for state's rights, but not when they infringe upon the right to life for children.
Slashdot Mirror
What? So evolutionists ignore the facts? That doesn't seem to be a very good statement to make. The facts are that the Bombardier Beetle defies all evolutionist theories. It's no big deal...just keep waiting around for your "missing link" (read: any evidence at all). I'm sure someday you'll come up with SOMETHING believable :)
...that this came out of California??
I think you're forgetting the fact that the government DOES see the bin Laden videos before the media is allowed to show them. This is so they can make sure that there are no "hidden messages" in the tape that allow the terrorist to communicate. I'm not necessarily defending the school's view on this. I think that it's a pretty gray area. On one hand it is essentially free speech. On the other hand by linking the terrorist web site you've allowed them to communicate their views to an entirely new audience (vehicle of communication). I defend the school's right to say that they aren't going to allow this based on the fact that they believe that it is providing terrorists with a means to communicate.
By your logic,...
I'm not claiming that it's my logic, but that it's the logic of the school. I defend their right to enforce the law as they interpret it, not necessarily their interpretation. I'll let the courts decide on interpretation.
The problem that I have with that logic in this case is that the Patriot Act does not say that you can't praise terrorists or say how wonderful you think they are or whatever you want. By linking them, the University is contending that you've provided a vehicle by which the terrorists can communicate. At that point it ceases to be about free speech. A more intelligent argument would be about whether or not linking a web site constitutes providing a vehicle of communication...and I would love to see what people think about that. But that is VASTLY different from the subject of free speech.
Hmmm...perhaps you should have read the article. The issue is not free speech. It's the fact that by linking this site the organization is provided the terrorist's with a vehicle for communication, which is clearly in violation of the Patriot Act. Whether or not you agree with the Patriot Act is irrelevant, you cannot question the University's right to attempt to stay compliant with existing laws.
What about turning people into Microsoft for pirating their software? Talk about an effective technique to get people to switch to Linux!! Seriously, we'd all probably lose some friends along the way, but if you think about it the idea in the parent post really won't be that effective without reasonable enforcement. I can tell people I won't give them pirated copies of Windows, but there's always someone out there willing to pirate a copy. Think about it. Have you ever really wanted a piece of Microsoft software and not been able to find someone who had it? If we really want to push this let's start turning people in. The best part of it is that you're doing exactly what Microsoft wants, but in the end it's just going to come back to bite them. As more people find themselves actually being forced to either shell out the cash or go open source, I think Microsoft would find their install base shrinking dramatically.
...you can crack any algorithm. Encryption algorithms are always going to be time-sensitive. You can brute force anything...it's just a matter of whether or not you can do it in a realistic amount of time. Taking the rate at which technology changes and becomes faster, I don't think that we should ever realistically expect an algorithm to last more than a few years.
...how did they do this on Star Trek? You know they had to be using at least 100GHz.
So use a kernel with no tools.
Linus didn't develop an OS, he developed a kernel. This is exactly what the FSF is saying...Linux is not an OS, it's a kernel, and the GNU tools play as much a part of the OS as the kernel does. Try to do something in GNU\Linux without a kernel...now try it without GNU software. Neither work.
Or you could lock your computer when you get up...
...snail mail is much more susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks.
Nothing like taking Scripture out of context. Read the whole Psalm. It was a song asking God to vanquish the enemies. Granted, it's brutal, but they were asking God to do that to their enemies, not advocating smashing your own kids head off of rocks. Literacy is a wonderful thing when applied correctly.
The point is that God values unborn life as life, thus ESCR is taking life (obviously).
1) High Divorce rates? Well, women are more free to make their own choices! It is this reason why, unlike the previous generation, instead of putting up with a crappy marriage they'd rather not be part of such a relationship. Those damn liberal atheists!! If it were not for them liberals the woman folk would still be the one busy serving their husbainds!
Liberals always forget where the REAL women's rights movement started...the Bible. If it wasn't for Christians women would have zero rights. One of the reasons the Christian church was persecuted was for the freedom it gave women. It's called history, try checking it out sometime.
2) Kids killing each other? Uh, just like their elders? The Crusades? WWI? WWII? Vietnam? The Mujahideen before and after the Taliban? Israeli/Palestinian conflict? IRA in Northern Ireland? More people have been killed in the name of a religion than otherwise... Damn Liberals!!
I forgot that the fact that adults do something automatically makes it right. Kids are killing each other because the Liberals won't let parents discipline their kids.
3) Childern having sex? Uh, in religious Iran (oh no their God is different than the God of Bible!) the legal age for a bride is 13! In the state of Utah, in some communities, 14 year old brides are very common... Damn liberals!!
They do lots of other things in these countries as well, so you agree with those things, too? Like women having NO rights? Hmmm, you seem to contradict yourself. I don't even know where to begin to refute this since it is so completely irrelevant to the problems of the U.S. Should we really model ourselves after Iran? Another liberal tactic...speak, then think.
4) College Students that can't read? Uh, with States pushing for creationism like syllabus I am not surprised there... But damn the liberals from preventing childern and college students from readin books other than the Bible? (Which version is the right one though? hmmmm)
Yeah, this has nothing to do with the Liberals telling us that we can't ever give anyone a bad grade because that might "hurt their feelings."
5) Presidents that think it's ok to lie to American people? Oh I hear ya on this one!! Next election I am writing in Pope's name on my vote! The religious NEVER lie... Oh and the popes of the yesteryears don't count... A preist or Ashcroft like uber-patriot makes a better president than say the one appointed by the Supreme court... I am all in the favor of abolishing electoral college... lets elect presidents by way of popular vote.... Oh I am rambling.... those damn liberals! atheists!!
What does the Pope have to do with anything? You show your lack of education by assuming that because I claim to be a Christian I'm Catholic. I could care less what the Pope or any other Catholic does. I follow Jesus Christ and I assure you that he never lied, and I do everything that I can to follow his example, as should anyone that chooses to take on his name.
I'm not against responsible disclosure, and I'm certainly not trying to appear to be defending the DMCA. I'm simply saying that I think the lines should be much less blurry than they currently are. It shouldn't be considered ok to invade someone else's computer as long as there's "no harm done."
how observant. You're right....and that's kind of the point. The industry (including myself) has adopted this model, but that doesn't make it right. The thinking behind the whole white/grey/black hat thing is flawed. You don't see this in other industries. We don't call burglars black hats and alarm system installers white hats.
traipsing into someone's computer isn't exactly ethically RIGHT
I was under the impression that right and wrong were mutually exclusive. If it's not right then it has to be wrong. If you "traipse" into my computer you will go to jail. Pretty simple. Should I be able to pop the hood on your car if it's in the parking lot of Wal-Mart because I'm curious as to how your car is different from mine. What about your house? I'm interested in the architectural differences between our houses, so I break into your house because of my "curiosity." Please try to refrain from ridiculousness in the future.
IMO, there are hackers, and there are security professionals. If you were a hacker and are now a security professional...great. If you continue to break the law, you should go to jail. Pretty simple, and none of this hat confusion.
The federal government should, however, have the responsibility of protecting life, whether it's that of an unborn born child or a born one. I'm all for state's rights, but not when they infringe upon the right to life for children.
Exodus 21:22
do we really need this?
www.dyndns.org is one, there are others...try a Google search.
That's what all the free, dynamic dns providers are for.