Sex is not in and of itself bad. God wouldn't have made the requirement for life to be like that and hardly anyone views it as a bad experience or immoral. The problem is that U.S. society uses sex to make money, have a good time. I think if anything when talking to children that should be the key point. It is good that it feels good but that isn't the real reason why it exists and most of the people that kids are going to hear about doing it is going to be the people who do it because it feels good. Using that as the reason for having sex gets many people into trouble.
Such as? Please, name me one single "faith-based" assumption included in a theory of your choice (you've already mentioned evolution, so I expect you'll pick that, but I'll happily leave the field open). Go head, try me. Because I *strongly* suspect you simply don't understand how the scientific process (or the theory you select, whatever that happens to be) works (don't worry, it's not your fault... solid, logical thinking isn't exactly stressed in schools these days, and it's *definitely* not emphasized in the average adult's day-to-day life).
Note that when I said there is faith involved in many scientific theories I meant that scientists have faith that it works in one or more situations, not that it is "faith-based" in the sense there is a tie to religion. There is no guarantee that there isn't a situation where it will be proven false. Even Einstein's relativity could at any time be proven false however so far it can not only provide explanations for observations but it made many predictions which were subsequently proven correct. But there is still faith involved that it is true for all situations, otherwise it would be a law.
Evolution involves even more faith and assumptions though because the fossil record is incomplete and scientists fill in those gaps with still frames of the "evolution movie" with the intent of making a complete movie that makes sense. The only problem is that there are many ways that those missing still frames of the movie could be filled in to make a different movie. Scientists assume they know what the missing frames are and make assumptions in order to fill in the missing frames of the fossil record. This is despite not having lived during the time when the frames they are trying to fill in actually took place chronologically. Surprise, a new octopus fossil is found that looks very much like the alive, present-day version. What will this do for evolution? I'm sure proponents will spin it so that evolution comes out looking even better, otherwise their "perfect" theory could be called out. When you assume evolution is true you base your assumptions on that premise to further the premise, never realizing your premise could be wrong in the first place. If Creationsists are wrong for having faith and not all the answers then it should work both ways.
By the way, I picked evolution because that is very close to the topic of the submission. Also, as for another assumption, many cosmologists assume there is a black hole in the middle of the Milky Way galaxy, albeit based on observations. There is no direct proof there is a black hole there though but the assumption makes other observations (why the galaxy doesn't fly apart and why objects move faster than they are expected to near the center of the galaxy) make sense. Bottom line: why are assumptions and faith allowed in science but are chastised as non-science in the context of religion when referring to the natural world?
As far as the scientific process is concerned, I know that a theory is supposed to be able to predict observations much like relativity theory did. Actually seeing those observations reinforces the theory. The problem with evolution is that it does not predict anything, or at least anything we can prove in our lifetime or even in a hundred lifetimes because it conveniently takes too long to show changes on the scale that the "evidence" has already shown us. Every day mutations don't count because they don't change species or at least on time scales we need to make predictions similar to what we've supposedly already seen evolution do. So what is my uneducated mind missing that your elitist mind already knows?
Your kids are gonna find out. Accept it. The right approach is education. And not retarded "well, ya see, when a boy and girl really, really like each other" education. Real education. And approval thereof. Tell them about condoms. Tell them about birth control.
*sarcasm*Using the same logic, don't forget to tell her that if she is going to start smoking then she should use the filtered cigarettes and if she is going to drive above the speed limit then to wear her seat belt and make sure no cops are around.*sarcasm* Prior approval is not a good thing. Don't tell your kids you approve of something bad. They never learn right from wrong that way. You may approve of condoms but that ignores the main isssue of needing to use them in the first place.
I know! It's the same thing with those poor, downtrodden flat earthers. Damn scientists and their bigoted "facts" and "scientific method" things. How dare they come out and criticise magical thinking posing as science simply because magic has no, uhh... you know, that stuff... err... evidence! Yeah, that stuff.
What is the point of having evidence if people are either going to interpret it wrong by accident or interpret it with purposeful bias which helps them accomplish their agenda? I hope you realize how many assumptions and faith go into many scientific theories, including evolution, because by definition the evidence for many theories, including evolution, is not complete, and assumptions are made to fill in the gaps.
I call BS. Were you using Selinux for your auditing? Could it be that the Selinux profiles were just not complete?
No I wasn't using SELinux for my auditing. I was using the RHEL auditd subsystem. SELinux was actually disabled by the way. Quit making (incorrect) assumptions about my environment just because you don't believe me.
You would also need to define "more privileges than needed": clearly if the app tries to access a file, its developer thought it "needed" that file.
I can't define "more privileges than needed" because I didn't write down what they were. I just saw a lot of audit messages showing many processes were being denied what they were trying to do. It is even worse in Windows because in addition to file system access there is also access to the registry which is required by 99.999% of apps. As the parent said, many Windows apps are written so that the app must run as administrator but that is usually not actually required. A few years ago I found out that Rational's Requisite Pro had to run as a user with at least Power User privileges. The question I had was why? It could have been worse by them requiring the user being an administrator but power user was bad enough. If a company requires an app to need more than basic user rights then they should document why so that (informed members of) the public can complain when the company's justifications don't sound right.
And if you think that the developer always does things correctly then maybe you can explain why even built-in Windows binaries generate failure audits when accessing objects? This behavior shows that developers are lazy. Why pick apart what security rights a program needs in a Windows environment so that it only executes with the privileges it needs when it is cheaper and faster to require the app run as a user with administrative rights? Microsoft should either restrict the privileges with which binaries request to do operations or they should be able to modify the permissions on files and registry values so that the failure audits do not even appear. The fact they do is ridiculous.
So to conclude, examples or it didn't happen. Did you file bugs?
It isn't my responsiblity to prove my statements to you. If you don't believe me then it isn't my problem. If you doubt me then you prove it for yourself. I have better things to do with my time. Given that my experiences occurred at work I can't give you examples anyway. And no, I didn't file bugs. As you said, the developer must know more than me so they can't be bugs given that logic. Nothing to file.
I'm not sure what the game publishers are actually protesting here, because this sounds like a pretty clear cut issue to me.
I believe the problem is that the ad tries to make a direct causal relationship between playing video games and death. And as one of the tags states, correlation is not equal to causation.
I would even say that it is absolutely valid for a public health agency to advocate substituting physical activities for video games, board games, reading, and other non-physical activites for purely health related reasons.
The problem is that they didn't do this. They just jump straight to the scare tactic of saying you will die if you play video games.
um...and they are going to use this info how exactly? Last time I checked I didn't have an assigned seat at the theater.
The submission regarding Carmike/Hollywood/etc. movie theaters rolling out pilot programs involving assigned seats hasn't been approved yet. Wait for it...wait for it.
Of course, the problem in some ways is not even MS's fault. The reality is most Windows programs are doing things that trigger UAC prompts for no good reason. In the linux world, if an text editor or card game or whatever app required you to su every time you ran it, even when it didn't perform any functions that actually needed su level privileges, people would be pissed.
5 years ago I implemented a Windows system for a gov't agency which required to have the typical auditing capabilities of the OS turned on. So I turned on success and failure auditing for object access. I quickly found out that this generated way too much (useless) information. I turned off success audits but still got a ton of audit data. The problem was that many applications (even Microsoft apps) were trying to access registry keys and files with privileges higher than they really needed and were generating failure audits but the ACLs were still allowing the operations to succeed. Up until a few months ago I thought this was the nature of the Windows environment but found out while deploying some RHEL blades that even Linux applications do the same thing of trying to access files with more privileges than needed. Simple auditing provided me that information.
Point being that even in the Linux world there are apps that try to do more than they should. Luckily this is still hidden from the user but if something like UAC was ever implemented (incorrectly?) in Linux then users would see the same thing as what is happening in Windows. As it stands, in audit records both OSes have the same problem of generating too many false positives. UAC just makes it worse for users of Windows.
If Experian wants to collect personal information on you, they should have to pay a fee to you and agree to a standard distribution restriction agreement that makes them come to you for permission to distribute the data elsewhere.
They aren't collecting it directly but getting the information from other sources. In this case then you should be charging those other sources for originally collecting the information and maybe a smaller fee for Experian to use it. One of the sources they are getting their data from is public records though. Have fun tracking down the original source(s) of the information (could be credit card companies which would make sense since Experian is involved).
I wish the scientists would provide a picture that represents what the person can see so we can see for ourselves just how much of a breakthrough it is. Obviously if the guy can perform daily tasks it is great and I'm happy for the guy but I'd like to see the qualify of the images he is seeing for my own curiousity.
This means that 'RIAA hitman' Matthew Oppenheim will not be able to control the settlement process as he has been permitted by the Courts to do in the past.
Be that as it may, there is one that stands out in my mind as being very different from any version of Windows which is the capability to only use a CLI to manage the entire system. MS made Win2k8 modular and even separated the GUI from the CLI finally so you don't need to have a GUI installed if your application does not require it.
Only if you're trying to make the argument that humans guided the evolution of humans. It's about as logical an argument as I've ever heard from the ID crowd, but it's still pretty stupid.
If you weren't so quick to criticize people who oppose your views you would have put a little more thought into your answer. This experiment is the same thing as intelligent design. An entity of a higher power (not of the same power as the creation) creates an organism of some capacity then lets evolution take over. AEGIS never said it had to be human, just a living organism, or in this case they start out with some chemicals.
First, I don't believe in intelligent design per se because that is just candy-coating it for the elitists who talk down to people who have dissenting opinions. I prefer creationism over evolution not the least of which because there are so many assumptions made with evolution. To add to the list of absurdities in support of evolution we have from Thursday on MSNBC.com an article about a new footprint discovered which is supposed to be human. A photograph is on the webpage and when I looked at it I was reminded of what Harrison Ford says to the "leader" of the Temple of Doom near the end of the movie: "You've got one vivid imagination".
Second, is it even correct to ask how the chemicals enabled evolution? Why not go so far out on a limb that it breaks under our (mankind) massive ego and assume that evolution had to create the chemicals first?
Third, I hate when people say something is working as designed but describe the process as evolving. Evolution from a biological perspective does not include any design whatsoever so a scientist designing chemicals to self-replicate is not evolution; it does not evolve. As soon as a higher power (man, God) is involved evolution no longer is applicable. Applying the term "evolving" to an IT system does not instill confidence in me because the connotation is no design was involved in the creation of the IT system.
By the way, good job of not coming off as elitist.
why it costs so much. Amazon and E Ink need to recoup their R&D costs. At $150 million for those costs, it might be a while before anyone considers lowering the price.
I had 3 servers in a lab environment 6 years ago that I named Huey, Duey and Louie. The bad thing with using a theme is that it does not indicate what the function of the server is to anyone and only the person who named them knows what they do. Using a coded scheme is much better if you want to be able to share the knowledge of what the servers do, where they are, and what node is which (if you are using redundant servers to distinguish betwee node A and node B, etc.). You can always name them officially using that scheme both within the servers' configurations and in DNS using the A (or AAAA for IPv6) records but then insert CNAME records for aliases using a more entertaining theme if you so desire. I would prefer an alias for a domain controller such as DC1 instead of DeathStar. Whimsical names are all well and good for a lab environment but real production servers need useful names that all people can identify easily and accurately especially if your operations span countries. Is someone in another country going to know what DeathStar really is? They might but not necessarily; less familiar themes would have even less recognition to be helpful.
Another case is when you try to delete/rename explorer.exe in XP. First you have to kill explorer.exe using Task Manager so that you don't get an access denied message. Then when you have a My Computer window open you rename/delete explorer.exe. It will let you do it however if you refresh the directory you will see that Windows automatically puts it back so now you have 2 (if renamed) or 1 (if you deleted the first one). Pretty clever although annoying if you have a corrupted explorer.exe that you are trying to fix. I'm still not sure where Windows grabs the explorer.exe in order to bring it back.
MAPI, AD and such are PROPRIETARY protocols folks, and Microsoft knows they are the keys to the kingdom.
This is too broad a statement to be 100% true. MAPI is proprietary but the services which make up ADS use different protocols which are open in some cases. ADS isn't just a single protocol. Kerberos is an open protocol however MS has made some changes to it for use in ADS. LDAP is an open protocol and MS has made schema changes to make the protocol operate in a Windows environment (this isn't any different from Sun doing it to work better with Solaris though; LDAP is meant to be extensible by making schema changes) so don't fault them for that because it isn't proprietary. Replication in ADS occurs using LDAP over IP (it can also use SMTP though). There is also SMB used for distributing group policies.
If its anything like comcast you can burn thru that in no time. Top speed ratings are worthless if you cant actually use it.
I don't stream video or use VoIP, just newsgroups (gigabytes a month which is the majority of my transfer) and web browsing and I've only gone over 250GB 1 month out of the last year. Exactly what do you do to have 250GB be a problem?
It doesn't have to be 50/50 by any means, simply vote for a non-incumbent. Change is good:)
We'll know soon enough in 93 days. But just a day or 2 after being President he already lifted a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy by George W. Bush. This basically means that hundreds of millions of our tax dollars will go to help groups like Planned Parenthood perform abortions around the world. That's one way to control population growth. Yay for change! Mod me flamebait/troll if you want but that won't change the fact Obama still did this.
If it isn't a virus or hardware issue, perhaps you have too many memory resident programs loaded?
At the Start menu click "Run" and then type in "msconfig" it will allow you to see what services, processes, and start up programs are in use. Naturally you want your Antivirus to load at startup but not your instant messenger programs and other useless junk that clutter up CPU cycles and system memory. Get rid of a few startup programs first and then reboot and see if the system speed improves.
Unless the admins suddenly deployed new apps the number of memory resident programs would be generally the same from one day to the next and not cause a PC to suddenly slow down. We have a group of 8 machines at work which suddenly have a massive slowdown issue where CPU and memory are not affected so it has to be a hard drive problem. You'll stop doing something for a few seconds and then try clicking on another window and it won't do anything. You'll have to wait about 60 seconds before your mouse clicks register and if you had multiple clicks they all get registered at once. It's like XP is sleeping even though you actually want to work. It is very frustrating and makes me want to hurt everyone in Redmond. I think a patch or a app got installed on all the machines over a weekend or something to cause it but we don't have admin rights to fully investigate the problem.
Perhaps you've lead a sheltered existence. I'm in my early forties, and I recall the precocious kids having sex in 6th grade (the earliest of which I was aware was the summer before), and blatantly sexual talk was not uncommon in 2nd grade. Your part of the US (or the world) may vary. We in the US tend to prolong childhood (legally and culturally) for a variety of reasons, some of them perfectly valid, but you seem to hold the view that at some point in the past youngsters were uniformly much more chaste than in current times. I'll clue you in: the same thing described in TFA used to happen with Polaroid instant cameras in the 1970s, just to a lesser extent due to the nature and cost of the older technology. Your perception does not hold universally; I suspect it never really has throughout history.
Well there will always be kids whose parents didn't teach them how they should act and there will be kids who always disobey what their parents teach them *not* to do. For every case like this there are unreported cases of kids who don't do this and who wait until their 20s and/or until they are married before they get this open with their bodies. Those types of kids care what people think of them and aren't going to take explicit photos of themselves to share with other teenagers. These kids obviously don't care or they probably weren't taught to care or they don't listen. I think your 6th grade example is on the extreme side just as this is. There will always be stupid people unfortunately.
Slashdot Mirror
Sex is not in and of itself bad. God wouldn't have made the requirement for life to be like that and hardly anyone views it as a bad experience or immoral. The problem is that U.S. society uses sex to make money, have a good time. I think if anything when talking to children that should be the key point. It is good that it feels good but that isn't the real reason why it exists and most of the people that kids are going to hear about doing it is going to be the people who do it because it feels good. Using that as the reason for having sex gets many people into trouble.
Such as? Please, name me one single "faith-based" assumption included in a theory of your choice (you've already mentioned evolution, so I expect you'll pick that, but I'll happily leave the field open). Go head, try me. Because I *strongly* suspect you simply don't understand how the scientific process (or the theory you select, whatever that happens to be) works (don't worry, it's not your fault... solid, logical thinking isn't exactly stressed in schools these days, and it's *definitely* not emphasized in the average adult's day-to-day life).
Note that when I said there is faith involved in many scientific theories I meant that scientists have faith that it works in one or more situations, not that it is "faith-based" in the sense there is a tie to religion. There is no guarantee that there isn't a situation where it will be proven false. Even Einstein's relativity could at any time be proven false however so far it can not only provide explanations for observations but it made many predictions which were subsequently proven correct. But there is still faith involved that it is true for all situations, otherwise it would be a law.
Evolution involves even more faith and assumptions though because the fossil record is incomplete and scientists fill in those gaps with still frames of the "evolution movie" with the intent of making a complete movie that makes sense. The only problem is that there are many ways that those missing still frames of the movie could be filled in to make a different movie. Scientists assume they know what the missing frames are and make assumptions in order to fill in the missing frames of the fossil record. This is despite not having lived during the time when the frames they are trying to fill in actually took place chronologically. Surprise, a new octopus fossil is found that looks very much like the alive, present-day version. What will this do for evolution? I'm sure proponents will spin it so that evolution comes out looking even better, otherwise their "perfect" theory could be called out. When you assume evolution is true you base your assumptions on that premise to further the premise, never realizing your premise could be wrong in the first place. If Creationsists are wrong for having faith and not all the answers then it should work both ways.
By the way, I picked evolution because that is very close to the topic of the submission. Also, as for another assumption, many cosmologists assume there is a black hole in the middle of the Milky Way galaxy, albeit based on observations. There is no direct proof there is a black hole there though but the assumption makes other observations (why the galaxy doesn't fly apart and why objects move faster than they are expected to near the center of the galaxy) make sense. Bottom line: why are assumptions and faith allowed in science but are chastised as non-science in the context of religion when referring to the natural world?
As far as the scientific process is concerned, I know that a theory is supposed to be able to predict observations much like relativity theory did. Actually seeing those observations reinforces the theory. The problem with evolution is that it does not predict anything, or at least anything we can prove in our lifetime or even in a hundred lifetimes because it conveniently takes too long to show changes on the scale that the "evidence" has already shown us. Every day mutations don't count because they don't change species or at least on time scales we need to make predictions similar to what we've supposedly already seen evolution do. So what is my uneducated mind missing that your elitist mind already knows?
Your kids are gonna find out. Accept it. The right approach is education. And not retarded "well, ya see, when a boy and girl really, really like each other" education. Real education. And approval thereof. Tell them about condoms. Tell them about birth control.
*sarcasm*Using the same logic, don't forget to tell her that if she is going to start smoking then she should use the filtered cigarettes and if she is going to drive above the speed limit then to wear her seat belt and make sure no cops are around.*sarcasm* Prior approval is not a good thing. Don't tell your kids you approve of something bad. They never learn right from wrong that way. You may approve of condoms but that ignores the main isssue of needing to use them in the first place.
I know! It's the same thing with those poor, downtrodden flat earthers. Damn scientists and their bigoted "facts" and "scientific method" things. How dare they come out and criticise magical thinking posing as science simply because magic has no, uhh... you know, that stuff... err... evidence! Yeah, that stuff.
What is the point of having evidence if people are either going to interpret it wrong by accident or interpret it with purposeful bias which helps them accomplish their agenda? I hope you realize how many assumptions and faith go into many scientific theories, including evolution, because by definition the evidence for many theories, including evolution, is not complete, and assumptions are made to fill in the gaps.
I call BS. Were you using Selinux for your auditing? Could it be that the Selinux profiles were just not complete?
No I wasn't using SELinux for my auditing. I was using the RHEL auditd subsystem. SELinux was actually disabled by the way. Quit making (incorrect) assumptions about my environment just because you don't believe me.
You would also need to define "more privileges than needed": clearly if the app tries to access a file, its developer thought it "needed" that file.
I can't define "more privileges than needed" because I didn't write down what they were. I just saw a lot of audit messages showing many processes were being denied what they were trying to do. It is even worse in Windows because in addition to file system access there is also access to the registry which is required by 99.999% of apps. As the parent said, many Windows apps are written so that the app must run as administrator but that is usually not actually required. A few years ago I found out that Rational's Requisite Pro had to run as a user with at least Power User privileges. The question I had was why? It could have been worse by them requiring the user being an administrator but power user was bad enough. If a company requires an app to need more than basic user rights then they should document why so that (informed members of) the public can complain when the company's justifications don't sound right.
And if you think that the developer always does things correctly then maybe you can explain why even built-in Windows binaries generate failure audits when accessing objects? This behavior shows that developers are lazy. Why pick apart what security rights a program needs in a Windows environment so that it only executes with the privileges it needs when it is cheaper and faster to require the app run as a user with administrative rights? Microsoft should either restrict the privileges with which binaries request to do operations or they should be able to modify the permissions on files and registry values so that the failure audits do not even appear. The fact they do is ridiculous.
So to conclude, examples or it didn't happen. Did you file bugs?
It isn't my responsiblity to prove my statements to you. If you don't believe me then it isn't my problem. If you doubt me then you prove it for yourself. I have better things to do with my time. Given that my experiences occurred at work I can't give you examples anyway. And no, I didn't file bugs. As you said, the developer must know more than me so they can't be bugs given that logic. Nothing to file.
I'm not sure what the game publishers are actually protesting here, because this sounds like a pretty clear cut issue to me.
I believe the problem is that the ad tries to make a direct causal relationship between playing video games and death. And as one of the tags states, correlation is not equal to causation.
I would even say that it is absolutely valid for a public health agency to advocate substituting physical activities for video games, board games, reading, and other non-physical activites for purely health related reasons.
The problem is that they didn't do this. They just jump straight to the scare tactic of saying you will die if you play video games.
um...and they are going to use this info how exactly? Last time I checked I didn't have an assigned seat at the theater.
The submission regarding Carmike/Hollywood/etc. movie theaters rolling out pilot programs involving assigned seats hasn't been approved yet. Wait for it...wait for it.
Of course, the problem in some ways is not even MS's fault. The reality is most Windows programs are doing things that trigger UAC prompts for no good reason. In the linux world, if an text editor or card game or whatever app required you to su every time you ran it, even when it didn't perform any functions that actually needed su level privileges, people would be pissed.
5 years ago I implemented a Windows system for a gov't agency which required to have the typical auditing capabilities of the OS turned on. So I turned on success and failure auditing for object access. I quickly found out that this generated way too much (useless) information. I turned off success audits but still got a ton of audit data. The problem was that many applications (even Microsoft apps) were trying to access registry keys and files with privileges higher than they really needed and were generating failure audits but the ACLs were still allowing the operations to succeed. Up until a few months ago I thought this was the nature of the Windows environment but found out while deploying some RHEL blades that even Linux applications do the same thing of trying to access files with more privileges than needed. Simple auditing provided me that information.
Point being that even in the Linux world there are apps that try to do more than they should. Luckily this is still hidden from the user but if something like UAC was ever implemented (incorrectly?) in Linux then users would see the same thing as what is happening in Windows. As it stands, in audit records both OSes have the same problem of generating too many false positives. UAC just makes it worse for users of Windows.
If Experian wants to collect personal information on you, they should have to pay a fee to you and agree to a standard distribution restriction agreement that makes them come to you for permission to distribute the data elsewhere.
They aren't collecting it directly but getting the information from other sources. In this case then you should be charging those other sources for originally collecting the information and maybe a smaller fee for Experian to use it. One of the sources they are getting their data from is public records though. Have fun tracking down the original source(s) of the information (could be credit card companies which would make sense since Experian is involved).
I wish the scientists would provide a picture that represents what the person can see so we can see for ourselves just how much of a breakthrough it is. Obviously if the guy can perform daily tasks it is great and I'm happy for the guy but I'd like to see the qualify of the images he is seeing for my own curiousity.
This means that 'RIAA hitman' Matthew Oppenheim will not be able to control the settlement process as he has been permitted by the Courts to do in the past.
Be that as it may, there is one that stands out in my mind as being very different from any version of Windows which is the capability to only use a CLI to manage the entire system. MS made Win2k8 modular and even separated the GUI from the CLI finally so you don't need to have a GUI installed if your application does not require it.
Only if you're trying to make the argument that humans guided the evolution of humans. It's about as logical an argument as I've ever heard from the ID crowd, but it's still pretty stupid.
If you weren't so quick to criticize people who oppose your views you would have put a little more thought into your answer. This experiment is the same thing as intelligent design. An entity of a higher power (not of the same power as the creation) creates an organism of some capacity then lets evolution take over. AEGIS never said it had to be human, just a living organism, or in this case they start out with some chemicals.
First, I don't believe in intelligent design per se because that is just candy-coating it for the elitists who talk down to people who have dissenting opinions. I prefer creationism over evolution not the least of which because there are so many assumptions made with evolution. To add to the list of absurdities in support of evolution we have from Thursday on MSNBC.com an article about a new footprint discovered which is supposed to be human. A photograph is on the webpage and when I looked at it I was reminded of what Harrison Ford says to the "leader" of the Temple of Doom near the end of the movie: "You've got one vivid imagination".
Second, is it even correct to ask how the chemicals enabled evolution? Why not go so far out on a limb that it breaks under our (mankind) massive ego and assume that evolution had to create the chemicals first?
Third, I hate when people say something is working as designed but describe the process as evolving. Evolution from a biological perspective does not include any design whatsoever so a scientist designing chemicals to self-replicate is not evolution; it does not evolve. As soon as a higher power (man, God) is involved evolution no longer is applicable. Applying the term "evolving" to an IT system does not instill confidence in me because the connotation is no design was involved in the creation of the IT system.
By the way, good job of not coming off as elitist.
it hurts when I do this." "Then don't do it." Idiots.
why it costs so much. Amazon and E Ink need to recoup their R&D costs. At $150 million for those costs, it might be a while before anyone considers lowering the price.
Don't forget the 100MB of RAM it takes to run a anti-virus *suite*. I'm still wondering why people accept *that*.
Why do you assume they had to evolve? You do know what assuming does, right?
I had 3 servers in a lab environment 6 years ago that I named Huey, Duey and Louie. The bad thing with using a theme is that it does not indicate what the function of the server is to anyone and only the person who named them knows what they do. Using a coded scheme is much better if you want to be able to share the knowledge of what the servers do, where they are, and what node is which (if you are using redundant servers to distinguish betwee node A and node B, etc.). You can always name them officially using that scheme both within the servers' configurations and in DNS using the A (or AAAA for IPv6) records but then insert CNAME records for aliases using a more entertaining theme if you so desire. I would prefer an alias for a domain controller such as DC1 instead of DeathStar. Whimsical names are all well and good for a lab environment but real production servers need useful names that all people can identify easily and accurately especially if your operations span countries. Is someone in another country going to know what DeathStar really is? They might but not necessarily; less familiar themes would have even less recognition to be helpful.
Another case is when you try to delete/rename explorer.exe in XP. First you have to kill explorer.exe using Task Manager so that you don't get an access denied message. Then when you have a My Computer window open you rename/delete explorer.exe. It will let you do it however if you refresh the directory you will see that Windows automatically puts it back so now you have 2 (if renamed) or 1 (if you deleted the first one). Pretty clever although annoying if you have a corrupted explorer.exe that you are trying to fix. I'm still not sure where Windows grabs the explorer.exe in order to bring it back.
I can't think of anything to say. Of course, the "article" didn't really provide much to talk about.
MAPI, AD and such are PROPRIETARY protocols folks, and Microsoft knows they are the keys to the kingdom.
This is too broad a statement to be 100% true. MAPI is proprietary but the services which make up ADS use different protocols which are open in some cases. ADS isn't just a single protocol. Kerberos is an open protocol however MS has made some changes to it for use in ADS. LDAP is an open protocol and MS has made schema changes to make the protocol operate in a Windows environment (this isn't any different from Sun doing it to work better with Solaris though; LDAP is meant to be extensible by making schema changes) so don't fault them for that because it isn't proprietary. Replication in ADS occurs using LDAP over IP (it can also use SMTP though). There is also SMB used for distributing group policies.
If its anything like comcast you can burn thru that in no time. Top speed ratings are worthless if you cant actually use it.
I don't stream video or use VoIP, just newsgroups (gigabytes a month which is the majority of my transfer) and web browsing and I've only gone over 250GB 1 month out of the last year. Exactly what do you do to have 250GB be a problem?
It doesn't have to be 50/50 by any means, simply vote for a non-incumbent. Change is good :)
We'll know soon enough in 93 days. But just a day or 2 after being President he already lifted a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy by George W. Bush. This basically means that hundreds of millions of our tax dollars will go to help groups like Planned Parenthood perform abortions around the world. That's one way to control population growth. Yay for change! Mod me flamebait/troll if you want but that won't change the fact Obama still did this.
If it isn't a virus or hardware issue, perhaps you have too many memory resident programs loaded? At the Start menu click "Run" and then type in "msconfig" it will allow you to see what services, processes, and start up programs are in use. Naturally you want your Antivirus to load at startup but not your instant messenger programs and other useless junk that clutter up CPU cycles and system memory. Get rid of a few startup programs first and then reboot and see if the system speed improves.
Unless the admins suddenly deployed new apps the number of memory resident programs would be generally the same from one day to the next and not cause a PC to suddenly slow down. We have a group of 8 machines at work which suddenly have a massive slowdown issue where CPU and memory are not affected so it has to be a hard drive problem. You'll stop doing something for a few seconds and then try clicking on another window and it won't do anything. You'll have to wait about 60 seconds before your mouse clicks register and if you had multiple clicks they all get registered at once. It's like XP is sleeping even though you actually want to work. It is very frustrating and makes me want to hurt everyone in Redmond. I think a patch or a app got installed on all the machines over a weekend or something to cause it but we don't have admin rights to fully investigate the problem.
Perhaps you've lead a sheltered existence. I'm in my early forties, and I recall the precocious kids having sex in 6th grade (the earliest of which I was aware was the summer before), and blatantly sexual talk was not uncommon in 2nd grade. Your part of the US (or the world) may vary. We in the US tend to prolong childhood (legally and culturally) for a variety of reasons, some of them perfectly valid, but you seem to hold the view that at some point in the past youngsters were uniformly much more chaste than in current times. I'll clue you in: the same thing described in TFA used to happen with Polaroid instant cameras in the 1970s, just to a lesser extent due to the nature and cost of the older technology. Your perception does not hold universally; I suspect it never really has throughout history.
Well there will always be kids whose parents didn't teach them how they should act and there will be kids who always disobey what their parents teach them *not* to do. For every case like this there are unreported cases of kids who don't do this and who wait until their 20s and/or until they are married before they get this open with their bodies. Those types of kids care what people think of them and aren't going to take explicit photos of themselves to share with other teenagers. These kids obviously don't care or they probably weren't taught to care or they don't listen. I think your 6th grade example is on the extreme side just as this is. There will always be stupid people unfortunately.