I work for an organization which decided several years ago not to upgrade its windows 2000 PCs
to XP. because the win 2000 worked and the IT staff new it well and the upgrade was expensive, show we thought we would just wait a bit for longhorn.
Now in 2008 we are still with win 2000 on many thousnds[sic] of PCs and are basiclly[sic] forced to "upgrade" to Vista.
Vista is a crummy system, but you never know what comes next?
have already created information sharing data model standards for law enforcement and justice purposes. These include NIEM (National Information Exchange Model) and GJXDM (Global Justice XML Data Model). If the government can create these then additional models can be created for sharing information with its citizens. Someone (or group) just has to take the lead to do so.
" remember that the Supreme Court has declared teaching creationism an unconstitutional imposition of religion"
Teaching evolution promotes atheism which is a violation of church and state. Would you prefer a constitutional imposition of religion? That's not what evolution gives you. Atheism is a religion. If Jedi can be a religion on a census form then so can atheism.
There should be defined popup styles for various events (crash, error, generic etc.), which should be impossible to recreate using simple images.
I think Windows should create a message that takes up the entire screen so that a user is forced to look at it so they realize it is a bad thing. White lettering on a blue background I think would provide a good contrast.
Technical Nazi says: 250GB/month is a throughput cap, not a bandwidth cap. 6Mbps is a bandwidth cap (though not necessarily Comcast's since I'm not their customer).
By the way, did you know that on Sept 18, just a few days ago, George Bush extended the national state of emergency that he put in place on Sept 23, 2001 for another year? Go to whitehouse.gov and look at the daily press releases and executive orders for Sept 18. There it is, big as life. Who even knew that we have been under a state of emergency since 9/11?
You must like complaining for the sake of complaining since this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I know that topics change as people bring up new stuff in posts but this didn't even match the rest of your post. By the way, last I saw Obama and McCain had 4 points separating them favoring Obama. That doesn't really say anything though because the numbers waiver back and forth week to week or even day to day.
Wait, Palin is a libertarian now? I know that she and McCain are constantly changing their positions on issues, but that's just crazy. How does one go from being a Bush Republican to a libertarian in just a month?
No more changing than any other politican including Obama (e.g. to drill or not to drill). The question is, how do you determine whether they changed their opinion on issues to get votes or whether they legimiately received new information which changes their view on an issue and then telling the public about it? People do change their minds. The question is whether they really changed them or they just said they do.
I know my IT position is safer than many out there. I'm a gov't contractor and there is no shortage of work where I am. Really the only thing that can hamper myself and others like me is if Congress drastically reduces defense, justice, or other similar types of budgets which can reduce the funding available for contracts like the ones I work on. Outsourcing isn't a problem either because of required security clearances and the inability to telecommute (due to security issues) also means there isn't going to be any offices in India to teleconference with to get the latest status on code revisions.
I wish Google or someone would come out with a phone which is based on a completely open OS like Linux and where people can write their own programs and so on for it.
So Android and the gPhone are not what you are looking for?
So if you're using particles with mass, you can never quite get to the speed of light. No doubt the LHC can accelerate them to pretty close to c though.
I guess we have idiots for moderators tonight. For some reason I was modded down for asking a question. True, particles with mass take an infinite amount of energy to get to the speed of light. I didn't read the article but maybe they were just being generic and said "to the speed of light" when it was technically 99.9% of the way there. Mod me down again for no reason.
Now, accelerating a proton to the speed of light seems to me impossible, given that they are in a vacuum.
I'm not a physicist but I do read some of the layman cosmology and theoretical physics books when I can so maybe I'm still missing something but exactly why does that seem impossible? Having a vacuum actually makes it easier due to no wind resistance if we were talking about an object big enough for wind resistance to matter. They are using magnets to accelerate the particles so I'm not getting why you are questioning the possibility of what they did. Unfortunately no one else questioned you yet for me to share in your answer with them so I had to be the first to ask.
I don't have it publicly visible like an RFID tag would be. Do you wear yours an your shirt, because it's no big deal?
I don't care about the driver's license id number even though it *can* be used for bad; it isn't. The RFID tag *could* be used for evil but we don't know whether it will be or not. Only criminals have even used the SSN number of people. The gov't hasn't even used the SSN to track people like what is described on slashdot's paranoia list. Someone needs to have a reader for the RFID tag which makes it harder to steal. Anyone can look at your license or SSN card and as long as they can read they know what is on it. An RFID is even harder to steal and people are worried over it for some reason. There is also no guarantee gov't entity will abuse it. If people think there is even a *chance* then they should be complaining about their driver's license and SSN as well but I don't hear any complaints over them.
I live in Tennessee, and by and far this state is not as hard hit as some others. One of the reasons is that we have protective lending laws. In this state, you cannot get a mortgage without a 10% (IIRC) down payment.
I'm in WV and to get a loan that isn't through the Federal Housing Administration (an FHA loan) you have to have 5% down but you pay PMI. You have to put down 20% to not pay PMI. If you *do* get an FHA loan then you only need 10% down to get out of PMI but around here (north-central WV) I got info last year about this time on minimum down payments for a mortgage and as of that time no one was changing their lending practices in the area: they still were only requiring 5% down. I haven't looked into it lately despite still being in the market to buy a house just because I haven't yet got far enough into the process of buying one to find out the mortgage requirements in-depth.
So exactly how do you handle your current driver's license number on your state issued driver's license? You should already be paranoid with your current logic.
The optional license will include a picture and radio frequency identification tag that can be scanned to verify a person's identity. The tag will not contain any personal information - only an assigned number, authorities said.
Emphasis mine. This 3rd sentence of the article wasn't a clue?
the Ferrari and McLaren fiasco that occurred in 2006 (maybe 2005) and was the focus of an article in Wired last year I believe. A guy who had been a mechanic during his entire career at Ferrari thought he would get a promotion when a senior engineer decided to leave. Someone else got the job from another department so the guy left to work for McLaren. Through various other events the guy was eventually convinced to acquire trade secrets of Ferrari F1 cars. Word quickly spread through the rank and file at McLaren what was acquired but the CEO denied it and was unaware of it initially. McLaren later had to forfeit their points for that racing year.
You're absolutely right; people act as if it's creationism vs evolution, but it's actually creationism vs the whole of science. If creationism is right we've got geological science wrong, the science of star and planet formation wrong, the speed of light wrong, radioactive decay rates, the universe's rate of expansion, the doppler shift's effect on light, the cause of the background x-ray radiation, etc, etc.
Just because the theory behind how we got here doesn't mean other theories are wrong. We still need theories to describe our universe. But we act like that those theories must describe a secular universe, one in which a different theory must exist if we accept that God created it. I don't know why, if we accept God created the universe, that it must mean that how stars form with a God are different from that of stars without a God. The rules of the universe stay the same no matter what and in fact if God were accepted as being the cause then we know they were actually put in place; it means that we have a reason for why the rules are they way they are. Is the universe's rate of expansion or the gravitational constant all of a sudden wrong because we publically accept that God exists? No. It just means that we know that the values have to be the way they are or otherwise we couldn't exist. We have known that for a while anyway. The same reasoning is used if God didn't create us but the mindset for that reasoning is vastly different. Are we here *because* of the values being just right or was there foresight to make those values exactly set *for* us?
Some things do have to change though I believe. I just don't know what all are on the "must change" list. I do believe that for data points which have been *interpreted* such as geological evidence those things must be revisited. In fact, I think that if the evolutionists and other scientists who want to prove Creationists wrong once for and for all, the evolutionists, et al. should take every argument Creationsists have (e.g., arguments involving geological evidence and biological evidence interpreted in favor of evolution, et al.) and everything in the Bible and address each one. Be the "bigger man" and address each "fact" that Creationsists use for their evidence and refute each one. If it is a waste of time then why do we ever have any of these arguments? Let the "nutjobs" wallow in their own stupidity. If the secular theories are so simple and concretely proven then just take the time to put Creationsists in their place. This doesn't mean to berate them, calling them insane, or nutjobs. That doesn't do anything besides make the evolutionists fit their supposed roots: that of a mere animal incapable of meaningful conversation. If evidence were reexamined by scientists as if the Creationsists would say "just humor us" and the scientists are of the mindset that they should take the opportunity to prove their side right then they may come to find out they have been totally wrong. Then again, maybe that is what they are afraid of and why what I propose will never happen.
It's looking at evidence/data with a clear mind, a different approach, which can even include different biases, that spawns new theories and new views on evidence to allow us to further our scientific theories. Einstein decided to view space and time as intertwined. He decided to view energy and mass as the same thing and turned physics on its head to produce the greatest revolution in physics next to quantum mechanics. It takes revolutionary thought to make paradigm shifts. I think we are due for another paradigm shift. There is nothing wrong with rexamining evidence and being proven wrong as long as you admit you were wrong. Scientists do that all the time with minor theories.
With evolution though I believe that too many people have built their careers on it and are afraid to prove it wrong. It can affect other scientific disciplines drastically but in the end it could also be the path to the theory of everything because, humor me, when some new pr
Bin Laden also states that he was living in Afghanistan at the time of the attacks and that "I have held talks with His Eminence Amir ol-Momenin [Taleban leader Mola Mohammad Omar Mojahed], who does not allow such acts to be carried out from Afghanistan's territory."
Bin Laden was in Afghanistan when the embassies were bombed in Kenya. His minions carried out the terrorist acts so he could have been anywhere else he wanted. I don't believe him that terrorist acts were not allowed to be carried out from Afghanistan. By the way, bin Laden being in Afghanistan during the embassy attacks came from the 9/11 Commission Report that I'm in the middle of reading.
Construction zones on the interstate that slow you from 75 to 55 are a culprit. Can someone explain the logic in taking a fast speed, slowing it down to just a slightly slower but still fast speed, and making people slow down when the construction itself is over a 100 feet from the interstate, with concrete barriers blocking the interstate from the construction?
Because people like to gawk and if they are not looking at the road then they are a danger to those beside them who are paying attention. Unfortunately road construction has that tendency to be done near a road and, especially for big projects, people like to see what is going on and especially to see how things are progressing. By forcing everyone to slow down for those stupid few who won't pay attention to the road as they go by they are trying to protect everyone from the ones who will inevitably cause an accident.
How about this: God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.
You can use that as your version of history however that defies what the Christan Bible states which is that God made man in His image. Basically the first man and woman were just that, the first human male and female, not hermaphroditic organism A and hermaphroditic organism B which developed into male and female humans through evolution. If you want to make up your own Bible story go right ahead. Many people already do that to avoid accepting the fact they commit various sins. Cast the Bible off as hogwash and you have no absolution to answer to, a moral free-for-all. Good times, good times.
Dead wrong.
You seem to be trotting out the old, "evolution is just a theory", with the added bonus of pointing out (incorrectly) there there's no evidence for it. Were you just hoping no one would notice?
Sorry but the whole "science is just a secular church" thing is about as ridiculous as "cars are like birdfeeders, but they're metal and have wheels and an engine".
If I'm wrong then why didn't you just give me a credible reference to evidence of macro-evolution creating a new species instead of a bunch of rhetoric? The evidence must show end-to-end the line of species leading up to the current species without the need for someone to make assumptions or fill in the gaps to make the lineage logical.
It's like watching a stop motion animated movie with so few frames you have to wonder if they are in the right order and if the order given actually produces the intended story of the writer.
This submsission is 2 years old but if you can't trust slashdot then who can you trust? The headline could be interpreted that it would be the *first* evidence for string theory. The key point to take home though is that there is no confirmed proof of string theory at the present time but it is still being taught much like evolution for that matter. Just a lack of evidence or evidence that is interpreted in a specific manner to help agendas.
For example, in science a theory is supposed to be able to make predictions: I throw the apple up, and gravity accelerates the apple back down etc. Have the kids then try to explain what predictive qualities Evolution has, and what predictive qualities Creationism has.
Creationism doesn't predict anything (although the Christian Bible does) and what evolution predicts can't be proven because it is conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop. So what say you now? Past evidence for both is actually the same set of evidence but interpreted differently depending on whether you have an aversion to group thinking not biased towards secular beliefs. Because we all know group thinking occurs in church and schools alike and we are all taught to take what a teacher says as gospel, pun intended.
Slashdot Mirror
I work for an organization which decided several years ago not to upgrade its windows 2000 PCs to XP. because the win 2000 worked and the IT staff new it well and the upgrade was expensive, show we thought we would just wait a bit for longhorn. Now in 2008 we are still with win 2000 on many thousnds[sic] of PCs and are basiclly[sic] forced to "upgrade" to Vista. Vista is a crummy system, but you never know what comes next?
Linux kernel 2.8
have already created information sharing data model standards for law enforcement and justice purposes. These include NIEM (National Information Exchange Model) and GJXDM (Global Justice XML Data Model). If the government can create these then additional models can be created for sharing information with its citizens. Someone (or group) just has to take the lead to do so.
" remember that the Supreme Court has declared teaching creationism an unconstitutional imposition of religion"
Teaching evolution promotes atheism which is a violation of church and state. Would you prefer a constitutional imposition of religion? That's not what evolution gives you. Atheism is a religion. If Jedi can be a religion on a census form then so can atheism.
There should be defined popup styles for various events (crash, error, generic etc.), which should be impossible to recreate using simple images.
I think Windows should create a message that takes up the entire screen so that a user is forced to look at it so they realize it is a bad thing. White lettering on a blue background I think would provide a good contrast.
Technical Nazi says: 250GB/month is a throughput cap, not a bandwidth cap. 6Mbps is a bandwidth cap (though not necessarily Comcast's since I'm not their customer).
By the way, did you know that on Sept 18, just a few days ago, George Bush extended the national state of emergency that he put in place on Sept 23, 2001 for another year? Go to whitehouse.gov and look at the daily press releases and executive orders for Sept 18. There it is, big as life. Who even knew that we have been under a state of emergency since 9/11?
You must like complaining for the sake of complaining since this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I know that topics change as people bring up new stuff in posts but this didn't even match the rest of your post. By the way, last I saw Obama and McCain had 4 points separating them favoring Obama. That doesn't really say anything though because the numbers waiver back and forth week to week or even day to day.
Wait, Palin is a libertarian now? I know that she and McCain are constantly changing their positions on issues, but that's just crazy. How does one go from being a Bush Republican to a libertarian in just a month?
No more changing than any other politican including Obama (e.g. to drill or not to drill). The question is, how do you determine whether they changed their opinion on issues to get votes or whether they legimiately received new information which changes their view on an issue and then telling the public about it? People do change their minds. The question is whether they really changed them or they just said they do.
I know my IT position is safer than many out there. I'm a gov't contractor and there is no shortage of work where I am. Really the only thing that can hamper myself and others like me is if Congress drastically reduces defense, justice, or other similar types of budgets which can reduce the funding available for contracts like the ones I work on. Outsourcing isn't a problem either because of required security clearances and the inability to telecommute (due to security issues) also means there isn't going to be any offices in India to teleconference with to get the latest status on code revisions.
I wish Google or someone would come out with a phone which is based on a completely open OS like Linux and where people can write their own programs and so on for it.
So Android and the gPhone are not what you are looking for?
So if you're using particles with mass, you can never quite get to the speed of light. No doubt the LHC can accelerate them to pretty close to c though.
I guess we have idiots for moderators tonight. For some reason I was modded down for asking a question. True, particles with mass take an infinite amount of energy to get to the speed of light. I didn't read the article but maybe they were just being generic and said "to the speed of light" when it was technically 99.9% of the way there. Mod me down again for no reason.
Now, accelerating a proton to the speed of light seems to me impossible, given that they are in a vacuum.
I'm not a physicist but I do read some of the layman cosmology and theoretical physics books when I can so maybe I'm still missing something but exactly why does that seem impossible? Having a vacuum actually makes it easier due to no wind resistance if we were talking about an object big enough for wind resistance to matter. They are using magnets to accelerate the particles so I'm not getting why you are questioning the possibility of what they did. Unfortunately no one else questioned you yet for me to share in your answer with them so I had to be the first to ask.
I don't have it publicly visible like an RFID tag would be. Do you wear yours an your shirt, because it's no big deal?
I don't care about the driver's license id number even though it *can* be used for bad; it isn't. The RFID tag *could* be used for evil but we don't know whether it will be or not. Only criminals have even used the SSN number of people. The gov't hasn't even used the SSN to track people like what is described on slashdot's paranoia list. Someone needs to have a reader for the RFID tag which makes it harder to steal. Anyone can look at your license or SSN card and as long as they can read they know what is on it. An RFID is even harder to steal and people are worried over it for some reason. There is also no guarantee gov't entity will abuse it. If people think there is even a *chance* then they should be complaining about their driver's license and SSN as well but I don't hear any complaints over them.
and most of us cringed when we saw that you reelected Bush
We at least have a government that allows elections.
I live in Tennessee, and by and far this state is not as hard hit as some others. One of the reasons is that we have protective lending laws. In this state, you cannot get a mortgage without a 10% (IIRC) down payment.
I'm in WV and to get a loan that isn't through the Federal Housing Administration (an FHA loan) you have to have 5% down but you pay PMI. You have to put down 20% to not pay PMI. If you *do* get an FHA loan then you only need 10% down to get out of PMI but around here (north-central WV) I got info last year about this time on minimum down payments for a mortgage and as of that time no one was changing their lending practices in the area: they still were only requiring 5% down. I haven't looked into it lately despite still being in the market to buy a house just because I haven't yet got far enough into the process of buying one to find out the mortgage requirements in-depth.
So exactly how do you handle your current driver's license number on your state issued driver's license? You should already be paranoid with your current logic.
The optional license will include a picture and radio frequency identification tag that can be scanned to verify a person's identity. The tag will not contain any personal information - only an assigned number, authorities said.
Emphasis mine. This 3rd sentence of the article wasn't a clue?
the Ferrari and McLaren fiasco that occurred in 2006 (maybe 2005) and was the focus of an article in Wired last year I believe. A guy who had been a mechanic during his entire career at Ferrari thought he would get a promotion when a senior engineer decided to leave. Someone else got the job from another department so the guy left to work for McLaren. Through various other events the guy was eventually convinced to acquire trade secrets of Ferrari F1 cars. Word quickly spread through the rank and file at McLaren what was acquired but the CEO denied it and was unaware of it initially. McLaren later had to forfeit their points for that racing year.
You're absolutely right; people act as if it's creationism vs evolution, but it's actually creationism vs the whole of science. If creationism is right we've got geological science wrong, the science of star and planet formation wrong, the speed of light wrong, radioactive decay rates, the universe's rate of expansion, the doppler shift's effect on light, the cause of the background x-ray radiation, etc, etc.
Just because the theory behind how we got here doesn't mean other theories are wrong. We still need theories to describe our universe. But we act like that those theories must describe a secular universe, one in which a different theory must exist if we accept that God created it. I don't know why, if we accept God created the universe, that it must mean that how stars form with a God are different from that of stars without a God. The rules of the universe stay the same no matter what and in fact if God were accepted as being the cause then we know they were actually put in place; it means that we have a reason for why the rules are they way they are. Is the universe's rate of expansion or the gravitational constant all of a sudden wrong because we publically accept that God exists? No. It just means that we know that the values have to be the way they are or otherwise we couldn't exist. We have known that for a while anyway. The same reasoning is used if God didn't create us but the mindset for that reasoning is vastly different. Are we here *because* of the values being just right or was there foresight to make those values exactly set *for* us?
Some things do have to change though I believe. I just don't know what all are on the "must change" list. I do believe that for data points which have been *interpreted* such as geological evidence those things must be revisited. In fact, I think that if the evolutionists and other scientists who want to prove Creationists wrong once for and for all, the evolutionists, et al. should take every argument Creationsists have (e.g., arguments involving geological evidence and biological evidence interpreted in favor of evolution, et al.) and everything in the Bible and address each one. Be the "bigger man" and address each "fact" that Creationsists use for their evidence and refute each one. If it is a waste of time then why do we ever have any of these arguments? Let the "nutjobs" wallow in their own stupidity. If the secular theories are so simple and concretely proven then just take the time to put Creationsists in their place. This doesn't mean to berate them, calling them insane, or nutjobs. That doesn't do anything besides make the evolutionists fit their supposed roots: that of a mere animal incapable of meaningful conversation. If evidence were reexamined by scientists as if the Creationsists would say "just humor us" and the scientists are of the mindset that they should take the opportunity to prove their side right then they may come to find out they have been totally wrong. Then again, maybe that is what they are afraid of and why what I propose will never happen.
It's looking at evidence/data with a clear mind, a different approach, which can even include different biases, that spawns new theories and new views on evidence to allow us to further our scientific theories. Einstein decided to view space and time as intertwined. He decided to view energy and mass as the same thing and turned physics on its head to produce the greatest revolution in physics next to quantum mechanics. It takes revolutionary thought to make paradigm shifts. I think we are due for another paradigm shift. There is nothing wrong with rexamining evidence and being proven wrong as long as you admit you were wrong. Scientists do that all the time with minor theories.
With evolution though I believe that too many people have built their careers on it and are afraid to prove it wrong. It can affect other scientific disciplines drastically but in the end it could also be the path to the theory of everything because, humor me, when some new pr
Bin Laden also states that he was living in Afghanistan at the time of the attacks and that "I have held talks with His Eminence Amir ol-Momenin [Taleban leader Mola Mohammad Omar Mojahed], who does not allow such acts to be carried out from Afghanistan's territory."
Bin Laden was in Afghanistan when the embassies were bombed in Kenya. His minions carried out the terrorist acts so he could have been anywhere else he wanted. I don't believe him that terrorist acts were not allowed to be carried out from Afghanistan. By the way, bin Laden being in Afghanistan during the embassy attacks came from the 9/11 Commission Report that I'm in the middle of reading.
Construction zones on the interstate that slow you from 75 to 55 are a culprit. Can someone explain the logic in taking a fast speed, slowing it down to just a slightly slower but still fast speed, and making people slow down when the construction itself is over a 100 feet from the interstate, with concrete barriers blocking the interstate from the construction?
Because people like to gawk and if they are not looking at the road then they are a danger to those beside them who are paying attention. Unfortunately road construction has that tendency to be done near a road and, especially for big projects, people like to see what is going on and especially to see how things are progressing. By forcing everyone to slow down for those stupid few who won't pay attention to the road as they go by they are trying to protect everyone from the ones who will inevitably cause an accident.
How about this: God made the creatures and the way he did it was via evolution.
You can use that as your version of history however that defies what the Christan Bible states which is that God made man in His image. Basically the first man and woman were just that, the first human male and female, not hermaphroditic organism A and hermaphroditic organism B which developed into male and female humans through evolution. If you want to make up your own Bible story go right ahead. Many people already do that to avoid accepting the fact they commit various sins. Cast the Bible off as hogwash and you have no absolution to answer to, a moral free-for-all. Good times, good times.
Dead wrong. You seem to be trotting out the old, "evolution is just a theory", with the added bonus of pointing out (incorrectly) there there's no evidence for it. Were you just hoping no one would notice? Sorry but the whole "science is just a secular church" thing is about as ridiculous as "cars are like birdfeeders, but they're metal and have wheels and an engine".
If I'm wrong then why didn't you just give me a credible reference to evidence of macro-evolution creating a new species instead of a bunch of rhetoric? The evidence must show end-to-end the line of species leading up to the current species without the need for someone to make assumptions or fill in the gaps to make the lineage logical.
It's like watching a stop motion animated movie with so few frames you have to wonder if they are in the right order and if the order given actually produces the intended story of the writer.
This submsission is 2 years old but if you can't trust slashdot then who can you trust? The headline could be interpreted that it would be the *first* evidence for string theory. The key point to take home though is that there is no confirmed proof of string theory at the present time but it is still being taught much like evolution for that matter. Just a lack of evidence or evidence that is interpreted in a specific manner to help agendas.
For example, in science a theory is supposed to be able to make predictions: I throw the apple up, and gravity accelerates the apple back down etc. Have the kids then try to explain what predictive qualities Evolution has, and what predictive qualities Creationism has.
Creationism doesn't predict anything (although the Christian Bible does) and what evolution predicts can't be proven because it is conveniently impossible for us to be around long enough to see any new species develop. So what say you now? Past evidence for both is actually the same set of evidence but interpreted differently depending on whether you have an aversion to group thinking not biased towards secular beliefs. Because we all know group thinking occurs in church and schools alike and we are all taught to take what a teacher says as gospel, pun intended.