attempting to credit religion for the benefits of scientific research No, but you just setup and tore down a strawman. I am not attempting to credit religion for science. I am just replying to someone who said: Find out who this guy is and don't you ever let him see a doctor... using his own logic to highlight its absurdity.
Yes, Western religious rule, or any religious theocracy (including Islamic or Hindu) that is run by humans (the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Ayatollahs, Zwingli, Calvin) is a disaster in the making. The problem is it's *men* who rule -- there is no "theo" in those theocracies. As a Christian I believe God will - in the future - and in person - establish his rule on earth. Till then, its best we have a secular government, and have time to repent of our sins and the ability to freely follow our conscience.
Getting back to this topic - governments are put here for our protection. And for the protection of human beings in general - including unborn children. That's the basis of my position in this discussion.
OK so he made murder possible and yes, we are allowed to do it, it's just that we'll all be judged individually on our actions when he meet Him.
If there is no clear moral reason not to allow theraputic cloning then it should be left for each individuals concience.
There's nothing inherently wrong in theraputic cloning itself. If killing of embryos/fetuses is involved - *that* is evil.
I think cloning is fine IF no human life or fetuses were harmed, and the clonee had no genetic problems due to the cloning.
If you find killing of embryos/fetuses an acceptible payment for the benefits of theraputic cloning, your own conscience will condemn you when you meet God.
Posting up good post by AC: Then where does one draw the line? You are aware that the difference between a human foetus and a chimpansee foetus is barely detectable at the age abortions are done, right? But it comes down to the question "what is a human being?" A baby that is just born, we all agree that is a human being, even though its thought processes are truly minimal. An unfertilised egg with a sperm cell right next to it, 95+ percent of people would agree is not a human being. So where in between those two extremes does it stop being a bunch of cells, and start being a human being?
That's the point. Most of us agree the baby is human. But most either don't know for sure, or can't agree when the sperm turned human. The one thing we do know is that the baby didn't just suddenly turn from non-human to human in the delivery room - it must have been human *before* it was delivered. So first, lets do no harm -- lets treat it as human from the time of conception.
Find out who this guy is and don't you ever let him see a doctor:-P Same applies to those who don't agree with the research. Save them in a database and if they ever need the results of the rechearch to survive... Tell them to pray:-P
Heh, here I am. Gee - a religion/atheism benefits race. Mine versus yours. Yay!
By your logic, you should not be at this site. (Slashcode --> Perl --> Larry Wall)
Or hey, you should not benefits from the research that allows a chip-fab to be built in the first place (Basic physics--> Issac Newton).
Seriously though, if I am dying, and a doctor says "gee, we've gonna have to use aborted baby parts for stem cells for a transfusion" I'd refuse because of the source of the body parts. And yes, I'd pray.:)
NOTE:
I don't think all stem cells research is evil (eg: baby cord blood stem cells are just great).
I think cloning is fine IF no human life or fetuses were harmed, and the clonee had no genetic problems due to the cloning.
It's just the killing of babies/fetueses that is evil.
Your problem is man dies - as you will, someday. Your shining diety has clay feet.
Lets say you don't fear death - but what about God who judges after death? Your disbelief in him won't help a whit on the last day.
don't tell me what my doctor can or cannot do.
Sure, you doctor can do generally what he wants with himself, or with consenting adults.
But the government is within its rights in protecting fetuses/infants who cannot enforce their own rights. And it can/should tell you or your doctor that. You don't take one life to give it to another, dribbling colostomy or not.
Science didn't make great progress through disbelief in God. Scientific research is a *great* use of our brain which God gave us. Newton though so, Larry Wall thinks so. Belief in God helped, not hindered, them. I think that it's just that society has hit a certain level of knowledge and that fed itself like a chain reaction. [ Just a note: the 2400 year old Book of Daniel in the Bible says that in the "last days" (which Christians believe is the age we are in) "knowledge shall increase" and people shall travel widely.]
Atheists make scientific discoveries that benefit people - that's great. I don't disagree science has benefited me. I sit typing on a computer and scientists like Newton (physics) to Larry Wall (Slashcode is written in Perl), *and* several atheists, have helped make this possible.
But governments are sometimes perfectly within their rights enforcing what we can or cannot do. Killing human fetuses and using body parts in the name of science, is a *terrible* use of our brains. We should not do it - period. As you examine the facts about abortion, let alone religion, your conscience (which God gave you) should be whispering quietly "hey, this is wrong".
If it's a choice between your survival or mine, take a wild guess where you rank.
... Now try again.
Oh no, the "youre-wrong-because-im-really-selfish" argument again.
I thank God that my survival is *not* in your hands. It's in God's. And he's chosen to put an effective government in charge for my protection. Not you.
So, no... I won't "try again". You need to try again though.
Oh no, the invisible man in the sky said no. Listen, the portion of the population that isn't completely insane is trying to solve real problems that praying wont fix. So stop using superstition as a reason to halt progress.
Oh no, look: another scientist-type insufferably arrogant about atheism.
Grow up - the portion that prays also solves real problems and help real people. You know, people like Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Boyle, Larry Wall...
If I had a disease which could potentially be cured through some kind of research, but someone else wants to prohibit that research on religious grounds, they are as guilty of murder as "christian" "scientist" "parents" who withhold treatment from their sick children (won't someone please think of the children?) for religious reasons.Bah
What research? As another stupid poster bluntly pointed out, "research on stem cells gathered from aborted fetuses" - that research.
Your granny, or superman, or anyone else is a valued human being. They should be helped through research. But gee, the knowing destruction of unborn babies is wrong - then using those body parts, fresh from the slaugter... that's just a bit too far.
If superman, or your grandparent are to be helped without regard to human life killed while doing so, that is far worse than not helping at all.
One last thing - like your grandmother, my paternal grandma died of Alzhimers. This fact does not make either of us any more virtuous, or our arguments any stronger. And yes, in the afterlife, I am prepared to tell both grannies what I just wrote.
> There're problems with SC-s but they're > certainly better than magnetic strip cards.
I agree that smartcards are light-years ahead of magnetic stripe cards.
> I'm affraid you're DEADLY wrong. While > smartcards aren't perfect they're certainly cure > for skimming, false frontends and other > low-tech frauds.
Maybe I used the word "false front" inaccurately. But an SC won't stop some of the frauds mentioned in the article.
> SC (smartcard) has private RSA key. Once it is > loaded it can't be recovered. SC does all crypto > but only when correct PIN is entered. Enter > wrong PIN 10 times and SC will burn itself. Once > the SC signed and encrypted message for the > authorization server, there's no way to alter it > UNLESS you know private key. Sorry.
You're right. But the real problem is that the SC has no way of checking with *you* if the amount it is signing for is correct. Both the amount and the PIN are fed to it via the ATM. A fake ATM could ask your card to authorize a withdrawal of $1000 when you only asked for a $20 withdrawal. It then can pocket the difference, and leave you none the wiser.
Even smartcards are not a solution.
on
Fake ATM Fraud Expose
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Hmm.. The problem is that ATM cards can be so easily forged.
Banks should switch to contactless cards with a tiny processor and display that (a) stays in control of the user at all times, and (b) allows the user to authorise *individual* cash/ATM transactions. It would be akin to a small palm-pilot with public-key cryotography and an IRDA link, but credit card sized, so it fit in your wallet... or is built into your wallet. The only way this could be defeated is by breaking the crypto, or by capturing the device itself and obtaining it's password.
Without an interface on a device in your control, even smart-cards can be defeated by the "false-front" ATMs mentioned in this article (you withdraw $20, the "false-front" ATM actually withdraws $1000, dispenses $20, and pockets the $980 difference).
The only downsides are that people will complain about not being able to set their from address when they are using different isps. Personally, I don't see that as a problem, I belive the "from" address should be the equilavent of an electonic postmark, and if you want to set the return address you should used the sender or reply-to field instead.
It seems like Yahoo's proposal will allow alternate/fake 'From' addresses to still work - it just depends on the policies of the sender's ISP. It requires the sender's SMTP server to digitally sign each email it delivers - the receiver can verify those signatures via public keys stored in the DNS.
So if the ISP of the person who created the email is OK with his 'From' address, it will sign and deliver the email to the receiving SMTP server (mail transport agent). The receiving SMTP server then verifies the signature from DNS records. So it is really a transport level (not sender-level) verification.
This way, email-forwarding (which is quite useful) will still work. I believe this may also be a requirement for organizations that delegate mail delivery to servers in different domains (eg: mail from 'john.smith@att.com' delivered through 'attmail.com') or outsource their email management to other companies.
So I believe the important thing about this proposal is not sender verification - it is the digital signature - evidence toward non-repudiation of sending the emails that can stand in a court of law.
The intriguing thing is the requirement for the signature in the header of *each* email, rather than in the *SMTP* protocol exchange itself. If the signature was sent at the start of the SMTP protocol exchange, (perhaps in HELO...), it could suffice to authentication the entire session with one signature - this would be quite efficient. (This post, got me thinking in this direction. )
However, since Yahoo's proposal puts the signature in the header of *each* email, each email *client* (mail user agent) can now do the verification with a simple DNS lookup, and has evidence for non-repudiation available to it - intriguing. So a plug-in for Outlook or pine could do the non-repudiation check.
Of course, the signature means that the sender's *ISP* (not the user) cannot deny that the message originated from it - at least it cannot repudiate that without updating it's public/private key pair (which will be logged in DNS caches around the world). Depending on the sending ISP's policies, this could be the basis of non-repudiation of authorship of the email.
Seems like we're moving toward a world where you can't send email unless you:
control a domain yourself
have permission to use an ISP's SMTP server which will digitally sign the email delivery
So no more "cool" demonstrations of "telnet port 25" to show how easily email can be forged.:)
Unfortunately, Yahoo's solution probably won't help much. The bar for spammers is raised only a little - they may now have to spend double the money they spent earlier. This is why I think so: up until now, a spammer only had to control an ISP user account - then spam and ditch the account. Now they have to control a user account, and a domain. With prices for both being identical per spam/ditch incident ($30/ month for user account, $30/year for DNS entries), their costs double at worst. The costs for generating the public/private keypair, cryptography, are essentially zero, being done open-sourced software. Safeguards like checking the age the domain as per whois records can be defeated by the spammer bulk-buying domains, keeping them 'dormant' for a long time, then using them up one-by-one.
The only solution to spam is generating a fresh email address for each end-party that you communicate with. When one address is compromised, send an email notifier to the end-party saying the address used to communicate with you is changing (the end-party would need to authenticate this). Then ditch the old address.
1. Teach them to email online. Offline mailing is a false efficiency, all you're doing is delaying the sending.
You're wrong - offline mailing is efficient, especially for old folks who take *eons* writing long mails to loved ones, hunting and pecking at the keys. If they used online mailing, the phone line would be tied up for long periods doing nothing. It's far more efficient typing, then sending and receiving in one call. The OP has a perfectly valid point and response.
"You need people who keep creating companies and lusting after wealth"
Wrong - we don't. Just people who work honestly. "The *love* of money is the root of all evil." (Jesus Christ in the gospels). Note: it's not money that is evil (it's is just a tool), but "the love of money".
I imagine an economy would function well without greed as a driver. But you can't legislate away greed - it's human nature - instead, the economies of the world attempt to regulate it.
I'd go down the list of weapons used in homicides and apply it to those first...
"The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, which compiles FBI crime data, reports that there were 125 homicides in Massachusetts in 2000 and that 47.5 percent of them were committed with a gun. By contrast, the 2002 FBI data for Louisiana, a state with a population one third smaller than Massachusetts, recorded 560 homicides, 73.7 percent of which were committed with a gun."
"It's no coincidence that we have the toughest gun-safety laws the lowest gun-death rate in the country," said Massachusetts State Senator Cheryl Jacques, a longtime leading force for stronger gun laws in the state." Link
Just thought I'd fill in...:)
Also, I believe in the US, convicted felons are never again allowed the vote and to possess guns.
If you're so concerned about saving lives, then why don't you carry a GPS with you and read off the numbers to the 911 operator. That should be his choice. All he is saying (and he is correct, of course) is that cell phone triangulation can save lives.
There's no reason for them to know where you are unless you want them to. He wants them to.
Cell phone companies already know roughly which zone your cell-phone is in (if it is turned on). And there are laws to protect privacy, etc.
If you don't want the cell company to know where you are, turn your phone off.
If you cut and paste the two "microsoft.com" URLs from the article I linked, you'll see one works and the other doesn't, but both look identical. The dummy link could be sent in an email, or even put up temporarily on a website - and point to an exactly mirrored fake Microsoft site with a dummy "virus patch".
Note, regular X.509 certificate don't help (Verisign will just be issue one to the dummy site). Only code-signing procedures that check for Microsoft's signature will work.
The website would still display properly - only the address bar would be affected.
In the case of a user using the default ASCII character set, this is so he is alerted that the DNS name in the UTF-8 URL he cut and pasted in his address bar really translates to a different DNS name in ASCII. Perhaps the UTF-8 rendering could be displayed in a floating popup next to the "ASCII-translated" URL. (IIRC, DNS names are ASCII.)
In the case of a Russian web user - his default character set would be Cyrillic, so typing Cyrillic URLs would be no problem. The problem would be typing ASCII URLs, but they can always change their default character set on the fly. I guess in this case, the popup data would be interchanged. This would also allow, say, a Russian web user to use Kanji URLs.:)
Well you're wrong - they have the right to publicise Apple's *official response* without having to breathlessly checking Apple's site every 10 minutes to see if Apple reduced prices.
I wonder how many people Apple milked when it was still charging $250.
Saying "yes" right away only gets you many, many more "complaints". That's why you should consider the issue carefully before saying anything. Saying "No" automatically is a bad attitude.
Slashdot Mirror
attempting to credit religion for the benefits of scientific research ... using his own logic to highlight its absurdity.
No, but you just setup and tore down a strawman. I am not attempting to credit religion for science. I am just replying to someone who said:
Find out who this guy is and don't you ever let him see a doctor
Yes, Western religious rule, or any religious theocracy (including Islamic or Hindu) that is run by humans (the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Ayatollahs, Zwingli, Calvin) is a disaster in the making. The problem is it's *men* who rule -- there is no "theo" in those theocracies. As a Christian I believe God will - in the future - and in person - establish his rule on earth. Till then, its best we have a secular government, and have time to repent of our sins and the ability to freely follow our conscience.
Getting back to this topic - governments are put here for our protection. And for the protection of human beings in general - including unborn children. That's the basis of my position in this discussion.
OK so he made murder possible and yes, we are allowed to do it, it's just that we'll all be judged individually on our actions when he meet Him.
If there is no clear moral reason not to allow theraputic cloning then it should be left for each individuals concience.
There's nothing inherently wrong in theraputic cloning itself. If killing of embryos/fetuses is involved - *that* is evil.
I think cloning is fine IF no human life or fetuses were harmed, and the clonee had no genetic problems due to the cloning.
If you find killing of embryos/fetuses an acceptible payment for the benefits of theraputic cloning, your own conscience will condemn you when you meet God.
Posting up good post by AC:
Then where does one draw the line? You are aware that the difference between a human foetus and a chimpansee foetus is barely detectable at the age abortions are done, right? But it comes down to the question "what is a human being?" A baby that is just born, we all agree that is a human being, even though its thought processes are truly minimal. An unfertilised egg with a sperm cell right next to it, 95+ percent of people would agree is not a human being. So where in between those two extremes does it stop being a bunch of cells, and start being a human being?
That's the point. Most of us agree the baby is human. But most either don't know for sure, or can't agree when the sperm turned human. The one thing we do know is that the baby didn't just suddenly turn from non-human to human in the delivery room - it must have been human *before* it was delivered.
So first, lets do no harm -- lets treat it as human from the time of conception.
Find out who this guy is and don't you ever let him see a doctor :-P Same applies to those who don't agree with the research. Save them in a database and if they ever need the results of the rechearch to survive... Tell them to pray :-P
:)
Heh, here I am. Gee - a religion/atheism benefits race. Mine versus yours. Yay!
By your logic, you should not be at this site.
(Slashcode --> Perl --> Larry Wall)
Or hey, you should not benefits from the research that allows a chip-fab to be built in the first place
(Basic physics--> Issac Newton).
Seriously though, if I am dying, and a doctor says "gee, we've gonna have to use aborted baby parts for stem cells for a transfusion" I'd refuse because of the source of the body parts. And yes, I'd pray.
NOTE:
I don't think all stem cells research is evil (eg: baby cord blood stem cells are just great).
I think cloning is fine IF no human life or fetuses were harmed, and the clonee had no genetic problems due to the cloning.
It's just the killing of babies/fetueses that is evil.
I don't believe in your god; I believe in Man.
/should tell you or your doctor that. You don't take one life to give it to another, dribbling colostomy or not.
Your problem is man dies - as you will, someday. Your shining diety has clay feet.
Lets say you don't fear death - but what about God who judges after death? Your disbelief in him won't help a whit on the last day.
don't tell me what my doctor can or cannot do.
Sure, you doctor can do generally what he wants with himself, or with consenting adults.
But the government is within its rights in protecting fetuses/infants who cannot enforce their own rights. And it can
I'm glad you accept scientists can be Christian.
Science didn't make great progress through disbelief in God. Scientific research is a *great* use of our brain which God gave us. Newton though so, Larry Wall thinks so. Belief in God helped, not hindered, them. I think that it's just that society has hit a certain level of knowledge and that fed itself like a chain reaction. [ Just a note: the 2400 year old Book of Daniel in the Bible says that in the "last days" (which Christians believe is the age we are in) "knowledge shall increase" and people shall travel widely.]
Atheists make scientific discoveries that benefit people - that's great. I don't disagree science has benefited me. I sit typing on a computer and scientists like Newton (physics) to Larry Wall (Slashcode is written in Perl), *and* several atheists, have helped make this possible.
But governments are sometimes perfectly within their rights enforcing what we can or cannot do. Killing human fetuses and using body parts in the name of science, is a *terrible* use of our brains. We should not do it - period. As you examine the facts about abortion, let alone religion, your conscience (which God gave you) should be whispering quietly "hey, this is wrong".
If it's a choice between your survival or mine, take a wild guess where you rank.
...
Now try again.
Oh no, the "youre-wrong-because-im-really-selfish" argument again.
I thank God that my survival is *not* in your hands. It's in God's. And he's chosen to put an effective government in charge for my protection. Not you.
So, no... I won't "try again". You need to try again though.
Oh no, the invisible man in the sky said no. Listen, the portion of the population that isn't completely insane is trying to solve real problems that praying wont fix. So stop using superstition as a reason to halt progress.
Oh no, look: another scientist-type insufferably arrogant about atheism.
Grow up - the portion that prays also solves real problems and help real people. You know, people like Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Boyle, Larry Wall...
Bah 2 U!
.
If I had a disease which could potentially be cured through some kind of research, but someone else wants to prohibit that research on religious grounds, they are as guilty of murder as "christian" "scientist" "parents" who withhold treatment from their sick children (won't someone please think of the children?) for religious reasons.Bah
What research? As another stupid poster bluntly pointed out, "research on stem cells gathered from aborted fetuses" - that research
Your granny, or superman, or anyone else is a valued human being. They should be helped through research. But gee, the knowing destruction of unborn babies is wrong - then using those body parts, fresh from the slaugter... that's just a bit too far.
If superman, or your grandparent are to be helped without regard to human life killed while doing so, that is far worse than not helping at all.
One last thing - like your grandmother, my paternal grandma died of Alzhimers. This fact does not make either of us any more virtuous, or our arguments any stronger. And yes, in the afterlife, I am prepared to tell both grannies what I just wrote.
If you saw a homeless guy who was starving to death, and you could save his life by giving him ten dollars, would you have an obligation to?
Yes.
You could use 2 mice at the same time. The non-primary buttons could toggle you into navigation mode.
:)
Left mouse:
left-click + 2D movement = movement
Right mouse:
right-click + 2D movement = "mouse look"
Two-handed manipulation of the environment would be possible. With scroll mice, other degrees of control are possible.
Finally, games could as easily be "build 'em ups" as "shoot 'em ups".
[Cntrl]+[alt]+[+} or [cntrl]+[alt]+[-]
He means resolution of the actual screen, not a virtual screen that you scroll around in.
IIRC, X supports what he wants now, but the support is fairly recent (2 years), compared to Windows support (I think since Windows 95)
> There're problems with SC-s but they're
> certainly better than magnetic strip cards.
I agree that smartcards are light-years ahead of magnetic stripe cards.
> I'm affraid you're DEADLY wrong. While
> smartcards aren't perfect they're certainly cure
> for skimming, false frontends and other
> low-tech frauds.
Maybe I used the word "false front" inaccurately. But an SC won't stop some of the frauds mentioned in the article.
> SC (smartcard) has private RSA key. Once it is
> loaded it can't be recovered. SC does all crypto
> but only when correct PIN is entered. Enter
> wrong PIN 10 times and SC will burn itself. Once
> the SC signed and encrypted message for the
> authorization server, there's no way to alter it
> UNLESS you know private key. Sorry.
You're right. But the real problem is that the SC has no way of checking with *you* if the amount it is signing for is correct. Both the amount and the PIN are fed to it via the ATM. A fake ATM could ask your card to authorize a withdrawal of $1000 when you only asked for a $20 withdrawal.
It then can pocket the difference, and leave you none the wiser.
Hmm.. The problem is that ATM cards can be so easily forged.
Banks should switch to contactless cards with a tiny processor and display that (a) stays in control of the user at all times, and (b) allows the user to authorise *individual* cash/ATM transactions. It would be akin to a small palm-pilot with public-key cryotography and an IRDA link, but credit card sized, so it fit in your wallet... or is built into your wallet. The only way this could be defeated is by breaking the crypto, or by capturing the device itself and obtaining it's password.
Without an interface on a device in your control, even smart-cards can be defeated by the "false-front" ATMs mentioned in this article (you withdraw $20, the "false-front" ATM actually withdraws $1000, dispenses $20, and pockets the $980 difference).
It seems like Yahoo's proposal will allow alternate/fake 'From' addresses to still work - it just depends on the policies of the sender's ISP. It requires the sender's SMTP server to digitally sign each email it delivers - the receiver can verify those signatures via public keys stored in the DNS.
So if the ISP of the person who created the email is OK with his 'From' address, it will sign and deliver the email to the receiving SMTP server (mail transport agent). The receiving SMTP server then verifies the signature from DNS records. So it is really a transport level (not sender-level) verification.
This way, email-forwarding (which is quite useful) will still work. I believe this may also be a requirement for organizations that delegate mail delivery to servers in different domains (eg: mail from 'john.smith@att.com' delivered through 'attmail.com') or outsource their email management to other companies.
So I believe the important thing about this proposal is not sender verification - it is the digital signature - evidence toward non-repudiation of sending the emails that can stand in a court of law.
The intriguing thing is the requirement for the signature in the header of *each* email, rather than in the *SMTP* protocol exchange itself. If the signature was sent at the start of the SMTP protocol exchange, (perhaps in HELO
However, since Yahoo's proposal puts the signature in the header of *each* email, each email *client* (mail user agent) can now do the verification with a simple DNS lookup, and has evidence for non-repudiation available to it - intriguing. So a plug-in for Outlook or pine could do the non-repudiation check.
Of course, the signature means that the sender's *ISP* (not the user) cannot deny that the message originated from it - at least it cannot repudiate that without updating it's public/private key pair (which will be logged in DNS caches around the world). Depending on the sending ISP's policies, this could be the basis of non-repudiation of authorship of the email.
Seems like we're moving toward a world where you can't send email unless you:
So no more "cool" demonstrations of "telnet port 25" to show how easily email can be forged.
Unfortunately, Yahoo's solution probably won't help much. The bar for spammers is raised only a little - they may now have to spend double the money they spent earlier. This is why I think so: up until now, a spammer only had to control an ISP user account - then spam and ditch the account. Now they have to control a user account, and a domain. With prices for both being identical per spam/ditch incident ($30/ month for user account, $30/year for DNS entries), their costs double at worst. The costs for generating the public/private keypair, cryptography, are essentially zero, being done open-sourced software. Safeguards like checking the age the domain as per whois records can be defeated by the spammer bulk-buying domains, keeping them 'dormant' for a long time, then using them up one-by-one.
The only solution to spam is generating a fresh email address for each end-party that you communicate with. When one address is compromised, send an email notifier to the end-party saying the address used to communicate with you is changing (the end-party would need to authenticate this). Then ditch the old address.
I was wrong. Good point - thanks!
:)
No, Australian ADSL/cable services don't tie up the phone.
I was thinking of Bigpond dialup.
1. Teach them to email online. Offline mailing is a false efficiency, all you're doing is delaying the sending.
You're wrong - offline mailing is efficient, especially for old folks who take *eons* writing long mails to loved ones, hunting and pecking at the keys. If they used online mailing, the phone line would be tied up for long periods doing nothing. It's far more efficient typing, then sending and receiving in one call. The OP has a perfectly valid point and response.
Correction - the 2nd sentence should have read: "We just need people who work honestly."
"You need people who keep creating companies and lusting after wealth"
Wrong - we don't. Just people who work honestly. "The *love* of money is the root of all evil." (Jesus Christ in the gospels). Note: it's not money that is evil (it's is just a tool), but "the love of money".
I imagine an economy would function well without greed as a driver. But you can't legislate away greed - it's human nature - instead, the economies of the world attempt to regulate it.
I'd go down the list of weapons used in homicides and apply it to those first...
:)
"The federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, which compiles FBI crime data, reports that there were 125 homicides in Massachusetts in 2000 and that 47.5 percent of them were committed with a gun. By contrast, the 2002 FBI data for Louisiana, a state with a population one third smaller than Massachusetts, recorded 560 homicides, 73.7 percent of which were committed with a gun."
"It's no coincidence that we have the toughest gun-safety laws the lowest gun-death rate in the country," said Massachusetts State Senator Cheryl Jacques, a longtime leading force for stronger gun laws in the state."
Link
Just thought I'd fill in...
Also, I believe in the US, convicted felons are never again allowed the vote and to possess guns.
If you're so concerned about saving lives, then why don't you carry a GPS with you and read off the numbers to the 911 operator.
That should be his choice. All he is saying (and he is correct, of course) is that cell phone triangulation can save lives.
There's no reason for them to know where you are unless you want them to.
He wants them to.
Cell phone companies already know roughly which zone your cell-phone is in (if it is turned on). And there are laws to protect privacy, etc.
If you don't want the cell company to know where you are, turn your phone off.
Well, for a regular user, the choice really boils down to these alternatives:
.
1. Be pestered (actually an unobtrusive tooltip floating next to the address bar is what I had in mind),
2. Have no way of defeating a homograph attack
If you cut and paste the two "microsoft.com" URLs from the article I linked, you'll see one works and the other doesn't, but both look identical. The dummy link could be sent in an email, or even put up temporarily on a website - and point to an exactly mirrored fake Microsoft site with a dummy "virus patch".
Note, regular X.509 certificate don't help (Verisign will just be issue one to the dummy site). Only code-signing procedures that check for Microsoft's signature will work.
The website would still display properly - only the address bar would be affected.
:)
In the case of a user using the default ASCII character set, this is so he is alerted that the DNS name in the UTF-8 URL he cut and pasted in his address bar really translates to a different DNS name in ASCII. Perhaps the UTF-8 rendering could be displayed in a floating popup next to the "ASCII-translated" URL. (IIRC, DNS names are ASCII.)
In the case of a Russian web user - his default character set would be Cyrillic, so typing Cyrillic URLs would be no problem. The problem would be typing ASCII URLs, but they can always change their default character set on the fly. I guess in this case, the popup data would be interchanged.
This would also allow, say, a Russian web user to use Kanji URLs.
Well you're wrong - they have the right to publicise Apple's *official response* without having to breathlessly checking Apple's site every 10 minutes to see if Apple reduced prices.
I wonder how many people Apple milked when it was still charging $250.
Saying "yes" right away only gets you many, many more "complaints".
That's why you should consider the issue carefully before saying anything.
Saying "No" automatically is a bad attitude.