Nor do they mention the extra bandwidth that will be used with their 100 ms updates.
Not only so, but the Wall Street Journal version of that story mentions that other malware services companies will be implementing similar models as well.
It just reminds me that the real problem is the current Microsoft hegemony on the desktop and uninformed internet users.
Thy sure didn't use common sense because common sense would have told them to look up what it means to copyright something before putting this into a bill.
Exactly. How do the creators of this portion of the law think their laws are not public domain? You know, 'government for the people by the people'; therefore any law created by the government is for and by the people and thus public domain.
Tell me, is there any oral tradition that can tell us the truth of a historical event?
Wha? Jason didn't... do... that?
I have to admin that that's a good challenge. I hadn't really thought about the content oral traditions seem to deal with. I don't think the veracity of the content changes the model's potential (or known record) for consistency.
It has to be said that Biblical Archeology has been working very hard at finding the factual history of the Bible - which has portions that began as oral traditions.
Take Noah's flood: all oral traditions has a story about a(n important) flood. There is global geological evidence that is attributed to the flood (by those who believe it is historical).
Take the story of Abraham: his story was first passed on orally. Factual? Depends on what you believe. Did Sodom and Gomorrah exist? Inquiring archaeologists want to know.
If one believes the Bible, then yes, there are oral traditions of historical facts.
I'm not sure you want to hear this, but here it goes:
There's a day you were born.
There's a day when you will die.
I gave you more than you demanded.
I actually have a very rigorous definition of faith, so I can say quite categorically that my belief in evolution is not based on faith.
You don't even believe facts are facts. That, instead, facts are actually 'theories'. (Even though you didn't explain why you believe that.) Why do you want to also change/hold your own definition of faith? It's probably just a theory - that way you really don't have to commit to it nor standby it - lest you be wrong and have to backtrack or something. Why do you bother going on about YOU believing in anything that's truth?
belief in an Intelligent Designer
That title almost an belittles to the One who not only fills eternity but understands, can control (bring change in and to), and very well did design, the infintesimal. (He's not some hands-off God who is far away, but is near every way.)
Would you say that the proposition "the sun will rise tomorrow" is a mere conjecture?
No, no, no, I would not call it 'mere' in any way. There have been waaay too many occurances of that event to call it 'mere' anything; it's occurred, observed or otherwise, for all our generations. Whether it will happen tomorrow? I believe it will whether I'm able to observe it or not. This is not conjecture - this is faith. Which is what I argue Evolution is as it relates to speciation.
We know that in humans...
Theories, theories, theories - there you go again with non-facts! (I hope that doesn't offend you - Just giving you a hard time.)
Ok. So, is what you're saying is that evolution does not have to produce a new species but it explains why there are different species?
Well, I must admit I was ignorant of this definition of evolution: merely change over time.
I still stand by my point that the E. coli strains are still the same, basic specie - which is ultimately where evolution started its definition: as an explanation of the origin of species. However, at the conclusion of cited observations the organism has changed in DNA - but not enough to make it grow flagella or become a multicelled organism or etc. The fact that these changed organisms can be reverted back shows that at their core they have not changed. A possible parallel is the skin differences in Humans - they can still bread with one another - they can share blood and organs: at their core they are still the same and able to adapt to many environments.
One example of human adaptability is that of the Peruvian and Bolivian Indians living around lake Titicaca - (I've heard that) it takes a few generations for people to adapt to the high altitude - that over each generation the lungs grow larger and thus the chest cavity. But at their core, they are still Human - but I bet their genome is different than most other Human's.
Not in New York City. This place does exponentially more small business in cash than I've seen any where in the United States.
Besides, the places where I see these minimums are strategically located (vis-a-vis Wall street) with their competition having the same policies. Also, New Yorkers are used to carrying more cash on their persons.
I just spoke with an old friend yesterday whose industry has conditioned him to consider $200.00 in cash as too little to be carrying around.
Your example does not show the change of one specie into another. THAT is what Evolution is - not your example of adaptive (to diet) changes.
Genetic change in humans can be as simple as children being better looking than their parents. This doesn't make them another species (though some parents might believe their children are another species for other reasons).
In the article they mention 24,000 generations of E. coli. Guess what? After 24,000 generations they are still E. coli; they haven't evolved into another specie they have merely adapted to their food cycle. Humans are capable of the same adaptive changes.
For example, there are multiple paths to becoming obese: food and the endocrine system. Then there are people who have adapted to eating very little food.
Ultimately, the article you linked to, shows that what they are doing is not the observation of one specie becoming another because they
...forced them to evolve back into [their original] form...
It seems the scientist who described the observed adaptations are stuck on proving Evolution instead of understanding the (adaptive) capacities of a species and have thus credited Evolution for what what is merely the natural ability of the E. coli specie.
I'm sure the business case you mention is applicable to most of the U.S. But, if you spend any time in New York City you'll find that there are many, many restaurants that only take cash or require a $10.00 or more purchase (think: $7.00 sandwich at lunch). They tend to be the more popular restaurants or where there are less choices.
You bring it to their attention for the sake of revealing the problems with RFIDs; that RFIDs can be avoided, not the companies pushing them.
Besides, I have recently found out that it is illegal for companies to change more for their products when the purchaser is using a credit card. I find this absolutely ridiculous and law that protects the credit card companies and not the consumer (well, at least not the retailers).
These kinds of laws end up forcing retailers to charge consumers prices with the expectation that EVERYONE is going to pay with a credit/debit card. Which in turn means they have to tack on an extra 2%-4% to each item so that the card processing companies can get their cut.
Yeah - Shutdown down a server - to go into single user mode or to boot off a USB distro - in order to access those files - WHILE there is a monitoring service on that server AND more than the sys-admins being notified when it goes down. That will get caught (depending on the diligence of the managers being notified).
Besides, all the data centers worth the data they are protecting have such systems and cameras to boot. It's the smaller companies, without budgets or understandings on how to protect such data, or mismanaged big companies, that fall prey to these kinds of access.
The above is not to say that physical security isn't the first line of all security, because it is, and that encryption can be a redundancy to that first line, because it can.
His example is valid in that the original would not have to be accessed in order to elicit corrections from those who have already heard, and thus are familiar with, the story.
Your scenario of 'all' copies of Star Wars being destroyed is erroneous in that a movie is not an oral tradition: where multiple generations would hear the same story repeated - with multiple generations being present at once - which would provide for greater accuracy (among cultures that value(d) accuracy).
Your explanation as to why to stick with 'hammering on the stuff within accepted science' is EXACTLY why 'The Gospel of Jesus Christ' is preached and not explained.
Slashdot Mirror
Nor do they mention the extra bandwidth that will be used with their 100 ms updates.
Not only so, but the Wall Street Journal version of that story mentions that other malware services companies will be implementing similar models as well.
It just reminds me that the real problem is the current Microsoft hegemony on the desktop and uninformed internet users.
Thy sure didn't use common sense because common sense would have told them to look up what it means to copyright something before putting this into a bill.
Did the Governator sign this into law?
Oh, man. Don't get our hopes up!
Exactly. How do the creators of this portion of the law think their laws are not public domain? You know, 'government for the people by the people'; therefore any law created by the government is for and by the people and thus public domain.
Wha? Jason didn't... do... that?
I have to admin that that's a good challenge. I hadn't really thought about the content oral traditions seem to deal with. I don't think the veracity of the content changes the model's potential (or known record) for consistency.
It has to be said that Biblical Archeology has been working very hard at finding the factual history of the Bible - which has portions that began as oral traditions.
Take Noah's flood: all oral traditions has a story about a(n important) flood. There is global geological evidence that is attributed to the flood (by those who believe it is historical).
Take the story of Abraham: his story was first passed on orally. Factual? Depends on what you believe. Did Sodom and Gomorrah exist? Inquiring archaeologists want to know.
If one believes the Bible, then yes, there are oral traditions of historical facts.
I think that 'minimum charge' thing might have to do with their card processor service agreement. I've never bothered to ask.
I'm not sure you want to hear this, but here it goes:
I gave you more than you demanded.
You don't even believe facts are facts. That, instead, facts are actually 'theories'. (Even though you didn't explain why you believe that.) Why do you want to also change/hold your own definition of faith? It's probably just a theory - that way you really don't have to commit to it nor standby it - lest you be wrong and have to backtrack or something. Why do you bother going on about YOU believing in anything that's truth?
That title almost an belittles to the One who not only fills eternity but understands, can control (bring change in and to), and very well did design, the infintesimal. (He's not some hands-off God who is far away, but is near every way.)
No, no, no, I would not call it 'mere' in any way. There have been waaay too many occurances of that event to call it 'mere' anything; it's occurred, observed or otherwise, for all our generations. Whether it will happen tomorrow? I believe it will whether I'm able to observe it or not. This is not conjecture - this is faith. Which is what I argue Evolution is as it relates to speciation.
Theories, theories, theories - there you go again with non-facts! (I hope that doesn't offend you - Just giving you a hard time.)
Ok. So, is what you're saying is that evolution does not have to produce a new species but it explains why there are different species?
Well, I must admit I was ignorant of this definition of evolution: merely change over time.
I still stand by my point that the E. coli strains are still the same, basic specie - which is ultimately where evolution started its definition: as an explanation of the origin of species. However, at the conclusion of cited observations the organism has changed in DNA - but not enough to make it grow flagella or become a multicelled organism or etc. The fact that these changed organisms can be reverted back shows that at their core they have not changed. A possible parallel is the skin differences in Humans - they can still bread with one another - they can share blood and organs: at their core they are still the same and able to adapt to many environments.
One example of human adaptability is that of the Peruvian and Bolivian Indians living around lake Titicaca - (I've heard that) it takes a few generations for people to adapt to the high altitude - that over each generation the lungs grow larger and thus the chest cavity. But at their core, they are still Human - but I bet their genome is different than most other Human's.
But they are still Human.
Crazy New York news casters: why would they say it was illegal for a company to change a different price for using credit?
That aside: You wouldn't be saying that business expenses do not get passed on to consumers? Would you?
Not in New York City. This place does exponentially more small business in cash than I've seen any where in the United States.
Besides, the places where I see these minimums are strategically located (vis-a-vis Wall street) with their competition having the same policies. Also, New Yorkers are used to carrying more cash on their persons.
I just spoke with an old friend yesterday whose industry has conditioned him to consider $200.00 in cash as too little to be carrying around.
Your example does not show the change of one specie into another. THAT is what Evolution is - not your example of adaptive (to diet) changes.
Genetic change in humans can be as simple as children being better looking than their parents. This doesn't make them another species (though some parents might believe their children are another species for other reasons).
In the article they mention 24,000 generations of E. coli. Guess what? After 24,000 generations they are still E. coli ; they haven't evolved into another specie they have merely adapted to their food cycle. Humans are capable of the same adaptive changes.
For example, there are multiple paths to becoming obese: food and the endocrine system. Then there are people who have adapted to eating very little food.
Ultimately, the article you linked to, shows that what they are doing is not the observation of one specie becoming another because they
It seems the scientist who described the observed adaptations are stuck on proving Evolution instead of understanding the (adaptive) capacities of a species and have thus credited Evolution for what what is merely the natural ability of the E. coli specie.
I'm sure the business case you mention is applicable to most of the U.S. But, if you spend any time in New York City you'll find that there are many, many restaurants that only take cash or require a $10.00 or more purchase (think: $7.00 sandwich at lunch). They tend to be the more popular restaurants or where there are less choices.
You bring it to their attention for the sake of revealing the problems with RFIDs; that RFIDs can be avoided, not the companies pushing them.
Besides, I have recently found out that it is illegal for companies to change more for their products when the purchaser is using a credit card. I find this absolutely ridiculous and law that protects the credit card companies and not the consumer (well, at least not the retailers).
These kinds of laws end up forcing retailers to charge consumers prices with the expectation that EVERYONE is going to pay with a credit/debit card. Which in turn means they have to tack on an extra 2%-4% to each item so that the card processing companies can get their cut.
Really? There are direct observations of that?
Why do you treat your 'theory' as if it were fact? It's complete conjecture. No, it's actually your faith.
Sure they should: you reap what you sow.
Looks like it's time for a grassroots movement by us:
Perhaps, only perhaps, the hard part will be communicating this problem succinctly.
Yeah - Shutdown down a server - to go into single user mode or to boot off a USB distro - in order to access those files - WHILE there is a monitoring service on that server AND more than the sys-admins being notified when it goes down. That will get caught (depending on the diligence of the managers being notified).
Besides, all the data centers worth the data they are protecting have such systems and cameras to boot. It's the smaller companies, without budgets or understandings on how to protect such data, or mismanaged big companies, that fall prey to these kinds of access.
The above is not to say that physical security isn't the first line of all security, because it is, and that encryption can be a redundancy to that first line, because it can.
His example is valid in that the original would not have to be accessed in order to elicit corrections from those who have already heard, and thus are familiar with, the story.
Your scenario of 'all' copies of Star Wars being destroyed is erroneous in that a movie is not an oral tradition: where multiple generations would hear the same story repeated - with multiple generations being present at once - which would provide for greater accuracy (among cultures that value(d) accuracy).
Carbon has had it's problems without this being introduced.
I think it more pertinent as to how this affects Argon dating methods.
Hatred is murder.
You're a murderer.
Do you know if that is true even when you use: https://mail.google.com/ to login?
True.
I've heard that Dallas/Fort Worth is the largest metro area without a major water way supporting it.
(Also, Arlington, the 3rd largest city in that metroplex, is the largest U.S. city without public transportation.)
Your explanation as to why to stick with 'hammering on the stuff within accepted science' is EXACTLY why 'The Gospel of Jesus Christ' is preached and not explained.
*shrug*
But, it was certainly the BSOD seen around the world.
...it's human nature.