With already over 2/3 of computers running the spyware CoolWebSearch, this could be implemented tomorrow by buying that spyware company, and requiring Microsoft to preinstall it, and thus any hack to take it off the computer would be a violation of the DMCA.
...or people who can only click to gain acceptance, will gain more mainstream acceptance from people other than their peers. People who are social hermits may find this is yet another way to connect with society in a way that doesn't leave them feeling exposed. And now everyone can be like Captain Pike in Star Trek, beeping from his wheelchair.
I was never one to shy away from answering questions in class, and I'd answer my classmate's questions too if they wanted help and the teacher was busy. One time a classmate asked in social studies, "What's pre-contact?" in reference to the pre-Columbian period in North America. I looked at her with a straight face, and said, "foreplay".
If you get something wrong, it isn't the end of the world, you aren't controlling the shuttle, you're in grade 10 math class. Ask questions, it helps me stay awake in class too.
...thread. I accidentially posted this to the Telus censorship thread before. ++++
Creationism vs. Evolution - The winner lives to spread its genes [or God will choose the winner, pending the outcome].
This term "creation science" refers to some people's mistaken belief that if you put the word "science" after "creationism", that it factualizes the idea that God created all existance down to your very own ribs. One creationist person claimed that scientists who theorize that advanced life was grown from simple organisms billions of years ago are essentially trying to fool us all and denying God the glory of modern creation. To them, the irrational theory is that nature found a way to evolve into higher life forms, by itself. Some creationists insist that God was required to "intelligently design humans, their eyeballs, and the rest. These people support an aggravating sect of creationism called "Intelligent Design". It's aggravating because it purports to be science, when it is in fact an argument against the scientific method. And less sophisticated creationists seek to mystify the already mysterious, by saying that evolution is a total sham. They come up with absurd analogies they claim disprove the likelyhood of evolution being possible. Never mind the evolutions seen in some species, and especially microorganisms within the past few generations of humans. The thing I've found their analogies most often lack, is a comprehension of the sheer magnitude of time involved for most visible evolutions to take place.
Here is one such misguided analogy: cizzors (194 )"There's a big difference in evolving within a species and all species evolving from one glob of gunk.... Kind of like waiting for a rock to become a Rolex...... "
And my answer is the difference is called billions of years. 1 billion is 1000 millions. 1 million is 1000 thousands. A thousand years is a long time, and clearly your brain has trouble with it enough that you think you can comprehend the changes during it enough to rationalize away the possibility of dramatic evolutionary changes. Try loosening up that brain of yours, and realize that a 1000, 1000, thousands is a long long time for things to happen. And there have been four of those 1000, 1000, thousands since the earth was here.
Quit being so sure of literal interpretations of a 2000 year old religious book, and put some faith in the incomprehensible. Not everything can be understood by the human mind in the way that it exists in nature. The world is a big place, and time is even bigger. Show me someone who says they know every detail of everything in the world that ever existed, and I'll show you God [or someone who thinks they are God].
Why creationists bug me, is because they claim that because the details of evolution are so hard for them to comprehend, that the whole evolutionary model is no good. It's not at all surprising to me that evolutionary details are hard to comprehend, since it's a theory that for the most part puts details into a black box. It's rare that we get to peek into this box where the changes actually happen before our eyes, but when we do it is an exciting and enlightening time.
The proof that evolution is real is standing in front of a mirror when you look at one, and in museums where there are fossil records of early hominids. Clearly there were human-like beings before there were modern humans, and clearly there are humans now, so obviously [at least to me] the proof is in the pudding. The hypocrisy of saying evolution is a fantasy that ignores reality, is that the only alternative to evolution is that a mystical being or aliens plunked fully developed modern lifeforms on earth after there being
My sincerest appology, I meant to of course post this to the Slashdot thread on the topic of Intelligent Design, and didn't notice my mistake.
Although if I wanted to pretend I erred on purpose, I could say I thought Telus would probably take a the side of the IDers and start blocking scientific websites.
I've asked people: Which theory is more rational and scientific?
1. The requirement of a mystical being that plunks us down, but doesn't explain observable facts?
2. The requirement of staggering amounts of time coupled with a drive to live, which amounts to a grand science experiment?
-- As with most debates, they take place in the Church too, and it's important for moderate Christans to stand up to the ignorant or extremely orthodox ones.
Creationism vs. Evolution - The winner lives to spread its genes [or God will choose the winner, pending the outcome].
This term "creation science" refers to some people's mistaken belief that if you put the word "science" after "creationism", that it factualizes the idea that God created all existance down to your very own ribs. One creationist person claimed that scientists who theorize that advanced life was grown from simple organisms billions of years ago are essentially trying to fool us all and denying God the glory of modern creation. To them, the irrational theory is that nature found a way to evolve into higher life forms, by itself. Some creationists insist that God was required to "intelligently design humans, their eyeballs, and the rest. These people support an aggravating sect of creationism called "Intelligent Design". It's aggravating because it purports to be science, when it is in fact an argument against the scientific method. And less sophisticated creationists seek to mystify the already mysterious, by saying that evolution is a total sham. They come up with absurd analogies they claim disprove the likelyhood of evolution being possible. Never mind the evolutions seen in some species, and especially microorganisms within the past few generations of humans. The thing I've found their analogies most often lack, is a comprehension of the sheer magnitude of time involved for most visible evolutions to take place.
Here is one such misguided analogy: cizzors (194 )"There's a big difference in evolving within a species and all species evolving from one glob of gunk.... Kind of like waiting for a rock to become a Rolex...... "
And my answer is the difference is called billions of years. 1 billion is 1000 millions. 1 million is 1000 thousands. A thousand years is a long time, and clearly your brain has trouble with it enough that you think you can comprehend the changes during it enough to rationalize away the possibility of dramatic evolutionary changes. Try loosening up that brain of yours, and realize that a 1000, 1000, thousands is a long long time for things to happen. And there have been four of those 1000, 1000, thousands since the earth was here.
Quit being so sure of literal interpretations of a 2000 year old religious book, and put some faith in the incomprehensible. Not everything can be understood by the human mind in the way that it exists in nature. The world is a big place, and time is even bigger. Show me someone who says they know every detail of everything in the world that ever existed, and I'll show you God [or someone who thinks they are God].
Why creationists bug me, is because they claim that because the details of evolution are so hard for them to comprehend, that the whole evolutionary model is no good. It's not at all surprising to me that evolutionary details are hard to comprehend, since it's a theory that for the most part puts details into a black box. It's rare that we get to peek into this box where the changes actually happen before our eyes, but when we do it is an exciting and enlightening time.
The proof that evolution is real is standing in front of a mirror when you look at one, and in museums where there are fossil records of early hominids. Clearly there were human-like beings before there were modern humans, and clearly there are humans now, so obviously [at least to me] the proof is in the pudding. The hypocrisy of saying evolution is a fantasy that ignores reality, is that the only alternative to evolution is that a mystical being or aliens plunked fully developed modern lifeforms on earth after there being billions of years of simpler life. To believe that, you must also ignore the similarities that ancient life such as trees, reptiles, and mammals have to their modern relatives. cizzors (194 ) Jul-21-05 21:38PDT If man evolved from apes,
But what remote technolgy do you use to remove the dust when it's found, or is it purely an observatory mission? I'd recommend a remote controlled flat vacuum I forget what the brandname is but it's something like ROOVER.
The atmosphere of oxygen will only provide a little bit more protection, perhaps from UV. But other radiation might need a magnetic field like the earth has.
After almost a decade of Internet broadcast exploration of Mars, it just makes sense to start exploring hard-to-reach places on our own planet with remote controls. Slap on some virtual reality goggles, and away they go. One small step for a scientist, one giant leap for man kind.
I'd patent the process by which a monopolistic company takes out patents on any conceivably useful electronic process, thereby stifling innovation and employing lawyers for the next thousand years.
Violence reduces population, and sex increases it. Perhaps this is why there is a taboo on sex these days, and not on violence? It could be a societial urge to depopulate our cities more...
What a waste. Not voting is no way to fight stupid politicians. Any vote that doesn't go against them, is a vote for them, they assume. Vote for a 3rd party, it isn't wasteful like sitting at home is, it shows that you're active in politics, but pissed off with the mainstream enough to vote for someone unlikely to gain power through democratic means.
I get the afternoon off, and I'm going on a date. That's a pretty darn good way to celebrate [although I admit the day wasn't marked in my Outlook calendar because of Sys-admin Appreciation Day (SAD)???].
For Kids By Kids, modelled after the racially insensitive clothing line FUBU?...Kids making the console games in 3rd World Nintendo sweatshops, so that other kids can play them. There's a certain sick irony in that which lets me know that one day it will become true.
"Shashdotters call b.s. on anything because they like to do this! They are natural born devil's advocates and kill-joys who look for the flaws in things. And it makes them happy, if not on the outside then deep on the geeky inside."
I call B.S. Let me be the devil's advocate and put to you that you're nitpicking on Slashdotters' habits.
"'Saul on the Run,' stands out in this regard, showing how a black hatter uses social engineering and numerous tools to get a valid birth certificate for someone else, and exactly how an attacker can intrude on a secured wireless residential network to explore private information. "
I think comprimising someone's birth certificate, and thus all government issued documents is a bit more serious than cracking a home network.
Unfortunately few people have "the balls" to do what is right when their jobs are on the line. If the DJ doesn't play what the station manager is told to play by the RIAA, I doubt they'll be employed for long.
When bribery fails, the RIAA will resort to blackmail, and simply stop sending popular music to the station if they don't meet their play quotas.
In Canada I'm glad we have minimum Canadian content play rules for music stations, it at least gives CIRA artists a chance here, and stations like the CBC that are funded by the government actually give welcome competition to corporate owned behemoths like Corus, Rawlco, Hollinger, and Clear Channel.
Slashdot Mirror
With already over 2/3 of computers running the spyware CoolWebSearch, this could be implemented tomorrow by buying that spyware company, and requiring Microsoft to preinstall it, and thus any hack to take it off the computer would be a violation of the DMCA.
Whenever I come across a computer with CWS I've cringed. It's good to learn of CWShredder, and hopefully that will make my life easier.
Now that story is out there, hopefully people will realize that spyware writers are no better than virus writers, and should be put into jail.
...or people who can only click to gain acceptance, will gain more mainstream acceptance from people other than their peers. People who are social hermits may find this is yet another way to connect with society in a way that doesn't leave them feeling exposed. And now everyone can be like Captain Pike in Star Trek, beeping from his wheelchair.
Cliquers either, don't understand them much too.
I was never one to shy away from answering questions in class, and I'd answer my classmate's questions too if they wanted help and the teacher was busy. One time a classmate asked in social studies, "What's pre-contact?" in reference to the pre-Columbian period in North America. I looked at her with a straight face, and said, "foreplay".
If you get something wrong, it isn't the end of the world, you aren't controlling the shuttle, you're in grade 10 math class. Ask questions, it helps me stay awake in class too.
...thread. I accidentially posted this to the Telus censorship thread before.
++++
Creationism vs. Evolution
- The winner lives to spread its genes [or God will choose the winner, pending the outcome].
This term "creation science" refers to some people's mistaken belief that if you put the word "science" after "creationism", that it factualizes the idea that God created all existance down to your very own ribs. One creationist person claimed that scientists who theorize that advanced life was grown from simple organisms billions of years ago are essentially trying to fool us all and denying God the glory of modern creation. To them, the irrational theory is that nature found a way to evolve into higher life forms, by itself. Some creationists insist that God was required to "intelligently design humans, their eyeballs, and the rest. These people support an aggravating sect of creationism called "Intelligent Design". It's aggravating because it purports to be science, when it is in fact an argument against the scientific method. And less sophisticated creationists seek to mystify the already mysterious, by saying that evolution is a total sham. They come up with absurd analogies they claim disprove the likelyhood of evolution being possible. Never mind the evolutions seen in some species, and especially microorganisms within the past few generations of humans. The thing I've found their analogies most often lack, is a comprehension of the sheer magnitude of time involved for most visible evolutions to take place.
Here is one such misguided analogy:
cizzors (194 )"There's a big difference in evolving within a species and all species evolving from one glob of gunk.... Kind of like waiting for a rock to become a Rolex...... "
And my answer is the difference is called billions of years. 1 billion is 1000 millions. 1 million is 1000 thousands. A thousand years is a long time, and clearly your brain has trouble with it enough that you think you can comprehend the changes during it enough to rationalize away the possibility of dramatic evolutionary changes. Try loosening up that brain of yours, and realize that a 1000, 1000, thousands is a long long time for things to happen. And there have been four of those 1000, 1000, thousands since the earth was here.
Quit being so sure of literal interpretations of a 2000 year old religious book, and put some faith in the incomprehensible. Not everything can be understood by the human mind in the way that it exists in nature. The world is a big place, and time is even bigger. Show me someone who says they know every detail of everything in the world that ever existed, and I'll show you God [or someone who thinks they are God].
Why creationists bug me, is because they claim that because the details of evolution are so hard for them to comprehend, that the whole evolutionary model is no good. It's not at all surprising to me that evolutionary details are hard to comprehend, since it's a theory that for the most part puts details into a black box. It's rare that we get to peek into this box where the changes actually happen before our eyes, but when we do it is an exciting and enlightening time.
The proof that evolution is real is standing in front of a mirror when you look at one, and in museums where there are fossil records of early hominids. Clearly there were human-like beings before there were modern humans, and clearly there are humans now, so obviously [at least to me] the proof is in the pudding. The hypocrisy of saying evolution is a fantasy that ignores reality, is that the only alternative to evolution is that a mystical being or aliens plunked fully developed modern lifeforms on earth after there being
My sincerest appology, I meant to of course post this to the Slashdot thread on the topic of Intelligent Design, and didn't notice my mistake.
Although if I wanted to pretend I erred on purpose, I could say I thought Telus would probably take a the side of the IDers and start blocking scientific websites.
I've asked people:
Which theory is more rational and scientific?
1. The requirement of a mystical being that plunks us down, but doesn't explain observable facts?
2. The requirement of staggering amounts of time coupled with a drive to live, which amounts to a grand science experiment?
--
As with most debates, they take place in the Church too, and it's important for moderate Christans to stand up to the ignorant or extremely orthodox ones.
Creationism vs. Evolution
- The winner lives to spread its genes [or God will choose the winner, pending the outcome].
This term "creation science" refers to some people's mistaken belief that if you put the word "science" after "creationism", that it factualizes the idea that God created all existance down to your very own ribs. One creationist person claimed that scientists who theorize that advanced life was grown from simple organisms billions of years ago are essentially trying to fool us all and denying God the glory of modern creation. To them, the irrational theory is that nature found a way to evolve into higher life forms, by itself. Some creationists insist that God was required to "intelligently design humans, their eyeballs, and the rest. These people support an aggravating sect of creationism called "Intelligent Design". It's aggravating because it purports to be science, when it is in fact an argument against the scientific method. And less sophisticated creationists seek to mystify the already mysterious, by saying that evolution is a total sham. They come up with absurd analogies they claim disprove the likelyhood of evolution being possible. Never mind the evolutions seen in some species, and especially microorganisms within the past few generations of humans. The thing I've found their analogies most often lack, is a comprehension of the sheer magnitude of time involved for most visible evolutions to take place.
Here is one such misguided analogy:
cizzors (194 )"There's a big difference in evolving within a species and all species evolving from one glob of gunk.... Kind of like waiting for a rock to become a Rolex...... "
And my answer is the difference is called billions of years. 1 billion is 1000 millions. 1 million is 1000 thousands. A thousand years is a long time, and clearly your brain has trouble with it enough that you think you can comprehend the changes during it enough to rationalize away the possibility of dramatic evolutionary changes. Try loosening up that brain of yours, and realize that a 1000, 1000, thousands is a long long time for things to happen. And there have been four of those 1000, 1000, thousands since the earth was here.
Quit being so sure of literal interpretations of a 2000 year old religious book, and put some faith in the incomprehensible. Not everything can be understood by the human mind in the way that it exists in nature. The world is a big place, and time is even bigger. Show me someone who says they know every detail of everything in the world that ever existed, and I'll show you God [or someone who thinks they are God].
Why creationists bug me, is because they claim that because the details of evolution are so hard for them to comprehend, that the whole evolutionary model is no good. It's not at all surprising to me that evolutionary details are hard to comprehend, since it's a theory that for the most part puts details into a black box. It's rare that we get to peek into this box where the changes actually happen before our eyes, but when we do it is an exciting and enlightening time.
The proof that evolution is real is standing in front of a mirror when you look at one, and in museums where there are fossil records of early hominids. Clearly there were human-like beings before there were modern humans, and clearly there are humans now, so obviously [at least to me] the proof is in the pudding. The hypocrisy of saying evolution is a fantasy that ignores reality, is that the only alternative to evolution is that a mystical being or aliens plunked fully developed modern lifeforms on earth after there being billions of years of simpler life. To believe that, you must also ignore the similarities that ancient life such as trees, reptiles, and mammals have to their modern relatives.
cizzors (194 ) Jul-21-05 21:38PDT
If man evolved from apes,
But what remote technolgy do you use to remove the dust when it's found, or is it purely an observatory mission? I'd recommend a remote controlled flat vacuum I forget what the brandname is but it's something like ROOVER.
The atmosphere of oxygen will only provide a little bit more protection, perhaps from UV. But other radiation might need a magnetic field like the earth has.
I don't know of any hotels running Linux, but when I do, I'll let you know of their porters.
Ohh, you mean THOSE kind of "ports", as in TRANSPORTERS to another OS language?
After almost a decade of Internet broadcast exploration of Mars, it just makes sense to start exploring hard-to-reach places on our own planet with remote controls. Slap on some virtual reality goggles, and away they go. One small step for a scientist, one giant leap for man kind.
"Canada jails people for practicing religion."
Oh really? Prove it.
I'd be willing to bet you're confusing abuse with religion.
I'd patent the process by which a monopolistic company takes out patents on any conceivably useful electronic process, thereby stifling innovation and employing lawyers for the next thousand years.
Violence reduces population, and sex increases it. Perhaps this is why there is a taboo on sex these days, and not on violence? It could be a societial urge to depopulate our cities more...
What a waste. Not voting is no way to fight stupid politicians. Any vote that doesn't go against them, is a vote for them, they assume. Vote for a 3rd party, it isn't wasteful like sitting at home is, it shows that you're active in politics, but pissed off with the mainstream enough to vote for someone unlikely to gain power through democratic means.
I'd call the new object KBO 2
Perhaps Kwigibo 2 in honor of The Simpsons.
I get the afternoon off, and I'm going on a date. That's a pretty darn good way to celebrate [although I admit the day wasn't marked in my Outlook calendar because of Sys-admin Appreciation Day (SAD)???].
For Kids By Kids, modelled after the racially insensitive clothing line FUBU? ...Kids making the console games in 3rd World Nintendo sweatshops, so that other kids can play them. There's a certain sick irony in that which lets me know that one day it will become true.
"Shashdotters call b.s. on anything because they like to do this! They are natural born devil's advocates and kill-joys who look for the flaws in things. And it makes them happy, if not on the outside then deep on the geeky inside."
I call B.S. Let me be the devil's advocate and put to you that you're nitpicking on Slashdotters' habits.
"But UNIX is such a well understood and smart to handle the issues that an operating system has to handle that it ultimately will prevail.'"
I think not, Leo. UNIX is of the past, and with its decreasing market share, and lack of mainstream marketing, it's not going anywhere but down.
"'Saul on the Run,' stands out in this regard, showing how a black hatter uses social engineering and numerous tools to get a valid birth certificate for someone else, and exactly how an attacker can intrude on a secured wireless residential network to explore private information. "
I think comprimising someone's birth certificate, and thus all government issued documents is a bit more serious than cracking a home network.
Unfortunately few people have "the balls" to do what is right when their jobs are on the line. If the DJ doesn't play what the station manager is told to play by the RIAA, I doubt they'll be employed for long.
When bribery fails, the RIAA will resort to blackmail, and simply stop sending popular music to the station if they don't meet their play quotas.
In Canada I'm glad we have minimum Canadian content play rules for music stations, it at least gives CIRA artists a chance here, and stations like the CBC that are funded by the government actually give welcome competition to corporate owned behemoths like Corus, Rawlco, Hollinger, and Clear Channel.
Many North Americans might not realize that a "boot" is a car trunk, and "kit" I take as meaning equipment from the 3com storage room.
I'd like a PC that doesn't interfere with AM radios too.