I would say it depends on the sophistication of the company you are sending to. Are they small? They probably don't have IT staff and can't handle an SSH or VPN type transfer. Here you can use something like PGP web messenger or another third party securemail system that allows you to send messages that outside users can retrieve via an https secure site.
If they are larger, you can work to get a technology like TLS enabled on your MTA and their's to encrypt from site to site. If they have an IT staff call them up and talk about the possibilities. They may support PGP. Or perhaps some other delivery method like an SSH sftp transfer.
"In a similar case, the government has mandated that Microsoft be used as the sole operating system because it is superior..."
Mandating these types of things wouldn't be tolerated. It stopped innovation, creativity, and public choice to take what works for them and use it. Regardless of what I believe, stopping scientific free thought to explore all the options. If the belief is false, this will be found out, but mandating it gets scary and is a slippery slope. Soon we'll outlaw homeschool as well. Consider homeschooling has been outlawed in Germany since Hitler put laws into place to make sure there was conformity.
I replied to rmstar about this too, so if you want a bit more detail on what I'm talking about if you wouldn't mind reading my reply to him that may help clarify what I'm about to say. But I'd challenge that the pursuit of truth is maybe possible as an atheist, but saying things like 'better...for mankind' is a totally arbitrary and subjective ideal in an atheists worldview and need not necessarily be what one pursues in an atheist's viewpoint.
Thanks.
I had to point out in your post the misunderstanding you have of intelligent design, and therefore the misguided bashing of the person's post you are replying to. I hope you can set aside sarcasm, disdain, and digust for a moment and just try listening to what is being said. Intelligent design puts itself in the category similar to something like archeologists do every day, and what a detective might do. It is a viewpoint of complexity and information being able to help along determining how something came to be a certain way. An archeologist looks at a hut, a pot, a pyramid, etc, and sees design and goes about looking at that piece of discovery under that assumption, because the odds are against the piece being randomly formed. The odds are against it being formed randomly given a large amount of time even. So if you could, consider what you said above as possibly false, that an ID'er does not study anything. They are not floating in the clouds disregarding evidence and simply believing what they want without evidence. I've stated as much in my post. Also, ID not being testable is also untrue. Again, as in my above comments, you can see design in something man made based on probability of it forming naturally and quantity of information can also be a good test.
Looking over some of your quick points of ID discrediting your whale bones for instance, I've read, are different in males and females, are not bones attached to the vertebrate, and are thought to function as support for reproductive organs. Not really much vestigal properties there.
I've read the appendix, in 1976 medical textbooks, was thought to have immunological functions. In a 1995 textbook it is even more so stated as having a primary function of a lymphatic system.
As a total aside, I've read the only animal with 4 knees is an elephant. Most quadripeds hind legs, as I recall, have a reverse socket compared to ours, so I don't see how our knees are so much better made for walking on all fours. Using your logic, not only are we backwards, but so is the majority of the animal kingdom.
That's just a few. I'd have to know specifics about your claim of the eye and what is flawed in the design that could improve the vision up to 50%. But the point is there are responses to what you are printing in your post, and setting aside ad hominum attacks should be a first priority if an interest in truth exists. Meaningful discussion will not take place otherwise. Dumping on someone does not prove a point. Calling someone stupid does not prove a point. Let me ask something. If you are an evolutionist (and presumably an atheist or agnostic, but I could be wrong on this point and apologize up front if this assumption is going too far) then why does truth and fact matter to you anyway? What, and this is an honest question and not a degrading sardonic question, is the point?
They didn't go after Linux. Let's be clear. They went after where the money is. They went after IBM, probably in hopes of being bought. Now it is dragging out far longer than they expected and yet they are holding on, hoping for some slick ride through the court system where perhaps they'll still win a judgement and the jackpot. SCO you are a sham company and a canard spouting bunch of fools, doomed to go down in history as one of many useless companies that bogged down the judicial system and wasted other coorporations dollars on frivalous lawsuits.
Jimmy Stewart said it best in Its a Wonderful Life,
"Well, it doesn't, Mr. Potter. In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider"
One interesting reason I found for this was that wind resistance is exponential. Your cars wind resistance roughly doubles when you go from 50 to 70 mph.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm speaking about life in the lab being created in some natural theoretical means, that is, a proposal such as the miller-urey experiment that actually produces something. The odds of the needed amino acids for simple life coming together and then assembling correctly are so astronomical the numbers end up being classified as a mathematical miracle.
So all the galaxies, and all the stars, cannot overcome the sheer odds of life forming by chance. Further, you're rolling all the stars and galaxies into a big pot together, when, as talked about in Rare Earth, most of these stars and galaxies would be eliminated due to their harsh conditions.
Here is some food for thought on the impossibility of simple proteins forming, the simple building block of life, which are made of amino acids.
(http://in6days.tripod.com/id6.html)
PROTEIN SYNTHESIS--Protein is a basic constituent of all life-forms. It is composed of amino acids. There are 20 essential amino acids, none of which can produce the others. How were these made? How could they make themselves?
First, let us examine the simplest of them: glycine. *Hull figured out that, due to inadequate chemicals and reaction problems, even glycine could not form by chance. There was only a 10-27 (minus 27) concentration of the materials needed to make it. If one glycine molecule was formed, it would have to hunt through 1029 other molecules in the ocean before finding another glycine to link up with! This would be equivalent to finding one person in a crowd that is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than all the people on earth!
But what about the other nineteen amino acids? Checking out the others, *Hull found that it was even less possible for the other 19 amino acids to form. The concentration needed for glucose, for example, would be 10-134. That is an extremely high improbability! (*D. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," in Nature, 186, 1960, pp. 693-694).PROTEINS AND HYDROLYSIS--Even if protein had been made by chance from nearby chemicals in the ocean, the water in the primitive oceans would have hydrolyzed (diluted and ruined) the protein. The chemicals that had combined to make protein would immediately reconnect with other nearby chemicals in the ocean water and self-destruct the protein!
A research team, at Barlian University in Israel, said that this complication would make the successful making of just one protein totally impossible, mathematically. It would be 1 chance in 10157. They concluded that no proteins were ever produced by chance on this earth.PROTEINS AND SPONTANEOUS
In desperation we search for life on Mars when scientists like Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee write Rare Earth, and we can't even create life in the lab by use of 'intelligence' we theorize wildly about life on other planets, and then, after the odds are calculated so high and impossible that life forms on our planet, we think that it is possible for life to pop up next door! Really...we've got to start thinking more critically here.
I would check out x10.com They have the coolest gadgets for the home. Radio controlled light switches, dimmers, motion sensor controls...and all able to be controlled from a central location, either by computer or remote. Setup lights to activate for time periods during a vacation, etc.
MAC OS (Windows), Lotus 123(Excel), Corel WP(Word), Netscape(IE), Game Consoles(Xbox)...
I heard MS is running a 4 month ad campaign for this new search engine. Do they have to own everything?!?
I worked for 7 years at a small business trying to get on its feet. I programmed, was a network admin, and pretty much did near everything necessary to keep the place running. I started at a bank about 8 months ago and I can see this as a long term job. They have a software programming division and network/sys admin. division. As you learn the ropes , if you are good at what you do, there is opportunity to continue moving into management positions where you are not pounding the keyboard as much and they just expect a decent 40 hours a week from you.
I said modern science. You have committed the strawman fallacy. I'm afraid I don't understand your last sentence of...self-centered view...xtian this or that matters...
Perhaps you could word it differently so I could understand your point.
Did you read Francis Schaeffer's book that quick? If you're up to it, you might as well read CS Lewis' Miracles as well. He addresses the fallout of the Naturalist. One of the best quotes are
"Thus strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' (Miracles, p.22)
Interestingly enough, he was an atheist you know, up until around 26 or so. If all you have, however, are quick, reactionary responses, you have my permission to keep them to yourself.
It is unfortunate you have no idea what you are talking about. Read Francis Schaeffer's How Now Should We Then Live, and understand that modern science came from a Christian view of the world, that a rational God made the universe for us to understand. He references two non-christian scientists that have written about this specifically, Alfred North Whitehead and J. Robert Oppenheimer. Without the basis of a rational God creating an understandable Universe, there is no epistemological base.
First, embryonic cells are not comparable to human corpses. You've jumped the gap without a logical connection. Comparing experiments on life to non-life is not the same.
Second, and I referenced this earlier, adult stem cells (including the embylical cord cells) are the only cells that have produced promising results so far. Embryonic are only based on a hopeful, yet empty of proof, argument.
Please see the following links:
http://www.khouse.org/strategictrends/pestilence/2 0040706-782.html
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04J01
"everything that embryonic stem cells can do?" I think we've just jumped onto assumptions that embryonic stem cells can do anything. So far they have not produced results, so your statement has more conjecture to it than the poster you are responding to.
http://www.khouse.org/strategictrends/pestilence/2 0040706-782.html
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04J01
Sorry, but you really didn't say anything of substance there. Please re-read the original post I'm replying to. The subject and point was made that if someone invaded our country we would be justified in having a negative reaction. My reply is that is an incorrect comparison. Just because you connect two things together with a jaded comparison does not make them related. The simple fact, and this is seen by evidence, is that some people over in Iraq are happy we overturned Sadaam's rule. Can't you see the logical disconnect here the poster was trying to pull together? There is a tenuous comparison being made.
Further, there is a logical inconsistency where you are trying to impose your thinking, by saying we shouldn't impose our thinking on others. It is self contradictory and self refuting.
Do we have mass graves of our people littering the countryside? Poisoned by experimental killing agents? Do our presidents kill the previous administrations aides to ensure power for themselves? Apples and oranges buddy. Your going to have to do better than that.
Talk about comparing apples to oranges. Iraq is hardly comparable to us in the way Saddam and the country in general was run. The attrocities commited by the government in place were horrible.
Slashdot Mirror
Was this put through Google translator? I almost choked on my lunch trying to reach through this.
Does that mean the state could be held liable if they send amber alerts to someone driving?
I would say it depends on the sophistication of the company you are sending to. Are they small? They probably don't have IT staff and can't handle an SSH or VPN type transfer. Here you can use something like PGP web messenger or another third party securemail system that allows you to send messages that outside users can retrieve via an https secure site. If they are larger, you can work to get a technology like TLS enabled on your MTA and their's to encrypt from site to site. If they have an IT staff call them up and talk about the possibilities. They may support PGP. Or perhaps some other delivery method like an SSH sftp transfer.
"In a similar case, the government has mandated that Microsoft be used as the sole operating system because it is superior..." Mandating these types of things wouldn't be tolerated. It stopped innovation, creativity, and public choice to take what works for them and use it. Regardless of what I believe, stopping scientific free thought to explore all the options. If the belief is false, this will be found out, but mandating it gets scary and is a slippery slope. Soon we'll outlaw homeschool as well. Consider homeschooling has been outlawed in Germany since Hitler put laws into place to make sure there was conformity.
Is blocking such RF against FCC regulations?
I replied to rmstar about this too, so if you want a bit more detail on what I'm talking about if you wouldn't mind reading my reply to him that may help clarify what I'm about to say. But I'd challenge that the pursuit of truth is maybe possible as an atheist, but saying things like 'better...for mankind' is a totally arbitrary and subjective ideal in an atheists worldview and need not necessarily be what one pursues in an atheist's viewpoint. Thanks.
I had to point out in your post the misunderstanding you have of intelligent design, and therefore the misguided bashing of the person's post you are replying to. I hope you can set aside sarcasm, disdain, and digust for a moment and just try listening to what is being said. Intelligent design puts itself in the category similar to something like archeologists do every day, and what a detective might do. It is a viewpoint of complexity and information being able to help along determining how something came to be a certain way. An archeologist looks at a hut, a pot, a pyramid, etc, and sees design and goes about looking at that piece of discovery under that assumption, because the odds are against the piece being randomly formed. The odds are against it being formed randomly given a large amount of time even. So if you could, consider what you said above as possibly false, that an ID'er does not study anything. They are not floating in the clouds disregarding evidence and simply believing what they want without evidence. I've stated as much in my post. Also, ID not being testable is also untrue. Again, as in my above comments, you can see design in something man made based on probability of it forming naturally and quantity of information can also be a good test.
Looking over some of your quick points of ID discrediting your whale bones for instance, I've read, are different in males and females, are not bones attached to the vertebrate, and are thought to function as support for reproductive organs. Not really much vestigal properties there.
I've read the appendix, in 1976 medical textbooks, was thought to have immunological functions. In a 1995 textbook it is even more so stated as having a primary function of a lymphatic system.
As a total aside, I've read the only animal with 4 knees is an elephant. Most quadripeds hind legs, as I recall, have a reverse socket compared to ours, so I don't see how our knees are so much better made for walking on all fours. Using your logic, not only are we backwards, but so is the majority of the animal kingdom.
That's just a few. I'd have to know specifics about your claim of the eye and what is flawed in the design that could improve the vision up to 50%. But the point is there are responses to what you are printing in your post, and setting aside ad hominum attacks should be a first priority if an interest in truth exists. Meaningful discussion will not take place otherwise. Dumping on someone does not prove a point. Calling someone stupid does not prove a point. Let me ask something. If you are an evolutionist (and presumably an atheist or agnostic, but I could be wrong on this point and apologize up front if this assumption is going too far) then why does truth and fact matter to you anyway? What, and this is an honest question and not a degrading sardonic question, is the point?
Thanks, take care.
They didn't go after Linux. Let's be clear. They went after where the money is. They went after IBM, probably in hopes of being bought. Now it is dragging out far longer than they expected and yet they are holding on, hoping for some slick ride through the court system where perhaps they'll still win a judgement and the jackpot. SCO you are a sham company and a canard spouting bunch of fools, doomed to go down in history as one of many useless companies that bogged down the judicial system and wasted other coorporations dollars on frivalous lawsuits. Jimmy Stewart said it best in Its a Wonderful Life, "Well, it doesn't, Mr. Potter. In the whole vast configuration of things, I'd say you were nothing but a scurvy little spider"
One interesting reason I found for this was that wind resistance is exponential. Your cars wind resistance roughly doubles when you go from 50 to 70 mph.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm speaking about life in the lab being created in some natural theoretical means, that is, a proposal such as the miller-urey experiment that actually produces something. The odds of the needed amino acids for simple life coming together and then assembling correctly are so astronomical the numbers end up being classified as a mathematical miracle. So all the galaxies, and all the stars, cannot overcome the sheer odds of life forming by chance. Further, you're rolling all the stars and galaxies into a big pot together, when, as talked about in Rare Earth, most of these stars and galaxies would be eliminated due to their harsh conditions. Here is some food for thought on the impossibility of simple proteins forming, the simple building block of life, which are made of amino acids. (http://in6days.tripod.com/id6.html) PROTEIN SYNTHESIS--Protein is a basic constituent of all life-forms. It is composed of amino acids. There are 20 essential amino acids, none of which can produce the others. How were these made? How could they make themselves? First, let us examine the simplest of them: glycine. *Hull figured out that, due to inadequate chemicals and reaction problems, even glycine could not form by chance. There was only a 10-27 (minus 27) concentration of the materials needed to make it. If one glycine molecule was formed, it would have to hunt through 1029 other molecules in the ocean before finding another glycine to link up with! This would be equivalent to finding one person in a crowd that is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than all the people on earth! But what about the other nineteen amino acids? Checking out the others, *Hull found that it was even less possible for the other 19 amino acids to form. The concentration needed for glucose, for example, would be 10-134. That is an extremely high improbability! (*D. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," in Nature, 186, 1960, pp. 693-694).PROTEINS AND HYDROLYSIS--Even if protein had been made by chance from nearby chemicals in the ocean, the water in the primitive oceans would have hydrolyzed (diluted and ruined) the protein. The chemicals that had combined to make protein would immediately reconnect with other nearby chemicals in the ocean water and self-destruct the protein! A research team, at Barlian University in Israel, said that this complication would make the successful making of just one protein totally impossible, mathematically. It would be 1 chance in 10157. They concluded that no proteins were ever produced by chance on this earth.PROTEINS AND SPONTANEOUS
In desperation we search for life on Mars when scientists like Peter Ward & Donald Brownlee write Rare Earth, and we can't even create life in the lab by use of 'intelligence' we theorize wildly about life on other planets, and then, after the odds are calculated so high and impossible that life forms on our planet, we think that it is possible for life to pop up next door! Really...we've got to start thinking more critically here.
I'm sure the comment was meant in jest, but seriously, we've been doing it with TV for years.
I would check out x10.com
They have the coolest gadgets for the home. Radio controlled light switches, dimmers, motion sensor controls...and all able to be controlled from a central location, either by computer or remote. Setup lights to activate for time periods during a vacation, etc.
MAC OS (Windows), Lotus 123(Excel), Corel WP(Word), Netscape(IE), Game Consoles(Xbox)... I heard MS is running a 4 month ad campaign for this new search engine. Do they have to own everything?!?
I worked for 7 years at a small business trying to get on its feet. I programmed, was a network admin, and pretty much did near everything necessary to keep the place running. I started at a bank about 8 months ago and I can see this as a long term job. They have a software programming division and network/sys admin. division. As you learn the ropes , if you are good at what you do, there is opportunity to continue moving into management positions where you are not pounding the keyboard as much and they just expect a decent 40 hours a week from you.
I said modern science. You have committed the strawman fallacy. I'm afraid I don't understand your last sentence of ...self-centered view...xtian this or that matters...
Perhaps you could word it differently so I could understand your point.
Did you read Francis Schaeffer's book that quick? If you're up to it, you might as well read CS Lewis' Miracles as well. He addresses the fallout of the Naturalist. One of the best quotes are
"Thus strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true...and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' (Miracles, p.22)
Interestingly enough, he was an atheist you know, up until around 26 or so. If all you have, however, are quick, reactionary responses, you have my permission to keep them to yourself.
It is unfortunate you have no idea what you are talking about. Read Francis Schaeffer's How Now Should We Then Live, and understand that modern science came from a Christian view of the world, that a rational God made the universe for us to understand. He references two non-christian scientists that have written about this specifically, Alfred North Whitehead and J. Robert Oppenheimer. Without the basis of a rational God creating an understandable Universe, there is no epistemological base.
First, embryonic cells are not comparable to human corpses. You've jumped the gap without a logical connection. Comparing experiments on life to non-life is not the same. Second, and I referenced this earlier, adult stem cells (including the embylical cord cells) are the only cells that have produced promising results so far. Embryonic are only based on a hopeful, yet empty of proof, argument. Please see the following links: http://www.khouse.org/strategictrends/pestilence/2 0040706-782.html
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04J01
"everything that embryonic stem cells can do?" I think we've just jumped onto assumptions that embryonic stem cells can do anything. So far they have not produced results, so your statement has more conjecture to it than the poster you are responding to. http://www.khouse.org/strategictrends/pestilence/2 0040706-782.html
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04J01
When I can I work with my father-inlaw who is a Master Electrician and does electrical work on the weekends.
Why don't we just shoot it all out into space?
Sorry, but you really didn't say anything of substance there. Please re-read the original post I'm replying to. The subject and point was made that if someone invaded our country we would be justified in having a negative reaction. My reply is that is an incorrect comparison. Just because you connect two things together with a jaded comparison does not make them related. The simple fact, and this is seen by evidence, is that some people over in Iraq are happy we overturned Sadaam's rule. Can't you see the logical disconnect here the poster was trying to pull together? There is a tenuous comparison being made. Further, there is a logical inconsistency where you are trying to impose your thinking, by saying we shouldn't impose our thinking on others. It is self contradictory and self refuting.
Do we have mass graves of our people littering the countryside? Poisoned by experimental killing agents? Do our presidents kill the previous administrations aides to ensure power for themselves? Apples and oranges buddy. Your going to have to do better than that.
Talk about comparing apples to oranges. Iraq is hardly comparable to us in the way Saddam and the country in general was run. The attrocities commited by the government in place were horrible.