Network Solutions assured me this was my fault, even though I took every reasonable (and unreasonable) step required to harden my installation. I had my client migrate to MediaTemple. Problem solved.
Their admins must be completely incompetent. It's ridiculous that weeks later they can't figure out what's going on.
That's right, under no circumstances should we demand an evil government do something other than oppress their own people. Such "tough diplomacy" might send the wrong idea.
Can you imagine what would have happened if Ronald Reagan had told Gorbachev to tear down that wall?
Businesses are unlikely to cut their executives compensation. Contrary to popular belief, executives are paid well because they are worth it. A CEO can make or break a company with the course he charts. He's paid to make the big decisions. Cutting 5 million out of a 25 million dollar compensation package for your CEO when your total revenue (not profits) are in the multi billions is not likely to make a significant difference on the company's balance sheet. Cutting a few thousand lower level employees (or even middle managers since you seem to hate them) will.
The former risks losing your CEO to another company who is willing to pay more for his expertise.
Your final statement about shareholders reveals how much you know about this. Most shareholders are not driving luxury cars. They are people with 401ks, IRAs, and the like.
Get a job and stop pointing fingers at people more successful than you.
There is no such thing as a corporate tax. Every tax hits consumers, somewhere. When businesses face tax increases, they will do one of the following: 1. Lay off employees. 2. Switch to a cheaper supplier..hurting that supplier...causing them to lay off people. 3. Raise prices (on consumers) 4. Cut shareholder dividends (to consumers)
It WILL hurt consumers.
This lie that businesses rape culture and run off with the profits is absurd and I'm tired of hearing it.
"that, I define as "wrong" because it has the potential to abuse the fetus's liberties now and in its future."
I assume, based on this statement, that you are also pro-life?
Yes, and the xbox will never be able to compete with Nintendo and Sony either.
Microsoft has shown itself to be very good at breaking into markets it wants to be in. It does not have a perfect success rate, but their money, people, and determination should not be discounted.
A photo sharing site is relatively simple in the grand scheme of things and I think that website like Flickr do not offer anything so special that it will be hard for Microsoft to meet and beat their offering.
The question is whether they can convince users to come on over. As a Flickr user myself, I'd have to say that I'd definitely be open to switching sites if a better offering existed. That is not a slam on Flickr. It's just reality.
While others may scoff at 8,000 dollars, people are spending hundreds of hours on projects that are bringing in much less if anything. This is a good way to give people healthy motivation and reveal vulnerabilities early...before they make headlines.
So, not so stupid. Unlike most of the posts on this article so far.
Think of it this way. On slashdot you have a lot of posts. Some of them are good. But they can't all be good all the time. So it follows that there has to be bad posts. Lot's of them.
That's dark matter.
I think that should be a modifier. -1, Dark Matter
While I'm sure purists will decry anything that promises to automate the process, I think we need more tools like this.
One of the problems with designing easy to use functional web applications is that the web is really structured to support it. What you end up with is a difficult balancing act with interactions between server side code, javascript, and anything else in between.
It's nice to see Google sharing some of the tools they use because let's face it...Google's web apps (in particular gmail) are very impressive.
I get suspicious whenever a creature purported to have gone extinct X million years ago is discovered alive and well.
It seems to happen with some regularity.
It seems to me, if you find a fossil of an animal you believe to be extinct, you will probably test it with the assumption it is of relatively old age.
I think you probably find what you're looking for.
Anyway, not trying to start a flame war. But that's probably going to happen anyway. ("YOU IGNORANT BASTARD DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW DATING WORKS!!!")
Hey Mike, As yours is the only reply to my post that isn't flame-bait, I'll respond to you alone. (Some people can be so immature. And sometimes they get modded up...)
The most simple distinction I can think of involves the beginning and resulting gene pools. Micro-evolution rearranges what is there. Macro-evolution purports to add new data. New information. New traits.
Aka, wings to a previously wingless organism. Or lungs to a previously aquatic species.
Micro-evolution, and I must emphasize...the ONLY kind of evolution that has ever been observed or verified, simply rearranges what is already there. And that's fine, that's consistent with expectations and what know to be true.
However, because we can see small rearrangments of existing data that result in an offspring of a certain trait or we can subject fruit flies to radiation and get a fruit fly with two sets of wings (again, rearrangment of already existing data), this does not provide anything in the way of evidence for the belief that a fruit fly, given enough time and mutations can evolve into a new species with a completely different set of traits.
However, this is the story of evolution. Dinosaurs become birds. Apes become humans.
All of these changes require new genetic information.
All of these changes have never been demonstrated or observed.
However, this is "science" and this is the only theory of origins anyone is allowed to hear.
It's frusturating. And I'm not even one who would prefer or want Creation taught in schools. However, I do have troubles stomaching the idea that millions of kids with pretty much 0 critical thinking skills are taught that Evolution is more than theory, that it is fact. I also have troubles with the idea that teachers are not allowed to present any information, even from reputable science journals, which may criticize current evolutionary theory.
That isn't very intellectually honest and my experience with today's youth tells me they really don't have a clue what they believe or why they believe it.
But I'm not surprised.
Anyway, if you'd like to talk about this more. I'd love to, but not on here. The Internet is hardly the place for such discussions.
No sound thinking person will deny natural selection as a real and verifiable influence in the world.
This includes Christians and non-Christians. I'm the former.
The fallacy this article is guilty of is not bad science so much as bad conclusions.
Lactose tolerance is obviously a trait that would be selected for against lactose intolerance. However, this is an example of MICRO-evolution. Not MACRO-evolution.
You can't prove one by the other. They are absolutely different. There is no reproductive isolation, no change in species...we simply have people with one genetic trait living in greater proportion to those with another. Same reason you don't find too many indigenous tribes of blond haired, blue eyed people in Africa.
This does not prove or even support the premise of macro-evolution.
Another thing to remember, there are still plenty of lactose intolerant people around. These findings hardly represent a general improvement to the human species. It is simply people having a higher chance of living with one trait than another.
Our gene pool is the same. There is no improvement. There is no macro-evolution.
"Actually, the phrase "rife with claims and counter-claims" is making more of the counter-claims then they are; the vast body of the evidence indicates climate change is real; Lomborg is the only serious counter-claimaint that I am aware of."
I don't see the value in posting an article that asks for evidence and than immediately countering it with "well, there really isn't any".
That represents at least some of the bias that the BBC is concerned the argument is "rife" with.
Or was this just supposed to be a rhetorical topic. There's more I could say but I'll leave the rest to those more eloquent than I.
Psuedo-science isn't objective.
Unless, of course, you believe that science is whatever the majority says. In which case, it's objective.
Anyway, it strikes me as flame-bait. That's all.
Because when you install Linux (all distributions), it is automagically preconfigured for security.
Who are you kidding? Most people I know who start out on their journey into the world of *nix run everything root.
Security is less about the operating system, and more about the user.
I find the standard linux window managers very obnoxious. The more they try to mimick windows, the less intuitive they are the more off putting I find them..
Ironically my favorite window manager is fluxbox because it seems to understand *nix on the desktop.
KDE and Gnome feel like they were hot glued in place.
Similarly to how I view Microsoft's channel 9. It is interesting. I check it now and then, but it is largely propoganda.
Word to yo mutha: this isn't trolling. Trolling is when I tell you to suck a lemon and make disparaging comments about how your mother is a) fat b) ugly c) a democrat.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally experienced this as well.
Network Solutions assured me this was my fault, even though I took every reasonable (and unreasonable) step required to harden my installation. I had my client migrate to MediaTemple. Problem solved.
Their admins must be completely incompetent. It's ridiculous that weeks later they can't figure out what's going on.
That's right, under no circumstances should we demand an evil government do something other than oppress their own people. Such "tough diplomacy" might send the wrong idea.
Can you imagine what would have happened if Ronald Reagan had told Gorbachev to tear down that wall?
No, I didn't forget them.
Businesses are unlikely to cut their executives compensation. Contrary to popular belief, executives are paid well because they are worth it. A CEO can make or break a company with the course he charts. He's paid to make the big decisions. Cutting 5 million out of a 25 million dollar compensation package for your CEO when your total revenue (not profits) are in the multi billions is not likely to make a significant difference on the company's balance sheet. Cutting a few thousand lower level employees (or even middle managers since you seem to hate them) will.
The former risks losing your CEO to another company who is willing to pay more for his expertise.
Your final statement about shareholders reveals how much you know about this. Most shareholders are not driving luxury cars. They are people with 401ks, IRAs, and the like.
Get a job and stop pointing fingers at people more successful than you.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
There is no such thing as a corporate tax. Every tax hits consumers, somewhere. When businesses face tax increases, they will do one of the following:
1. Lay off employees.
2. Switch to a cheaper supplier..hurting that supplier...causing them to lay off people.
3. Raise prices (on consumers)
4. Cut shareholder dividends (to consumers)
It WILL hurt consumers.
This lie that businesses rape culture and run off with the profits is absurd and I'm tired of hearing it.
KDE 4 is a hodgepodge of every good UI idea (and some bad) ever. It's nearly absurd to reference it as the "source" of anyone's ideas.
"that, I define as "wrong" because it has the potential to abuse the fetus's liberties now and in its future." I assume, based on this statement, that you are also pro-life?
Yes, and the xbox will never be able to compete with Nintendo and Sony either.
Microsoft has shown itself to be very good at breaking into markets it wants to be in. It does not have a perfect success rate, but their money, people, and determination should not be discounted.
A photo sharing site is relatively simple in the grand scheme of things and I think that website like Flickr do not offer anything so special that it will be hard for Microsoft to meet and beat their offering.
The question is whether they can convince users to come on over. As a Flickr user myself, I'd have to say that I'd definitely be open to switching sites if a better offering existed. That is not a slam on Flickr. It's just reality.
When will the madness end?????!
This is the second time I've been fooled since getting to work an hour ago.
I can't be discerning at this ungody hour.
While others may scoff at 8,000 dollars, people are spending hundreds of hours on projects that are bringing in much less if anything. This is a good way to give people healthy motivation and reveal vulnerabilities early...before they make headlines.
So, not so stupid. Unlike most of the posts on this article so far.
Think of it this way. On slashdot you have a lot of posts. Some of them are good. But they can't all be good all the time. So it follows that there has to be bad posts. Lot's of them.
That's dark matter.
I think that should be a modifier. -1, Dark Matter
Don't be mad that you didn't think of it...
Pluto is still not a planet.
*bitter*
That should read "the web isn't really structured"....
Sorry.
While I'm sure purists will decry anything that promises to automate the process, I think we need more tools like this.
One of the problems with designing easy to use functional web applications is that the web is really structured to support it. What you end up with is a difficult balancing act with interactions between server side code, javascript, and anything else in between.
It's nice to see Google sharing some of the tools they use because let's face it...Google's web apps (in particular gmail) are very impressive.
And no one has said it so here goes...
I for one welcome our new, aquatic overlords.
*ducks to avoid tomatoes and beer cans*
I get suspicious whenever a creature purported to have gone extinct X million years ago is discovered alive and well.
It seems to happen with some regularity.
It seems to me, if you find a fossil of an animal you believe to be extinct, you will probably test it with the assumption it is of relatively old age.
I think you probably find what you're looking for.
Anyway, not trying to start a flame war. But that's probably going to happen anyway. ("YOU IGNORANT BASTARD DO YOU EVEN KNOW HOW DATING WORKS!!!")
Hey Mike,
As yours is the only reply to my post that isn't flame-bait, I'll respond to you alone. (Some people can be so immature. And sometimes they get modded up...)
The most simple distinction I can think of involves the beginning and resulting gene pools. Micro-evolution rearranges what is there. Macro-evolution purports to add new data. New information. New traits.
Aka, wings to a previously wingless organism. Or lungs to a previously aquatic species.
Micro-evolution, and I must emphasize...the ONLY kind of evolution that has ever been observed or verified, simply rearranges what is already there. And that's fine, that's consistent with expectations and what know to be true.
However, because we can see small rearrangments of existing data that result in an offspring of a certain trait or we can subject fruit flies to radiation and get a fruit fly with two sets of wings (again, rearrangment of already existing data), this does not provide anything in the way of evidence for the belief that a fruit fly, given enough time and mutations can evolve into a new species with a completely different set of traits.
However, this is the story of evolution. Dinosaurs become birds. Apes become humans.
All of these changes require new genetic information.
All of these changes have never been demonstrated or observed.
However, this is "science" and this is the only theory of origins anyone is allowed to hear.
It's frusturating. And I'm not even one who would prefer or want Creation taught in schools. However, I do have troubles stomaching the idea that millions of kids with pretty much 0 critical thinking skills are taught that Evolution is more than theory, that it is fact. I also have troubles with the idea that teachers are not allowed to present any information, even from reputable science journals, which may criticize current evolutionary theory.
That isn't very intellectually honest and my experience with today's youth tells me they really don't have a clue what they believe or why they believe it.
But I'm not surprised.
Anyway, if you'd like to talk about this more. I'd love to, but not on here. The Internet is hardly the place for such discussions.
Take care,
Clif
No sound thinking person will deny natural selection as a real and verifiable influence in the world.
This includes Christians and non-Christians. I'm the former.
The fallacy this article is guilty of is not bad science so much as bad conclusions.
Lactose tolerance is obviously a trait that would be selected for against lactose intolerance. However, this is an example of MICRO-evolution. Not MACRO-evolution.
You can't prove one by the other. They are absolutely different. There is no reproductive isolation, no change in species...we simply have people with one genetic trait living in greater proportion to those with another. Same reason you don't find too many indigenous tribes of blond haired, blue eyed people in Africa.
This does not prove or even support the premise of macro-evolution.
Another thing to remember, there are still plenty of lactose intolerant people around. These findings hardly represent a general improvement to the human species. It is simply people having a higher chance of living with one trait than another.
Our gene pool is the same. There is no improvement. There is no macro-evolution.
So we should all agree, right? YAY.
Clifton
"Actually, the phrase "rife with claims and counter-claims" is making more of the counter-claims then they are; the vast body of the evidence indicates climate change is real; Lomborg is the only serious counter-claimaint that I am aware of."
I don't see the value in posting an article that asks for evidence and than immediately countering it with "well, there really isn't any".
That represents at least some of the bias that the BBC is concerned the argument is "rife" with.
Or was this just supposed to be a rhetorical topic. There's more I could say but I'll leave the rest to those more eloquent than I.
Psuedo-science isn't objective. Unless, of course, you believe that science is whatever the majority says. In which case, it's objective. Anyway, it strikes me as flame-bait. That's all.
Because when you install Linux (all distributions), it is automagically preconfigured for security. Who are you kidding? Most people I know who start out on their journey into the world of *nix run everything root. Security is less about the operating system, and more about the user.
I'm an american. Please, let's talk about me.
Just think of the virtual servers that could be created with per-process namespaces.
I'll let myself out.
I find the standard linux window managers very obnoxious. The more they try to mimick windows, the less intuitive they are the more off putting I find them..
Ironically my favorite window manager is fluxbox because it seems to understand *nix on the desktop.
KDE and Gnome feel like they were hot glued in place.
Similarly to how I view Microsoft's channel 9. It is interesting. I check it now and then, but it is largely propoganda.
Word to yo mutha: this isn't trolling. Trolling is when I tell you to suck a lemon and make disparaging comments about how your mother is a) fat b) ugly c) a democrat.