What, it is trivial to get that kind of result. Honestly, hair styling websites could probably easily be hijacked by bot/hacking crawlers which hack websites and change the.htaccess file or any number of other fun things. Then redirect to websites which download and install spyware through flaws in IE.
Honestly, there is no way in hell she should have been convicted. Yes, she probably should have turned the system off. But, honestly, running in unsecure OS, with an unsecured internet browser, with an whole series of pretty crappy stuff floating around the internet.
We should really spin this case properly, observe!
Woman sentenced to 40 years in prison for not using Firefox!
Random crap generated by my computer is subject to a copyright. I really don't think you could actually say this is non-existent. Even a randomly generated fake is copyrighted for 95 years after the death of the person who ran the program.
Even if this isn't true... it's sad that it might be.
I must admit I based that statement on the less rain fall prediction. In a general sense I cannot support it. Also, with the extra water from melting snow and the flooding of low coastal areas it seems to be more likely to be wetter.
Firstly the hurricanes were dwarfed by the El Nino effect. This wasn't known at the time the predictions were made. As for the question about the deep freezes that's a misunderstanding. Global Warming is a misnomer, a more accurate name would be Global Climate Change. On average the earth is warmer, however in the short term you are going to end up with more extreme weather. You will end up with places that deep freeze, other places that face rather sudden flash floods, as well as extreme winds and drought. On average there will be less rain fall, but when the rain falls it should be extreme and sudden.
You can expect deep freezes and heat waves, no snow and blizzards. On average it will be warmer and dryer, but you can pretty much get anything day to day.
Well, come on... 2005 was the warmest year on record. Sure, it was the hottest our planet has been for thousands of years, but what year held the previous record... 2004! Which in turn beat out 2003!
Oddly enough, with the combined effect of the El Nino and the extra warming this year this 2007 is pretty much a lock to wipe out the 2006 record now established. However, it might actually be so warm as to make 2008 fail to take the record.
There is a certain amount of natural selection in such things. You never find the old computers which burnt out in a week. You only find the older systems which stood the test of time and were really solid. I like, any geek worth his salt, has half a dozen old sub-1 gig mobo/cpu combos. This isn't because computers back then were made to last, it's because I threw away all the broken ones.
>>Any retard dumb enough to want to use something like that would never be able to develop it.
I think this kind statement is a problem in itself. Some people with extremely damaging and extremely dangerous beliefs are quite intelligent. For example many of the 9/11 hijackers were architects and engineers and several had doctorates.
It is becoming more plausible that somebody with the expertise needed to create a nuclear weapon could also have the intent to use it as an attack.
The idea that all fanatics are stupid is as dangerous and fanaticism itself.
I don't think it's out of the question. Taking care of a pet makes older people feel useful and improves their quality of life. It could very well be that feeling useless triggers a faster decline. If grandma is helping, genes to kill her off are aptly less fit.
I suppose you could quibble over things. If hair is roughly dark, and skin tone contain melanin... but not too much, eye color is on average not blue, eyes are typically slanted then kill individual... but that would be a lot of if-then statements for a biological weapon.
You'd still be better off just sorting them by hand and shoving them in a gas chamber. Anything else is not that feasible.
Secondly, we do all pretty look the same. Here and there we have a stray gene, but our species has had a fairly recent founder effect. Some species have each individual look like they should be in their own species. We are pretty well adapted at spotting the differences, but that doesn't make the differences obvious to a biological weapon... unless your giving the virus human intelligence or something.
Well that's just stupid. "Race" isn't really anything. There are very few genes which actually differ between such groups. You'd think maybe Asians have genes for their eyes but that same gene exists elsewhere... take a look at Bjork. You'd really be shooting yourself in the foot. As for the difference between Jews and Arabs, there aren't many. As in none, genetically you can't tell them apart.
Let's say you wanted to kill all blonds. You make a virus that becomes active when it contacts the sequence for blond hair. Assuming you did something to make sure the recessive gene didn't just strike carriers too, you'd end killing blonds and gingers. Ginger is simply red-red, blond-blond genes, whereas blonds are Not-red-* blond-blond. Not-red is a dominate gene, whereas red is recessive.
Really, you'd want to do the old death camp method. You need to sort them out based on a rather non-existent grouping... that is something only racists can do, not viruses.
You think there is some gene that defines a race... there really isn't. There are certain genes which exist in varied frequency but none that are that isolated. You might be able to wipe out a village with some rare mutation but, otherwise you're going to create something that just starts killing people off pretty much at random.
Um, actually no. At a certain point it becomes more fit for an organism to die. The gene pool and species as a whole evolve, not the individuals. There is a reason old people tend to stop healing, and more so when they aren't needed. Taking up resources and dragging down your family is a bad thing, so at a certain age genes tend to help kill off individuals rather than help them live longer.
Genes which kill you off when you are a drain on the gene pool are more fit. They tend to help the other individuals in the larger group, many with that same gene. So the gene helps itself by helping others... and killing its possessor.
Yes, that period when everybody believe in God and the church ran everything is quite important. I think they called it the dark ages. Just as it is important to know about the black death (which by the way modern research is showing wasn't initially caused by Bubonic plague).
>>Even though you don't believe in God, you should still read the bible at least once.
Dude. I've read the Bible, the Koran too. For my money, the Koran is better written though still boring as dirt.
>>It is the book that has shaped Western Civilization as we know it.
So has racism, war, and disease.
>>The book also provides evidence of God.
Books aren't evidence. I've seen plenty of suggested non-evidence before. Look women found the tomb... it must be true (though, each Gospel changes the women who went to the tomb).
>>By understanding it, you'll have a deeper understanding of most poems and literature.
I did quite well on my AP language and lit classes. I am pretty good at analyzing poetry. Outside of a few psalms and parables, the Bible is quite literal. To start saying that's figurative and that's poetry tends to make it much weaker. Most liberal Christians seem to hold that the Bible has about as much truth as the Illiad. All the parts about gods and such are just figurative, but look! Some of the places exist. You end up with oddities like Jesus sacrificing Himself to Himself dying for the figurative myth of original sin, which was all just poetry.
>>I'm not saying I'm religious at all, but I do my research before I open my mouth.
I've done my research. I've seen the "evidence" and it's laughable. Most of it reminds me of Tertullian's quote "And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible." Which seems to be an inverse of the great Sagan mantra "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Namely that 'Extraordinary claims require no evidence.'
>>You cannot say there isn't any when there is a little bit;
I said "little bit of non-evidence". I covered your statement. A small amount of suggestion that something in the Bible might not be fake is hardly evidence for God.
In the end, I am rather offended. You blatantly assume I've never read the Bible out of thin-air. Then you proceed to admonish me for not doing my research. Both statements which are patently false. I've read poetry before, and as much as people genuflect to the Bible any of Shakespeare's plays are better than all of the Bible.
Who is, of course, the devil. Having been beaten by Santa, Satan must take the form of a black woman.
Re:And if you believe that....
on
The Physics of Santa
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Well, personally I think the idea of Santa is a lot more believable than that God thing.
I mean, each year millions of kids get presents from Santa. It would take a massive conspiracy on a global scale to pull off that kind of evidence from fraud. One or two houses... maybe... but millions?
Now, compare that with the actual reliable evidence for God: there isn't any. You can explain the entire God thing with a bunch of bored people in a desert with nothing else to do. To explain the little bits of non-evidence religion provides is downright trivial. But, millions upon millions of presents each and ever year? Those presents actually exist and everything.
On pretty much every count Santa wins. Where does Santa live? The north pole. Where does God live? Outside of spacetime, where he's exempt from the laws of cause-and-effect in order to be a cause for the universe while not needing a cause for himself. I mean, a simple answer vs. something clearly constructed out of bullcrap... it's your choice.
As for the whole, watching you all the time and knowing when you're being bad or good old men... I think Santa is much more plausible.
Actually, not quite. You are right that it's check-mate (think trapped) rather than capturing. But, it depends a little on the kind of chess. In speed chess for example it's perfectly acceptable to capture the king. Secondly, usually you don't knock over the king after you're checkmated. Perhaps shake hands, perhaps setup for another game. Knocking over the king is a surrender, and you don't really need to do so after you lost. Although if you have a move or two to go, it's a time saver.
A lot of people equate bearing false witness as a perjury, when really it's akin to filing a false police report. The rules were setup prior to the idea of innocent until guilty, rather guilty until proven innocent. As such, just the false witness could doom a person who failed to prove himself innocent. This isn't quite the same thing. You could actually say somebody did something they didn't and walk free after they find some video or something that proves he didn't do it.
I'm really not sure if it actually fits anything in modern society.
You are correct about the NO LAW ones. Mostly because they would be unconstitutional. And #10 would be illegal on the grounds that it goes against everything in our modern society. We are a capitalist society... coveting is the only thing that pays the bills.
Slashdot Mirror
Your penis may only be five and a half inches long but thats 13.9 centmeters!
What, it is trivial to get that kind of result. Honestly, hair styling websites could probably easily be hijacked by bot/hacking crawlers which hack websites and change the .htaccess file or any number of other fun things. Then redirect to websites which download and install spyware through flaws in IE.
Honestly, there is no way in hell she should have been convicted. Yes, she probably should have turned the system off. But, honestly, running in unsecure OS, with an unsecured internet browser, with an whole series of pretty crappy stuff floating around the internet.
We should really spin this case properly, observe!
Woman sentenced to 40 years in prison for not using Firefox!
About 4 kilogulags worth of forced punishment for not using the metric system would do it!
Random crap generated by my computer is subject to a copyright. I really don't think you could actually say this is non-existent. Even a randomly generated fake is copyrighted for 95 years after the death of the person who ran the program.
Even if this isn't true... it's sad that it might be.
Iteratively optimised on? Is that code for a genetic algorithm.
... Only God does!
If they used a genetic algorithm they don't really get any credit for designing it.
I must admit I based that statement on the less rain fall prediction. In a general sense I cannot support it. Also, with the extra water from melting snow and the flooding of low coastal areas it seems to be more likely to be wetter.
F*ck! We can't even hope for a dry heat.
Dude... that's going to more awesome than watching somebody get kicked in the balls!
I'm going to have to start summering in Antarctica.
Firstly the hurricanes were dwarfed by the El Nino effect. This wasn't known at the time the predictions were made. As for the question about the deep freezes that's a misunderstanding. Global Warming is a misnomer, a more accurate name would be Global Climate Change. On average the earth is warmer, however in the short term you are going to end up with more extreme weather. You will end up with places that deep freeze, other places that face rather sudden flash floods, as well as extreme winds and drought. On average there will be less rain fall, but when the rain falls it should be extreme and sudden.
You can expect deep freezes and heat waves, no snow and blizzards. On average it will be warmer and dryer, but you can pretty much get anything day to day.
Well, come on... 2005 was the warmest year on record. Sure, it was the hottest our planet has been for thousands of years, but what year held the previous record... 2004! Which in turn beat out 2003!
Oddly enough, with the combined effect of the El Nino and the extra warming this year this 2007 is pretty much a lock to wipe out the 2006 record now established. However, it might actually be so warm as to make 2008 fail to take the record.
Crap! I thought Dead Man Switches were for lamers!
*starts coding*
There is a certain amount of natural selection in such things. You never find the old computers which burnt out in a week. You only find the older systems which stood the test of time and were really solid. I like, any geek worth his salt, has half a dozen old sub-1 gig mobo/cpu combos. This isn't because computers back then were made to last, it's because I threw away all the broken ones.
>>Any retard dumb enough to want to use something like that would never be able to develop it.
I think this kind statement is a problem in itself. Some people with extremely damaging and extremely dangerous beliefs are quite intelligent. For example many of the 9/11 hijackers were architects and engineers and several had doctorates.
It is becoming more plausible that somebody with the expertise needed to create a nuclear weapon could also have the intent to use it as an attack.
The idea that all fanatics are stupid is as dangerous and fanaticism itself.
I don't think it's out of the question. Taking care of a pet makes older people feel useful and improves their quality of life. It could very well be that feeling useless triggers a faster decline. If grandma is helping, genes to kill her off are aptly less fit.
I suppose you could quibble over things. If hair is roughly dark, and skin tone contain melanin... but not too much, eye color is on average not blue, eyes are typically slanted then kill individual... but that would be a lot of if-then statements for a biological weapon.
You'd still be better off just sorting them by hand and shoving them in a gas chamber. Anything else is not that feasible.
Secondly, we do all pretty look the same. Here and there we have a stray gene, but our species has had a fairly recent founder effect. Some species have each individual look like they should be in their own species. We are pretty well adapted at spotting the differences, but that doesn't make the differences obvious to a biological weapon... unless your giving the virus human intelligence or something.
Well that's just stupid. "Race" isn't really anything. There are very few genes which actually differ between such groups. You'd think maybe Asians have genes for their eyes but that same gene exists elsewhere... take a look at Bjork. You'd really be shooting yourself in the foot. As for the difference between Jews and Arabs, there aren't many. As in none, genetically you can't tell them apart.
Let's say you wanted to kill all blonds. You make a virus that becomes active when it contacts the sequence for blond hair. Assuming you did something to make sure the recessive gene didn't just strike carriers too, you'd end killing blonds and gingers. Ginger is simply red-red, blond-blond genes, whereas blonds are Not-red-* blond-blond. Not-red is a dominate gene, whereas red is recessive.
Really, you'd want to do the old death camp method. You need to sort them out based on a rather non-existent grouping... that is something only racists can do, not viruses.
You think there is some gene that defines a race... there really isn't. There are certain genes which exist in varied frequency but none that are that isolated. You might be able to wipe out a village with some rare mutation but, otherwise you're going to create something that just starts killing people off pretty much at random.
Um, actually no. At a certain point it becomes more fit for an organism to die. The gene pool and species as a whole evolve, not the individuals. There is a reason old people tend to stop healing, and more so when they aren't needed. Taking up resources and dragging down your family is a bad thing, so at a certain age genes tend to help kill off individuals rather than help them live longer.
Genes which kill you off when you are a drain on the gene pool are more fit. They tend to help the other individuals in the larger group, many with that same gene. So the gene helps itself by helping others... and killing its possessor.
Dude! Any fricking day now. They have told us, they are really close now. I hear it's going to be bad ass. A decade in the making.
Yes, that period when everybody believe in God and the church ran everything is quite important. I think they called it the dark ages. Just as it is important to know about the black death (which by the way modern research is showing wasn't initially caused by Bubonic plague).
Turned me into a newt!
>>Even though you don't believe in God, you should still read the bible at least once.
Dude. I've read the Bible, the Koran too. For my money, the Koran is better written though still boring as dirt.
>>It is the book that has shaped Western Civilization as we know it.
So has racism, war, and disease.
>>The book also provides evidence of God.
Books aren't evidence. I've seen plenty of suggested non-evidence before. Look women found the tomb... it must be true (though, each Gospel changes the women who went to the tomb).
>>By understanding it, you'll have a deeper understanding of most poems and literature.
I did quite well on my AP language and lit classes. I am pretty good at analyzing poetry. Outside of a few psalms and parables, the Bible is quite literal. To start saying that's figurative and that's poetry tends to make it much weaker. Most liberal Christians seem to hold that the Bible has about as much truth as the Illiad. All the parts about gods and such are just figurative, but look! Some of the places exist. You end up with oddities like Jesus sacrificing Himself to Himself dying for the figurative myth of original sin, which was all just poetry.
>>I'm not saying I'm religious at all, but I do my research before I open my mouth.
I've done my research. I've seen the "evidence" and it's laughable. Most of it reminds me of Tertullian's quote "And the Son of God died; it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd. And He was buried, and rose again; the fact is certain, because it is impossible." Which seems to be an inverse of the great Sagan mantra "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Namely that 'Extraordinary claims require no evidence.'
>>You cannot say there isn't any when there is a little bit;
I said "little bit of non-evidence". I covered your statement. A small amount of suggestion that something in the Bible might not be fake is hardly evidence for God.
In the end, I am rather offended. You blatantly assume I've never read the Bible out of thin-air. Then you proceed to admonish me for not doing my research. Both statements which are patently false. I've read poetry before, and as much as people genuflect to the Bible any of Shakespeare's plays are better than all of the Bible.
Don't forget Sinterklaas' slave: Zwarte Piet.
Who is, of course, the devil. Having been beaten by Santa, Satan must take the form of a black woman.
Well, personally I think the idea of Santa is a lot more believable than that God thing.
I mean, each year millions of kids get presents from Santa. It would take a massive conspiracy on a global scale to pull off that kind of evidence from fraud. One or two houses... maybe... but millions?
Now, compare that with the actual reliable evidence for God: there isn't any. You can explain the entire God thing with a bunch of bored people in a desert with nothing else to do. To explain the little bits of non-evidence religion provides is downright trivial. But, millions upon millions of presents each and ever year? Those presents actually exist and everything.
On pretty much every count Santa wins. Where does Santa live? The north pole. Where does God live? Outside of spacetime, where he's exempt from the laws of cause-and-effect in order to be a cause for the universe while not needing a cause for himself. I mean, a simple answer vs. something clearly constructed out of bullcrap... it's your choice.
As for the whole, watching you all the time and knowing when you're being bad or good old men... I think Santa is much more plausible.
Yes, the "perfect being" is a woman who looks like Raggity Andy.
Print me out a Lucy Lu bot instead.
Actually, not quite. You are right that it's check-mate (think trapped) rather than capturing. But, it depends a little on the kind of chess. In speed chess for example it's perfectly acceptable to capture the king. Secondly, usually you don't knock over the king after you're checkmated. Perhaps shake hands, perhaps setup for another game. Knocking over the king is a surrender, and you don't really need to do so after you lost. Although if you have a move or two to go, it's a time saver.
A lot of people equate bearing false witness as a perjury, when really it's akin to filing a false police report. The rules were setup prior to the idea of innocent until guilty, rather guilty until proven innocent. As such, just the false witness could doom a person who failed to prove himself innocent. This isn't quite the same thing. You could actually say somebody did something they didn't and walk free after they find some video or something that proves he didn't do it.
I'm really not sure if it actually fits anything in modern society.
You are correct about the NO LAW ones. Mostly because they would be unconstitutional. And #10 would be illegal on the grounds that it goes against everything in our modern society. We are a capitalist society... coveting is the only thing that pays the bills.