Purely empirical science gave us the "element of fire", phologoston. A bit of theoretical work considering the oxidation of Iron resulted in the discovery of oxygen. An answer to "why does this happen" is better than a recipe book, and "burying Popper" is a piss poor description of what is really happening as theory pushes ahead of what we can test for now. Some of the crystallography theories on the 1920s couldn't be tested until the 1970s for instance.
Yes I know - rah rah all science is full of fraud some guy in the Lancet said so. Only he didn't. You are only saying it is a problem throughout science so you can feel better about accusing every climate scientist of being a fraud so that you can toe your petty political line and fit in with other radicals that pretend to be "conservative". Denial of the authority of experts is very much the opposite of being "conservative".
However if you get your information from sources other than some outspoken media popularizers you will find that models are being produced in which you can predict specific changes when you feed it new observational data and then turn the crank. Try someone other than a British Sudoko puzzle writer or Danish economist next time and you'll see.
People like you are literally destroying Western civilization.
By building the future instead of some stagnant swamp? What exactly are you doing for "Western civilization"? You demanded to know what I do - your turn. Are you in advertising? Political intern for radical politics? Or just a shit stirrer that is angry that other people get more attention?
First, acknowledge that the editor of the Lancet backed up my position.
Your position of "cargo cult science"? Sorry but that is an outright LIE as you are very well aware. The editor of the Lancet said no such thing and sisn't back up any of your other points either - as you are very well aware. What is the point of all these lies and attacks? Be honest. It will be a refreshing change.
Australia's Telstra being the thing they are demanded a version of LTE incompatible with anything else that is not IPv6, but other implementations of LTE are all IPv6.
It's a new take on the Irish/Polish joke only someone in Africa is that stupid to make a change that never happened in a way that would be utterly insane. That's what the above poster was going on about. It works as a joke by assigning stupidity, in this case imaginary stupid people in Africa, so as to whether racist and juvenile or just juvenile take your pick.
It's repeated ad-nauseam because it is true. http://blog.webernetz.net/2013/05/21/why-nat-has-nothing-to-do-with-security/
Of course you could configure a IPv6-firewall the same way, but that would take several days
WTF? Block everything other than the stuff you want. How hard is that? Netmasks still work, hostnames or aliases can still be used. Having a longer number means nothing when your rules are applied to names anyway.
you aren't going to encourage widespread adoption on the enterprise level
If people handling networking on the "enterprise" level do not understand IPv6 by now then they are just Redshirt fodder to be discarded and replaced by foreign workers who have already been using it at home for a couple of years. Come on guys, you are not supposed to stop learning the second you walk out the school gate. We ran out of addresses, something had to be done, and it has been done - if you work in anything remotely related to networking you have to either catch up or find some day you'll hit an incident where you can no longer do the job you are employed to do.
With having all of your systems directly accessible to the Internet, the crackers can attack any and all of them.
However of course all of those systems on site are still all accessed through a single physical device with a firewall on it, or multiple devices are the same. Nothing has changed for the crackers. They still can't get to port X on machine Y unless the router is told to let it get in.
Many devices that provide NAT also provide the firewall that you have mistaken NAT for.
Without NAT, attackers would know how many systems you have on your network
No, and NAT without a decent firewall activated doesn't prevent attackers doing that either: http://grothoff.org/christian/pwnat.pdf http://blog.webernetz.net/2013/05/21/why-nat-has-nothing-to-do-with-security/
Very funny considering your attacks on me above which are the real thing and not the imaginary adhom you are pretending I've been hitting you with.
And you call yourself a scientist?
Something else you've made up - I'm an engineer but I have done research work and I currently work with scientists. So tell me, why is it I have to be an expert to express an opinion but you don't have to even have a high school level understanding of science to do so?
Luckily for the next generation it looks like it's still going on, at least in my country where guns are a tool and not a flag/penis substitute. http://www.ssaa.org.au/stories/2013_scouts-shooting-program-takes-off-in-sa.html
Looks like they sidetracked the porosity issue by using Inconel 625 - very high strength titanium but very high price so still a bit tricky for hobby use.
Why the hell does the internet run on 2 of the shittiest languages ever half-assed designed??
Convenience. http://blog.samuellevy.com/pos... Step 1 in getting a website going is apparently easier for newbies with PHP than with something with all the security and extra features with almost anything else. Step 2 wiht PHP is buggy spaghetti, but it puts stuff on screens.
The real problem is that all real research into nuclear power has all but stopped largely thanks to the anti-nuclear lobby
Only if you backdate the anti-nuclear lobby by a few years and pretend it had far more influence than it ever has had.
The reality is once it became a commercial situation those governments that were not making money out of it (eg. the USA) dropped out of research and private industry failed to pick up the slack. Research continued in Japan (despite the very strong anti-nuclear lobby there which makes the US one look like nothing) until it all went private, and Westinghouse picked up the spoils but failed to continue the research. Research is ongoing in France, India, Russia and some commercial research in Germany.
Look, we both know this is all so that you can have something to shore up your radical line that all climate scientists are frauds so why go on with the increasingly silly evasions and paranoid accusations? I'll apologise after you apologise for your very insulting initial post. I've been very polite to you considering what you have written.
Wow... talk about having his head up his ass. You do realize the guy making the point this whole thread is based on is a scientist... right?
You've added a very large pile of ignorant bullshit yourself that cannot be attributed to that person or the Lancet. Show me where it says ANYTHING that is in your initial or following posts.
They can instruct the police to look the other way
Haven't taken over yet but are already in control of the police? Pretty big flaw in your conspiracy theory isn't it? Why would someone bother to take over when they already run the place?
cheap, widely available 3d printers that can do barrels
I should add that the metal powder laser sintered 3D printers by their nature leave the object full of tiny little holes. That's fine for some things but as cannon casters found out centuries ago it sucks for barrels - instead of a gun you get a gun shaped fragmentation grenade. There's some stuff that is already made of metal powder in applications where those little holes are unacceptable, and that's dealt with by a second step - heat it up and squash all the little holes out (forging). Getting a home budget device to do both would be a bit of a challenge.
Slashdot Mirror
Purely empirical science gave us the "element of fire", phologoston. A bit of theoretical work considering the oxidation of Iron resulted in the discovery of oxygen.
An answer to "why does this happen" is better than a recipe book, and "burying Popper" is a piss poor description of what is really happening as theory pushes ahead of what we can test for now. Some of the crystallography theories on the 1920s couldn't be tested until the 1970s for instance.
Yes I know - rah rah all science is full of fraud some guy in the Lancet said so. Only he didn't.
You are only saying it is a problem throughout science so you can feel better about accusing every climate scientist of being a fraud so that you can toe your petty political line and fit in with other radicals that pretend to be "conservative". Denial of the authority of experts is very much the opposite of being "conservative".
However if you get your information from sources other than some outspoken media popularizers you will find that models are being produced in which you can predict specific changes when you feed it new observational data and then turn the crank.
Try someone other than a British Sudoko puzzle writer or Danish economist next time and you'll see.
By building the future instead of some stagnant swamp? What exactly are you doing for "Western civilization"? You demanded to know what I do - your turn. Are you in advertising? Political intern for radical politics? Or just a shit stirrer that is angry that other people get more attention?
Your position of "cargo cult science"? Sorry but that is an outright LIE as you are very well aware. The editor of the Lancet said no such thing and sisn't back up any of your other points either - as you are very well aware.
What is the point of all these lies and attacks? Be honest. It will be a refreshing change.
You brought up the term, don't blame me if you misapplied it or whatever you are accusing me of for replying to the following:
There you go - I quoted your words that I replied to a second time. Maybe you'll notice that is the thing I replied to this time.
Of course I do. Now why write a vast and long stream of shit when your first petty little insult ensures that the rest is not going to be read?
Australia's Telstra being the thing they are demanded a version of LTE incompatible with anything else that is not IPv6, but other implementations of LTE are all IPv6.
It's a new take on the Irish/Polish joke only someone in Africa is that stupid to make a change that never happened in a way that would be utterly insane. That's what the above poster was going on about. It works as a joke by assigning stupidity, in this case imaginary stupid people in Africa, so as to whether racist and juvenile or just juvenile take your pick.
Except you can:
http://grothoff.org/christian/...
http://blog.webernetz.net/2013/05/21/why-nat-has-nothing-to-do-with-security/
WTF? Block everything other than the stuff you want. How hard is that? Netmasks still work, hostnames or aliases can still be used. Having a longer number means nothing when your rules are applied to names anyway.
If people handling networking on the "enterprise" level do not understand IPv6 by now then they are just Redshirt fodder to be discarded and replaced by foreign workers who have already been using it at home for a couple of years.
Come on guys, you are not supposed to stop learning the second you walk out the school gate. We ran out of addresses, something had to be done, and it has been done - if you work in anything remotely related to networking you have to either catch up or find some day you'll hit an incident where you can no longer do the job you are employed to do.
Try to teach an IPv4 address to a normal person :)
If you can understand one then the other isn't really any more tricky.
NAT was added in to IPv6 about five or ten years ago to answer that question. It's not recommended but it is there.
However of course all of those systems on site are still all accessed through a single physical device with a firewall on it, or multiple devices are the same. Nothing has changed for the crackers. They still can't get to port X on machine Y unless the router is told to let it get in.
No, and NAT without a decent firewall activated doesn't prevent attackers doing that either:
http://grothoff.org/christian/pwnat.pdf
http://blog.webernetz.net/2013/05/21/why-nat-has-nothing-to-do-with-security/
Very funny considering your attacks on me above which are the real thing and not the imaginary adhom you are pretending I've been hitting you with.
Something else you've made up - I'm an engineer but I have done research work and I currently work with scientists.
So tell me, why is it I have to be an expert to express an opinion but you don't have to even have a high school level understanding of science to do so?
An even larger irony is the linux based stuff that Halliburton have been selling to oil companies for close to twenty years.
Luckily for the next generation it looks like it's still going on, at least in my country where guns are a tool and not a flag/penis substitute.
http://www.ssaa.org.au/stories/2013_scouts-shooting-program-takes-off-in-sa.html
Looks like they sidetracked the porosity issue by using Inconel 625 - very high strength titanium but very high price so still a bit tricky for hobby use.
Convenience.
http://blog.samuellevy.com/pos...
Step 1 in getting a website going is apparently easier for newbies with PHP than with something with all the security and extra features with almost anything else. Step 2 wiht PHP is buggy spaghetti, but it puts stuff on screens.
Only if you backdate the anti-nuclear lobby by a few years and pretend it had far more influence than it ever has had.
The reality is once it became a commercial situation those governments that were not making money out of it (eg. the USA) dropped out of research and private industry failed to pick up the slack. Research continued in Japan (despite the very strong anti-nuclear lobby there which makes the US one look like nothing) until it all went private, and Westinghouse picked up the spoils but failed to continue the research. Research is ongoing in France, India, Russia and some commercial research in Germany.
I'll apologise after you apologise for your very insulting initial post. I've been very polite to you considering what you have written.
You've added a very large pile of ignorant bullshit yourself that cannot be attributed to that person or the Lancet. Show me where it says ANYTHING that is in your initial or following posts.
Haven't taken over yet but are already in control of the police? Pretty big flaw in your conspiracy theory isn't it? Why would someone bother to take over when they already run the place?
I should add that the metal powder laser sintered 3D printers by their nature leave the object full of tiny little holes. That's fine for some things but as cannon casters found out centuries ago it sucks for barrels - instead of a gun you get a gun shaped fragmentation grenade.
There's some stuff that is already made of metal powder in applications where those little holes are unacceptable, and that's dealt with by a second step - heat it up and squash all the little holes out (forging). Getting a home budget device to do both would be a bit of a challenge.