You don't understand about RBLs. Read up on them, and then you'll understand why ipV6 will completely break the backbone of the existing spam filtering network.
Right now 2-10% of the actual spam travelling on the net gets through filters. If we go to ipV6, that number will probably jump up to 70% because the location from which mail is received has a lot to do with how systems determine what is and isn't spam. This is based on a "blacklist" of known IP blocks that shouldn't be sending e-mail. If this pool size increases exponentially, as is proposed with ipV6, then it will be exponentially harder to maintain such a list of "rogue IP space" and spammers will have their biggest obstacle ever removed.
In short, ipV6 is every spammer's fucking orgasmic dream come true.
Right now, IP space in which spammers can operate is getting limited. This is what is driving them to engage in worm and botnets... their illegal activity is going to get them all shut down eventually if the authorities start doing their job.
If ipV6 opens up, then spamming will increase EXPONENTIALLY. You guys have to trust me on this. There's always a bunch of moron pundits embracing new technology that will "change everything" and it's fucking bullshit. Content-based filtering costs companies money -- the very same companies that spammers steal bandwidth from. RBLs put a stop to this. ipV6 will completely negate the massive amount of work that's been done in this area and there is NO alterntative.
Every major ISP. EVERY MAJOR ISP is now using RBLs, from AOL to Cox to you-name-it. They don't advertise it because they use it in combination with content-based filtering, but you can bet the IP source of mail has more to do with the spam ranking than anything else.
Also, with the limited IP space, it's easier to stop worm propagation because broadband DUL space is blacklisted. There should be no SMTP traffic originating from end user IPs... so if you see it, 99.99% of the time it's the sign of a zombie pc. If you open up more IP space, it'll be a thousand-thousand times harder to deal with and nail down.
I am right about this. I was right about every other goofy-ass anti-spam measure from CAN-SPAM on down. I'm not trying to be arrogant. I know what I'm talking about here. Increase IP space will create a nightmare for administrators and networks. It's not needed. There are other, better solutions. ipV6 can wait until the spam problem is under control.
Dude, you obviously have no idea what the fuck ou're talking about. Don't generalize about RBLs because some of them are managed by asshats.
RBLs are the only effective way thus far to actually cost spammers money. Don't talk about stuff you don't know anything about. I mess with this stuff for a living. I design and build systems and deal with large quantities of mail and mail servers. RBLs save shitloads of money and resources. Keep your ignorance to yourself.
Re:Am I just being overly simplistic...
on
IPv6 Essentials
·
· Score: 0
I agree with you.
V6 is not needed, and not wanted by most of us in the industry. PERIOD.
NAT works fine. It also encourages more responsibility and control over IP space.
We will not switch to IPv6 until the spam problem is neutralized to a great degree. RBLs are the most effective method of stopping spam now. IPv6 would set anti-spam efforts back to the beginning almost. The larger amount of IP space would make stopping spamming exponentially more problemmatic. I urge other ISPs and networks to REJECT ipV6 until the industry cleans its own house, stops zombie PCs and spammers. Then and ONLY THEN should we consider ipV6.
No increased address space on the net until the rogue activity is controlled!!
What's really ironic about this is that this dingleberry attached to an unrelated bill was supposedly to appease the religious right. But nowhere in the bible... NOWHERE is gambling indicated as being against god's will or law. In fact the bible makes repeated references to gambling and "drawing of lots" throughout.
This is another classic example of religious nutjobs exploiting the stupidity of the public, hiding behind dogma to impose their own selfish agenda. They feel that internet gambling is cutting into their gambling activities like bingo... what a bunch of hypocrites. It's a shame god doesn't exist because if he did, all these asses would be burning in hell for eternity as a result of their unbridaled hubris and hypocrisy.
We use Quickbooks. If there was an easy path to dump Quickbooks and migrate elsewhere, I'd be all for it. We now get shaken down for shitloads of money each year for bullshit products like tax tables... it's almost criminal the way Quicken extorts money from their customers for common data that should be free. I feel like I'm held hostage now because we were foolish enough to convert our business to use their products.
Where's National Breast Awareness Month? Why limit it to just cancer? Sounds like discrimination to me.
Re:Everything they taught you in school is wrong
on
Ten Geek Business Myths
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
If success is not merit based then what is success based on?
First and foremost "Success" is ultimately an abstraction. It's highly subjective. Academia's merit-based system quantifies "success" in a manner which is inconsistent with the real world.
Generally speaking, you can't take a test and as a result, make yourself happy or financially secure or loved in any substantive sense.
Plus, in the academic world, showing up is a major factor, which won't cut it in the real world if you really want to advance.
For the purpose of illustration, let's say success is point B and you are point A. In school, you get to point B by sitting on a vehicle that is on a track that is clearly headed towards point B. All you basically have to do is keep your hands and arms inside the car, push a little, and you'll get there. Compare this with the real world, where point B is never in one spot for very long -- it moves around, and there aren't really any reliable maps or means of transportation. You're left alone to get there, and everyone that was on your academic ride is now a competitor and less-motivated to help you. This is why so many people come out of college and don't know what the hell to do. College doesn't teach resourcefulness as much as it teaches compliance. The typical academic skillset does not lend itself well towards entrepeneurial pursuits.
I think most of these myths are right on the money. It has always amazed me, for example, how many people have foolishly thought that a mere [untested, undeployed] idea could be relatively valuable. And I've often felt that patents are like viagra for investors... ultimately they may be unenforcable, but if you can attract some dumbass investor on the premise that you own "intellectual property" you can cash in.
Most of the dot com failures can be directly attributed to people beliving many of these myths. Priceline.com was one of those companies that I immediately thought, "WTF?" and they're a good example of believing in all of those boneheaded myths.
I particularly like Myth #6: What you know matters more than who you know. I'd add as a footnote to that: "See Bush, George W."
If Symantec and McAffee actually made decent products these days, they might have a point. If they actually hired Americans to do most of their development, I might be a tad more sympathetic, but I don't have any sympathy for them. Microsoft has destroyed far more worthwhile publishing companies than those two. Seeing their core business hit doesn't bother me a bit. The truth is their products started sucking a long time ago.
I just wish Microsoft would take down Quicken. There's another dynasty that has outlived its value and become bloated and mercinary like Symantec and McAffee.
Yes, there are several ways to tell if and when files have been modified, NONE of which can't be subverted by a capable hacker.
If this guy is clever enough to deploy trojans, he's in the business of fooling people, and your typical "forensic specialist" would be a pushover to him. Your statement does not match reality... it may get more airplay because many expert witnesses, especially in the field of technology, are more politicians than technologists and the court doesn't know better, but it won't fly here.
This reminds me of the recent publicity over the VA laptop computer that was stolen, and the feds claimed they recovered it and the data was "untouched". 90% of everyone who routinely participates on Slashdot knows that's a total load of bullshit. The VA data, encrypted or not, could have been copied without anyone ever knowing. Save those lies for people who know better.
If this is ok, then why not make public everyone's search queries? I'm sure we'd find plenty of criminal evidence. Why just a lone hacker vigilante? Let's unload everyone's private information publicly and have random people sift through it and report each other. Look on the bright side, we'll lock up criminals. Maybe AOL had it right after all and they shouldn't be apologizing for releasing private information into the pulic domain. The end does justify the means right?
How do you figure this? By checking the file timestamps? There is no fool proof way to identify such things. It depends upon the situation, but your statement that a forensics specialist could tell when a file was placed on someone's machine is patently false.
The reason why Microsoft can make so much profit per employee is because they've basically turned the rest of the computer/software industry into unwilling tech support reps for their own products.
"The new management could take the axe to Microsoft's $6.6bn of wasteful research and development expenditure." R&D wasteful. That's the stupidest thing I've heard today. And I work with retarded kids. (No I don't really - it just gets the point across.)
What's the last innovative technology that came out of Microsoft R&D? The talking paperclip?
There aren't many news media these days that report accurately, but FT is the exception. If they publish the story, you can bet they did their research. Whether it happens or not remains to be seen, but I would completely believe it if FT wrote about it. American newspapers could relearn journalism by paying attention to London's Financial Times.
"Everything is a theory, therefore everything involves faith.... and even reality is an illusion."
Put down the crack pipe.
All that tripe is irrelevent distraction from the point, which is any monkey boy claiming he knows the "Truth" is full of shit. And that's the difference between theist idiots and logical, rational, free thinkers: OPEN-MINDEDNESS! It doesn't matter what reality you're in or what drug you're on. If you think you have the world figured out, there's a pretty darn good chance you're ultimately clueless, misguided, and destined to eat your words.
Again, you didn't address the argument. You countered with a boneheaded claim that existence and reality may not be what we think, and what? In this possible permutation your goofy-ass claim might be accurate? That's hilarious! Nice attempt at logic though. However totally pointless it may be.
Organized religion isn't the only way to get spiritual guidance, but it is certainly an effective way.
Yep, but it's also an effective way to:
* oppress women and minorities
* mandate slavery
* generate vast riches for a select few
* control the populace through fear, uncertainty and doubt
* get others to perform profoundly evil and immoral acts, such as the murder, raping and pillaging of others
Given that, by your own admission, religion is not the only way to promote morality, what would be the point of holding onto this arcane ideology which is also the primary catalyst for more pain, oppression, suffering and murder than any other concept in the history of mankind?
You know, the Nazis did some good things too, but obviously the bad things they did outweighed the value their organization may have provided to society. The same can (and should) be said for most organized religion. For clear evidence of this, one need only look at the holy book of virtually any of these religions. It's time for them to be called out. There are better ways to promote morality and spirtuality.
I know what you mean. This is why I was looking at property up in the mountains in the middle of nowhere. It's nice to see what the sky really looks like.
Dammit - it's posts like these that give scientists and atheists a bad rap. Science has very, very little to do with faith. There is so much more to religion than mere explanation of the unexplainable. There's morality, social structure, hope, guidelines for life and many, many more ideas that are completely outside the scope of science. To replace religion with science is to completely miss the point of religion. Atheism might be called religion based on science, but it really isn't. At its core, it eschews science as much as christianity, islam or budhism.
You talk as if religion corners the market on morality and social structure. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination.
Calling for an end to religious dogma is not much different than calling for an end to using tin-foil hats or witch doctors to cure ailments. We move on and find better ways to help each other.
Science has progressed to the point where the vast majority of rationale that religion used to explain itself is now moot.
It's narrow-minded to hold onto the notion that morality, hope, social structure and life guidelines cannot exist in a society devoid of primitive mythological dogma.
Normally, I'm a live-and-let-live guy. I don't have a problem with believing in whatever you want. If you want to believe in Allah or Jesus of whoever, that's fine, but when my civil liberties and freedom are interrupted by state-sanctioned, religiously-motivated dictates, especially when they come from corrupt, hypocritical institutions, it's time to speak out and say, "Hey, this religion thing is obsolete. If you want to practice it privately, knock yourself out. If you want to mandate a formal social structure based on your mythological beliefs, NO!"
Atheism is not a religion, nor a belief. It is the LACK OF BELIEF in unproven, mythological dogma, the most notable of which is this idea that there's an omnipotent god hovering around, fucking with us left and right, one moment offering rewards, the next scaring the crap out of us with fear of punishment. I just say no to that. I see no productive value in living my life waiting for some invisible dude to show up and "judge" me. If you follow the golden rule, any decent god worth respecting would think you're a decent person. That's all I need to know.
I think generally speaking, this world would be a much better place without religion. Even a casual glimpse at the bible backs this up. It wasn't atheists who flew planes into the WTC. The vast majority of tyrants and serial killers throughout history were big into religion. Without religion, we'd still have morality and hope and all the same social structures. Just no fake god to blame things on, or to exploit to control others and make money.
That's my hope. That we put "god" where he belongs, right next to the tooth fairy, santa clause, and pink unicorns.
Riiiight, because in your version of a debate, the guy who wins is the one who avoids addressing any points.
This is no debate.
The issue here is whether or not "faith" in science is similar to faith in theology. I called that claim BULLSHIT. I cited examples of why and how to substantiate my argument. Crankitout, couldn't believe I said "bullshit" and ignored the whole point. And you say he wins? I guess in your version of a debate, whoever is the least acerbic wins regardless of whether or not anything else that came out of their mouth makes sense.
You obviously believe in mythological creatures, despite a total lack of evidence. You talk about the notion of capital-T Truth, which is the hallmark of the deluded. Don't backpedal now. Stand up for your delusion at least.
Don't go preaching in science forums, no matter how cleverly abstract you think you're being. This is what you get. Go hang out on freep or rushlimbaugh.com and people probably won't think you're stupid. Don't start a philosophical discussion and then pussy out because OMG I can't believe you said bullshit. Pu-leeze.
I can't believe you haven't invoked Godwin yet. Maybe that will come in your next post.
I have a 1969 Time-Life box set of LPs with pictures and recordings of the landing. I could make this available to the government for the bargain price of, say $50M. It would still be cheaper/better than probably whatever they plan to do.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't understand about RBLs. Read up on them, and then you'll understand why ipV6 will completely break the backbone of the existing spam filtering network.
Right now 2-10% of the actual spam travelling on the net gets through filters. If we go to ipV6, that number will probably jump up to 70% because the location from which mail is received has a lot to do with how systems determine what is and isn't spam. This is based on a "blacklist" of known IP blocks that shouldn't be sending e-mail. If this pool size increases exponentially, as is proposed with ipV6, then it will be exponentially harder to maintain such a list of "rogue IP space" and spammers will have their biggest obstacle ever removed.
In short, ipV6 is every spammer's fucking orgasmic dream come true.
Brute force scanning is irrelevant.
Right now, IP space in which spammers can operate is getting limited. This is what is driving them to engage in worm and botnets... their illegal activity is going to get them all shut down eventually if the authorities start doing their job.
If ipV6 opens up, then spamming will increase EXPONENTIALLY. You guys have to trust me on this. There's always a bunch of moron pundits embracing new technology that will "change everything" and it's fucking bullshit. Content-based filtering costs companies money -- the very same companies that spammers steal bandwidth from. RBLs put a stop to this. ipV6 will completely negate the massive amount of work that's been done in this area and there is NO alterntative.
Every major ISP. EVERY MAJOR ISP is now using RBLs, from AOL to Cox to you-name-it. They don't advertise it because they use it in combination with content-based filtering, but you can bet the IP source of mail has more to do with the spam ranking than anything else.
Also, with the limited IP space, it's easier to stop worm propagation because broadband DUL space is blacklisted. There should be no SMTP traffic originating from end user IPs... so if you see it, 99.99% of the time it's the sign of a zombie pc. If you open up more IP space, it'll be a thousand-thousand times harder to deal with and nail down.
I am right about this. I was right about every other goofy-ass anti-spam measure from CAN-SPAM on down. I'm not trying to be arrogant. I know what I'm talking about here. Increase IP space will create a nightmare for administrators and networks. It's not needed. There are other, better solutions. ipV6 can wait until the spam problem is under control.
Dude, you obviously have no idea what the fuck ou're talking about. Don't generalize about RBLs because some of them are managed by asshats.
RBLs are the only effective way thus far to actually cost spammers money. Don't talk about stuff you don't know anything about. I mess with this stuff for a living. I design and build systems and deal with large quantities of mail and mail servers. RBLs save shitloads of money and resources. Keep your ignorance to yourself.
I agree with you.
V6 is not needed, and not wanted by most of us in the industry. PERIOD.
NAT works fine. It also encourages more responsibility and control over IP space.
V6 is unwelcome.
We will not switch to IPv6 until the spam problem is neutralized to a great degree. RBLs are the most effective method of stopping spam now. IPv6 would set anti-spam efforts back to the beginning almost. The larger amount of IP space would make stopping spamming exponentially more problemmatic. I urge other ISPs and networks to REJECT ipV6 until the industry cleans its own house, stops zombie PCs and spammers. Then and ONLY THEN should we consider ipV6.
No increased address space on the net until the rogue activity is controlled!!
What's really ironic about this is that this dingleberry attached to an unrelated bill was supposedly to appease the religious right. But nowhere in the bible... NOWHERE is gambling indicated as being against god's will or law. In fact the bible makes repeated references to gambling and "drawing of lots" throughout.
This is another classic example of religious nutjobs exploiting the stupidity of the public, hiding behind dogma to impose their own selfish agenda. They feel that internet gambling is cutting into their gambling activities like bingo... what a bunch of hypocrites. It's a shame god doesn't exist because if he did, all these asses would be burning in hell for eternity as a result of their unbridaled hubris and hypocrisy.
We use Quickbooks. If there was an easy path to dump Quickbooks and migrate elsewhere, I'd be all for it. We now get shaken down for shitloads of money each year for bullshit products like tax tables... it's almost criminal the way Quicken extorts money from their customers for common data that should be free. I feel like I'm held hostage now because we were foolish enough to convert our business to use their products.
Where's National Breast Awareness Month? Why limit it to just cancer? Sounds like discrimination to me.
If success is not merit based then what is success based on?
First and foremost "Success" is ultimately an abstraction. It's highly subjective. Academia's merit-based system quantifies "success" in a manner which is inconsistent with the real world.
Generally speaking, you can't take a test and as a result, make yourself happy or financially secure or loved in any substantive sense.
Plus, in the academic world, showing up is a major factor, which won't cut it in the real world if you really want to advance.
For the purpose of illustration, let's say success is point B and you are point A. In school, you get to point B by sitting on a vehicle that is on a track that is clearly headed towards point B. All you basically have to do is keep your hands and arms inside the car, push a little, and you'll get there. Compare this with the real world, where point B is never in one spot for very long -- it moves around, and there aren't really any reliable maps or means of transportation. You're left alone to get there, and everyone that was on your academic ride is now a competitor and less-motivated to help you. This is why so many people come out of college and don't know what the hell to do. College doesn't teach resourcefulness as much as it teaches compliance. The typical academic skillset does not lend itself well towards entrepeneurial pursuits.
If I wanted links to blogs pretending to be news articles, I'd be at digg.
See Myth #4.
I think most of these myths are right on the money. It has always amazed me, for example, how many people have foolishly thought that a mere [untested, undeployed] idea could be relatively valuable. And I've often felt that patents are like viagra for investors... ultimately they may be unenforcable, but if you can attract some dumbass investor on the premise that you own "intellectual property" you can cash in.
Most of the dot com failures can be directly attributed to people beliving many of these myths. Priceline.com was one of those companies that I immediately thought, "WTF?" and they're a good example of believing in all of those boneheaded myths.
I particularly like Myth #6: What you know matters more than who you know. I'd add as a footnote to that: "See Bush, George W."
If Symantec and McAffee actually made decent products these days, they might have a point. If they actually hired Americans to do most of their development, I might be a tad more sympathetic, but I don't have any sympathy for them. Microsoft has destroyed far more worthwhile publishing companies than those two. Seeing their core business hit doesn't bother me a bit. The truth is their products started sucking a long time ago.
I just wish Microsoft would take down Quicken. There's another dynasty that has outlived its value and become bloated and mercinary like Symantec and McAffee.
Yes, there are several ways to tell if and when files have been modified, NONE of which can't be subverted by a capable hacker.
If this guy is clever enough to deploy trojans, he's in the business of fooling people, and your typical "forensic specialist" would be a pushover to him. Your statement does not match reality... it may get more airplay because many expert witnesses, especially in the field of technology, are more politicians than technologists and the court doesn't know better, but it won't fly here.
This reminds me of the recent publicity over the VA laptop computer that was stolen, and the feds claimed they recovered it and the data was "untouched". 90% of everyone who routinely participates on Slashdot knows that's a total load of bullshit. The VA data, encrypted or not, could have been copied without anyone ever knowing. Save those lies for people who know better.
If this is ok, then why not make public everyone's search queries? I'm sure we'd find plenty of criminal evidence. Why just a lone hacker vigilante? Let's unload everyone's private information publicly and have random people sift through it and report each other. Look on the bright side, we'll lock up criminals. Maybe AOL had it right after all and they shouldn't be apologizing for releasing private information into the pulic domain. The end does justify the means right?
How do you figure this? By checking the file timestamps? There is no fool proof way to identify such things. It depends upon the situation, but your statement that a forensics specialist could tell when a file was placed on someone's machine is patently false.
The reason why Microsoft can make so much profit per employee is because they've basically turned the rest of the computer/software industry into unwilling tech support reps for their own products.
"The new management could take the axe to Microsoft's $6.6bn of wasteful research and development expenditure." R&D wasteful. That's the stupidest thing I've heard today. And I work with retarded kids. (No I don't really - it just gets the point across.)
What's the last innovative technology that came out of Microsoft R&D? The talking paperclip?
There aren't many news media these days that report accurately, but FT is the exception. If they publish the story, you can bet they did their research. Whether it happens or not remains to be seen, but I would completely believe it if FT wrote about it. American newspapers could relearn journalism by paying attention to London's Financial Times.
blah.. blah.. Dee Dee Dee.. blah..
"Everything is a theory, therefore everything involves faith.... and even reality is an illusion."
Put down the crack pipe.
All that tripe is irrelevent distraction from the point, which is any monkey boy claiming he knows the "Truth" is full of shit. And that's the difference between theist idiots and logical, rational, free thinkers: OPEN-MINDEDNESS! It doesn't matter what reality you're in or what drug you're on. If you think you have the world figured out, there's a pretty darn good chance you're ultimately clueless, misguided, and destined to eat your words.
Again, you didn't address the argument. You countered with a boneheaded claim that existence and reality may not be what we think, and what? In this possible permutation your goofy-ass claim might be accurate? That's hilarious! Nice attempt at logic though. However totally pointless it may be.
Organized religion isn't the only way to get spiritual guidance, but it is certainly an effective way.
Yep, but it's also an effective way to:
* oppress women and minorities
* mandate slavery
* generate vast riches for a select few
* control the populace through fear, uncertainty and doubt
* get others to perform profoundly evil and immoral acts, such as the murder, raping and pillaging of others
Given that, by your own admission, religion is not the only way to promote morality, what would be the point of holding onto this arcane ideology which is also the primary catalyst for more pain, oppression, suffering and murder than any other concept in the history of mankind?
You know, the Nazis did some good things too, but obviously the bad things they did outweighed the value their organization may have provided to society. The same can (and should) be said for most organized religion. For clear evidence of this, one need only look at the holy book of virtually any of these religions. It's time for them to be called out. There are better ways to promote morality and spirtuality.
I know what you mean. This is why I was looking at property up in the mountains in the middle of nowhere. It's nice to see what the sky really looks like.
Dammit - it's posts like these that give scientists and atheists a bad rap. Science has very, very little to do with faith. There is so much more to religion than mere explanation of the unexplainable. There's morality, social structure, hope, guidelines for life and many, many more ideas that are completely outside the scope of science. To replace religion with science is to completely miss the point of religion. Atheism might be called religion based on science, but it really isn't. At its core, it eschews science as much as christianity, islam or budhism.
You talk as if religion corners the market on morality and social structure. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination.
Calling for an end to religious dogma is not much different than calling for an end to using tin-foil hats or witch doctors to cure ailments. We move on and find better ways to help each other.
Science has progressed to the point where the vast majority of rationale that religion used to explain itself is now moot.
It's narrow-minded to hold onto the notion that morality, hope, social structure and life guidelines cannot exist in a society devoid of primitive mythological dogma.
Normally, I'm a live-and-let-live guy. I don't have a problem with believing in whatever you want. If you want to believe in Allah or Jesus of whoever, that's fine, but when my civil liberties and freedom are interrupted by state-sanctioned, religiously-motivated dictates, especially when they come from corrupt, hypocritical institutions, it's time to speak out and say, "Hey, this religion thing is obsolete. If you want to practice it privately, knock yourself out. If you want to mandate a formal social structure based on your mythological beliefs, NO!"
Atheism is not a religion, nor a belief. It is the LACK OF BELIEF in unproven, mythological dogma, the most notable of which is this idea that there's an omnipotent god hovering around, fucking with us left and right, one moment offering rewards, the next scaring the crap out of us with fear of punishment. I just say no to that. I see no productive value in living my life waiting for some invisible dude to show up and "judge" me. If you follow the golden rule, any decent god worth respecting would think you're a decent person. That's all I need to know.
I think generally speaking, this world would be a much better place without religion. Even a casual glimpse at the bible backs this up. It wasn't atheists who flew planes into the WTC. The vast majority of tyrants and serial killers throughout history were big into religion. Without religion, we'd still have morality and hope and all the same social structures. Just no fake god to blame things on, or to exploit to control others and make money.
That's my hope. That we put "god" where he belongs, right next to the tooth fairy, santa clause, and pink unicorns.
You'd never make it in debate. Crankinout wins
Riiiight, because in your version of a debate, the guy who wins is the one who avoids addressing any points.
This is no debate.
The issue here is whether or not "faith" in science is similar to faith in theology. I called that claim BULLSHIT. I cited examples of why and how to substantiate my argument. Crankitout, couldn't believe I said "bullshit" and ignored the whole point. And you say he wins? I guess in your version of a debate, whoever is the least acerbic wins regardless of whether or not anything else that came out of their mouth makes sense.
Tonight must be moron night on slashdot.
You obviously believe in mythological creatures, despite a total lack of evidence. You talk about the notion of capital-T Truth, which is the hallmark of the deluded. Don't backpedal now. Stand up for your delusion at least.
Don't go preaching in science forums, no matter how cleverly abstract you think you're being. This is what you get. Go hang out on freep or rushlimbaugh.com and people probably won't think you're stupid. Don't start a philosophical discussion and then pussy out because OMG I can't believe you said bullshit . Pu-leeze.
I can't believe you haven't invoked Godwin yet. Maybe that will come in your next post.
I have a 1969 Time-Life box set of LPs with pictures and recordings of the landing. I could make this available to the government for the bargain price of, say $50M. It would still be cheaper/better than probably whatever they plan to do.