You seem pretty knowledgeable here so I have to ask, does the patent actual cover the ability to use the file system or just the file system? It seems wrong to block someone from using a butter knife as a screw driver because the screw has a patent on it.
I'm not entirely sure that the GPL needs to be involved here at all. The device that the TomTom software is distributed on needs a patent license because of it's file system configuration. However, I don't think the code that allows access (the file system driver) would need a license to be redistributed. It certainly isn't needed now for a distro or kernel. It seems that it is only needed when the actual file system itself is in play and distributed.
Because of that, and let me know if I'm wrong, the GPL shouldn't even matter on this. The GPL pertains to the software, not the hardware. If I purchased a Linux server in a turn key application, I wouldn't be expecting distribution rights to patents in the Bios, patents on the CPU, video card, or any other device. I wouldn't even expect the GPL to apply to the LBA code in the harddrive even though it controls it.
Maybe Obama should scale back this "transparency" thing. It seems like everyone he knows has something illegal, corrupt, or somehow shady hanging over him.
You do realize that American Idol was originally started to promote or vet for record labels right? Each one of the judges own their own labels or parts of each others. It's a test bed for what will make them money. Just about anyone who makes it on the show has proven to be a possible money maker even if it's small time. The ones who get kicked off earlier just make less money then the ones who stay longer.
My health insurance (family, employer pays half of my premium) through blue cross blue shield is closer to $3,800/month. Single person is well over $1000. So yeah, your figures are wildly out of date. But yes I realize there are ways for a small business to pay fees in order to pool their resources to get better rates. You can call it the chamber of commerce, but you're still describing an ad hoc form of government.
I think you got something wrong on that there. Perhaps your employer is only claiming to pay half but according to those numbers, it would be over 45K a year. This provides(PDF warning) some more current information on costs but they are averages and 3 years old. However, it puts your claimed cost to around 6 times the national average for the most high costing age group (50-54 at $6,751 average anal family coverage). Of course it says that premiums vary from state to state and even breaks down those for us. It says that your numbers would be 2.5 times the average in Massachusetts which seems to have the highest rates. In fact, if you look at the states, the more liberal states seem to have the highest costs for some reason and pretty much set the national average. My state seems to be right in the middle of the state list and for single coverage, the average is actually lower then what I was paying but I also had indemnity instead of a HMO plan.
The types of plans will effect price but then again, if you going after the most expensive plan, your not complaining about coverage costs, your complaining about costs of certain coverage which is quite different.
I do acknowledge where this money is coming from. Higher taxes. Our taxes are ridiculously low. We haven't even been paying for what we've been spending. Once we get out of this recession we're obviously going to have higher taxes. Trickle-down doesn't work in any substantial way. Otherwise we would have had surpluses during the most recent boom years. I think the American taxpayer is beginning to realize that health care is something like roads or electricity. We're not willing to compromise on it. We think it's a basic right, and we're willing to pay for it. The federal government already is insuring an enormous number of Americans. Our taxes are already paying for the uninsured when they hit hospitals and cost a ridiculous amount more than preventative care. Let's finish the deal and ensure a right to health as a fundamental American right.
Most people I speak with don't think we should be spending that much in the first place. But that wasn't the point. The point is that you are still spending the same amount of money regardless of if it comes out of your pocket at your will or if it is taxed and comes out at the will of some politician who seems more interested in kickbacks or greasing some fatcat's pockets in order to secure campaign donations and retain power. If for some reason you believe it would be cheaper with the government controlling it, you really aren't paying attention.
As for trickle down, the federal budget has increased every year in recent years, so have the tax revenues, you can't claim something doesn't work when you're simply not playing by the rules. To say we should have had a surplus and blame an economic principle without acknowledging the increases in spending is like blaming your boss for you bouncing a checks you wrote. The problem with surpluses is that the money isn't allowed to just sit there. If the government is taking too much, it has to give the money back or it has to spend it. Those are the rules set up. Recently, they have chosen to spend it which has the side effect of reoccurring costs, and when the funding doesn't come in, you have a deficit. That shouldn't be new to anyone, the only difference is that when the US government spends like that, it's business as usual. When companies or even you spend lik
When an officer cites you for driving too fast for conditions (which is what an excessive speed charge when doing the speed limit would be), he has to make the case that the conditions required you to drive slower to permit safe operation.
Obviously, if he claimed there was 10 inches of snow on the road in the middle of July in AZ, he couldn't make the case. If he said there was some substance the was spilled on the road making it slippery, then he would have to show that you had warning of it. In other words, it isn't as simple as writing a ticket for 50 in a 50 zone. It may be hard to fight it but it isn't exactly that simple.
Your sort of spot on. The problem is with the punishment.
There are a lot of things that are infractions but normal people do because of necessity or lack of knowledge. It doesn't absolve them from a crime but it could change the punishment or make it completely non-existent. The problem is that a cop isn't the judge or the jury. Punishment shouldn't be the focus, rather the punishment or case being decided by the courts should be.
The reason for this is because when cops decide they are the judge and jury and let people off, they also decide they are and just maybe there was a way to arrest the guy without shooting him, maybe there was a way to arrest him without tazing him, maybe the guy didn't exactly resist arrest, maybe there was a way of doing what needed to be done without the cops predetermining guilt and exacting punishment on the suspect before he got the right to a judge and jury. Maybe some dumbass in the bay area metro station would still be alive if cops didn't do that. This story is exactly about that. A cop who thought he was the judge and jury and did illegal things to make sure someone paid. The cops shouldn't have the power to be a judge or jury- maybe then we would think twice about some stupid laws on the books that only seem to be enforced when the cops want to screw with someone.
Friends or not, the same rules for entrapment and privacy apply. If he willingly admits or tells someone something in confidence and that other person tells someone else, it is availible for all to see and know regardless of any perceived secrecy or confidentiality that isn't otherwise prescribed by law.
Yes, that means, if you tell your lawyer you did it, he doesn't have to tell anyone else and most likely wouldn't be allowed in court because he is your lawyer and the laws specifically address them. But if you tell your wife in confidentiality that you did it, she can tell the cops where the body is buried and even tell the courts that you admitted to her that you did it.
So the question is, how did the defense know to look at his myspace stuff. Well, it was probably a tip they got from someone that he pissed off or it was covered under and attempt to get online communications like the one posted about the arrest video.
I don't know why you said "poor conservatives" for. I thought we just established the McCain wan't one and HE PICKED Paling in order to appease them. Any logical following of that would be that someone who isn't a conservative didn't exactly know about conservatives. Perhaps we are talking about you too.
This also goes to show that Republicans aren't really the party of small business. One of the biggest ways that small business struggles to compete with big business is in the realm of health care costs. Big businesses have better bargaining power and pay less per employee. Small business can't simply compete with salaries, they have to compete on benefits, and they have to pay more for them than largeer businesses.
Small businesses who become members of the chamber of commerce or other quasi politico entities are able to pool their resources for insurance and get more of a discount or better pricing then many large companies. And yes, there were a few laws passed allowing this to happen.
For instance, when I had my shop open, I received a 35% discount on my automobile insurance just for being a member of the chamber of commerce. I also received a 25% discount on liability insurance for the business, almost 50% off of the unintentional loss insurance (the business version of comprehensive home owners insurance). And get this, during the last election, both parties claimed that the average insurance plan costs 6 grand a person and 12 grand a family per year, I had no family coverage but the 10 employees (including myself) costs an average of $3,800 a year for bluecross/blueshield insurance. That came out to around $75-80 a week and I covered half of that. Of course this was in 2003 so in 5 years the costs could have went up a little but other business owners I know don't complain about the costs.
The best way to create a boom in all sectors is to nationalize health care premiums. Companies and employees would have more in their pocket. Employers could hire more, and could pay their current employees more, which would be great for the economy.
You say this without acknowledging that it will have to be paid for. I'm not sure why people like you do this but your not the first one to do it. I know plenty of self employed people who claim the government should cover insurance costs because it would be cheaper for them, Usually it's when taking their boat to the lake for some water skiing or when riding 4wheelers. If it already averages $12,000 a year for family coverage and every family is all the sudden getting covered, then every family will have to pay $12,000 a year in taxes to get the nationalized coverage. The extremely poor are already covered and most people with children are covered in some way, I don't expect the costs would be spread over to them so the only option left would be to tax the people being included in some sort of coverage.
The effect is that you don't save anything, the companies don't save anything, but instead of you having a choice to spend that money on a computer instead or to buy a nicer car or to buy a boat or put your kids in a better school or whatever, it will now be forced out of you in the terms of taxes.
Just like your wild assertion on small businesses, I don't think you have thought this through enough or even considered all the facts of the situation. The money won't magically appear from nothing, it won't just be there, it will come from taxes and it will be your increased taxes paying for it. And this time, you won't have the choices you have now.
Perhpas McCain doesn't support it because some of the provisions were struck down in court as unconstitutional and it's ineffective and doesn't make sense now. Then he not even pretending to be a conservative barometer. BTW, that is what Palin was supposed to have been.
But you conveniently left out your original point. I added a plugin to my remote control truth extractor. It's called the wandering logic detector, and it found something. Let me reconstruct the missing piece of that conversation:
I think I know why you posted AC, I wouldn't want a name associated with your response either.
Anyways, the post is still with my original point, the software needs to be properly licensed and using linux does not remove that.
According to you, it really IS all about licensing. But then the silliness is exposed. Now it's all about tracking the product utilization. As for "Enterprise readiness", some of the users are in a better position to make that determination than you are. Better get ready to throw in the next excuse!
I think you have a problem with context. That paragraph was talking about software in general and needing a license for it. The point your attempting to compare to was where the post in between attempted to assert that linux would have "free" software in order to negate the licensing requirements. In effect, we are talking about two separate issues within a general topic. One is ensuring we have the proper licenses. The other is about the types of licenses and why they don't always fit.
Now I know that can be confusing but please do your best to follow along.
But tracking installed products is easier in Linux than Windows anyway. A trivial (one line) script for a competent admin. Actually, this should be added onto the daily cron job that checks the SMART status of the hard drive and sends a warning to the helpdesk when bad sector replacements are increasing. Hmmmmm... now the script is really getting complicated - 2 lines!
First, it's not exactly hard in windows. In most cases, you can simply install an asset tracking program that reports everything to a server that in turn notifies someone of changes. Second, what does writing a script to check the smart status of the hard drive have to do with tracking installed software? The SMART status does nothing to the contents of the drive, it checks certain conditions of the drive and yes, most asset tracking software have that ability too.
Hard drive status is a minor inconvenience though. Hard drive failure is a minor inconvenience for the most part. If your doing things right, all your data will be on a server with at minimum of a raid 5 array and hopefully a raid 10 or even better with different NAS technologies out there. Either way, there will be.should be a backup of the data and as long as the drive is imaged on the workstation, a failed drive turns into a 20-30 minute trip to install a cloned drive. The cloning can be done with proprietary programs or simply by using DD on a boot able Linux CD. It doesn't matter.
My guess is that you consider your time so valuable that everyone should be inconvenienced by the need to ask permission to hook up a printer, but not so valuable that you can bring something useful to system administration, such as predicting hard drive failure.
First of all, the users shouldn't even be buying or installing printers. If they are, that means I didn't do my job correctly. I don't know of any large company in which the employees provision their own printers or attempt to connect them on their own. If someone needs access to a printer on another floor or if the existing printer craps out, it is trivial to give them another printer- even remotely. And if the business is using walmart or best buy printers, they are probably wasting a ton of money on supplies. I think your confusing a mom and pop business and not a well run company. Now don't take that as mom and pop businesses aren't well run, take it as their needs are completely different.
BTW, if you want to do IT so bad, then why arne't you working in IT? I mean it doesn't make sense for you to be tas
Historically, it was a planet until an arbitrary decision was made and poof it all the sudden wasn't. Actually, arbitrary is probably too harsh of a word and the incorrect usage of it. There was a reason for the process. It doesn't necessarily have to be an ego thing, tradition is often marked by less then ego. Statues, monuments, and all sorts of other items of historic value could refere to it as a planet and the new classification could make it all invalid and worthless or out of place now. It could have been just as easy for the scientific definition to provide an exclusion for an existing classification of just one planet. It would be no more complicated then saying what was once a planet is now not one.
Personally, I see a legislature having every right to name or classify something in space or even in science as long as it is understood that it is a legislative convention and not a scientific one. Ego could be a motivation behind it but people need ego in order to create heroes too. Folk lore like Johny Appleseed (who was a real person on a land grab), Abraham Lincoln, or even George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington, have a place at inspiring people to do more then just enough. IF a statue of a man remains valid because the inscription remains true and that statue or plaque or whatever inspires one person to do something great, then it's probably worth more then all the salaries of the government people voting on it combined. OF course science isn't often a direct quid pro quo like that, it's probably going to be more likely that some people (plural) will be inspired and make small advancements that all lead to or add up to something great.
Imagine if you will, that Alfred Nobel was only remembered for creating easier ways of killing people and destroying things instead of all the benefits of the buildings and bridges he built or the stabilization of Nitroglycerin into dynamite or the blasting cap that allows their placement in more convenient and practical places with less costs. Even today, principles he pioneered makes building demolition safer and aids in mining and other fields. Instead of being the demon that created safer ways to kill the enemy or Le marchand de la mort est mort ("The merchant of death is dead") as a premature obituary claimed, he has a piece prize named after him that served nothing but to serve an ego but also rewards people for achievement in sciences and literacy works as well as international unity based on their positive impacts on society. So now there is a goal to strive for as well as recognition to other people who "did good" (which can be a relative term) and I think this sort of ego soothing has benefited society greatly over the years.
Ego isn't bad, and sometimes it's appropriate. But there can be other reasons and I think it is such a non-issue that it doesn't matter. Anyone doing science will know the difference, everyone who isn't, might get inspired to do so.
Of course, but still, the Theory of Evolution does not say anything about the Origin of Life, at least not anything else than stating the obvious fact that it obviously happened.
Well, of course the theory doesn't speak to it in itself. But it is still important because what if life doesn't exist. Or what if it was created or was created/happened naturally in ways that make Evolution impossible in completeness of our current understanding or interpretations of it today. What if instead of being carbon based life, we started out as nitrogen or helium based life introduced by meteorites (panspermia) and whatnot from other planets that adapted to a carbon rich environment and instead of one tree of life (which actually has some ancient religion meanings) there are several dozen or millions and the relations between animals genus' and possibly up to domains or even the LUA are completely off. But how do you test against something like that? There is the importance, the one doesn't concern itself with the other but couldn't be drastically effected by it.
I apologize for using Wikipedia as a source. I don't think the accuracy of the article is as important as you understanding what was meant by the concept of LUA so we should be fine with it.
hat depends on your definition of the word symbiotic. If you take it to mean mutualistic, which is the layman definition, I'd like to ask how the Origin of Life benefits from the Theory of Evolution. If your definition includes commensalism or parasitism, the questions become even stranger.
Well, I would include Commensalism simply because it leads to lateral sharing of genetic material or the possibility of it. This could be especially dependent in a panspermia event which could throw our understanding of things completely out of whack.
How the origin of life benefits from the theory of evolution is that it can be a possible source of falsification. Now, let me explain before I screw this up and confuse myself. If we accept that evolution is the most accurate representation we can have given the facts availible, we may find a source of Abiogenesis (well, actually creationism because we would be causing it but attempting to lend it to abiogenesis) that can't fit within the current model. At that point, we would have to examine which is most likely to have happened and figure a way to test it.
I'm not sure if your familiar with the Bubble theory of evolution but it basically says that when the conditions for life was present, the different chemicals collected in differing concentrations like foam on the sea ripe with different chemicals bouncing against the shore and it is possible that all the differences in life stem from that. Everything else we see as similarities between life is either un-evolved versions of the same species or close relatives that were in the same pool of primordial soup but separated enough that the chemical differences resulted in different species. And this process could have happened multiple times at multiple places producing the same life because of the same chemicals and chemical concentration existing.
Now I bring that up because depending on the geneses of the life, we could be forced to reevaluate our interpretations of the "facts". There are already different theories out there too which have fallen into or out of or even skipped favor from the scientific community throughout the years. If we created a life that can reproduce and we can find genetic drift enough to validate the current evolutionary theory, we can justify the principles behind it more so then before. But if we cannot, we can either conclude that we were wrong on the creation or the theory of evolution. So at least as a validation or test, it's mutual beyond needing life to be present for life to exist. Now imagine a panspermia event over several million years of similar life but because of t
Not really. It's actually a little more complicated with a lot more things being dual licensed with home use versions and business use versions. Of course that isn't unique to linux but it's more applicable with more software.
On Linux, people will have difficulty finding unlicensed software since most are freely licensed under one of the open source licenses.
Not everything that is open source is enterprise ready. Some of it just isn't reliable or good enough, some of it doesn't have the support network in place, and some of them are just perfect. But here is the rub, most of the times, the license purchase isn't the issue. It's properly recording it and making sure you can track what is where how many time. Having open source licenses for many things wouldn't negate that tracking need, it would just be another entry.
On Linux, you install things under your home directory. The installation is only seen by the user, and the system-wide software is not affected. You login as another user on the system and you only see the standard software. This holds as long as you don't give users the permission to install.rpm or.deb. The user can always use 0install, autopackage, or old fashioned configure && make && make install.
What I was talking about was a per user bases with one user per machine on the floor. Linux would have done nothing to soften the fright because each other user installed the app after seeing the first one messing with it. But that is sort of besides the point, Linux stores the Codecs in/usr/local/lib/codecs/ and/usr/lib/win32 depending on the media players present. This would have caused the same situation to be present regardless of who logged in at the terminal.
Now, note that permission to install from.rpm or.deb isn't significant in the case because we are talking about locking the machine down verses letting the user have free reign to install things. Not giving them permission would fall under the same lock down headings.
That is a tough one. Leaking information isn't something that needs admin privilege to do. I don't think Linux is immune to that either.
Maybe someone else has more insight on this one?
Unfortunately, I think your right, Linux isn't immune from this. However, it is more rare as far a I know and it isn't automated like in windows with viruses. It will take either a determined person or an act of social engineering tricking them into running a program of some sort. But even with those limitations, it is quite popular on windows machines.
I think the reason why he got virus from home to the work machine is because he shared local disk on the work machine to the remote home machine. On Linux, "rdesktop" also allows you to do that. It is akin to someone bringing his USB thumb drive back and forth from work to home. Do you block USB drives too?
On most systems, yes, we do block thumbdrives. On the few that don't, it get locked to a specific directory and then scanned as the information goes from one directory to the local network or back. It's also part of how we monitor file access. Virus aside, there is also a very real threat of losing work because someone took something home to work on while someone at work updated the files after the fact. Now the files don't replace each other but sit side by side with a revisioning system similar to a code tracking system and they can be compared before being merged or renamed to go directly into a specific directory for the users. It adds some overhead to the system because all file access is through a proprietary browser window.
However, Rdesktop probably wouldn't have worked because the firewalls would have to of been opened up for it. The purpose of the remote des
The Self-Righteous Idealists are the people who like to keep their right to actually use their computers, and thusly introduce a counterargument to the corporate lock-everything-down policies, a voice of reason that companies need awareness of. Companies like Microsoft who only exist to service other companies will gladly do whatever you pay them to, as those companies have no problem finding the right people to code up things (as stated above).
Wouldn't that be the companies computer or your employers computer and not yours or "their computer"? It would be silly for them to expect you to provide your own computer and then allow them to lock it down.
On the other hand, Open Source companies, and their far-and-few-between developers, generally have principals and are individual thinkers and are less likely to yield to corporate will in such a way Microsoft and its B2B partners are used to. And that's why such tools don't exist.
And perhaps this will be the year of Linux I keep hearing about? No seriously, I keep hearing about not gaining market shares and Linux on the desktop and here is a legitimate reason/concern that someone brought up so it might be worth noticing if anyone ever expects Linux adoption to significantly increase. I mean if that isn't the goal, then we should stop pretending it is and just face the reality that it's just a hobbyist OS with a little outside fanfare. It personally doesn't matter to me but I figured I should at least point it out.
Would you rather make people stop working and call the helpdesk when they need some kind of app that is (a) harmless and (b) freely available? And it's OK if they wait: 15 minutes? an hour? all day? So you can prevent a call from a guy who screws up the SCREEN SAVER???
Umm.. yea, I want them stopping and calling to get permission. First of all, these aren't your mom and dad's home network or their small business networks. Anything they need to do their job will already be installed and if it's not, we need to ensure we have a proper license before allowing it on the systems.
Next, I have seen things go seriously wrong when it never should have because of users installing their own apps. One situation that comes to mind was a video player someone wanted to install to watch sports games from a streaming device they had at home. Other users decided to "get it" too. The installation replaced a few codec and defaulted some extensions to the new player and all the sudden we didn't have a machine on the floor that could view the security video footage. This was pretty serious because the lawyers needed to see what was caught on the tape to defend the clients. And no, removing the play didn't revert the codecs.
I have also seen people install apps to view their damn E-greeting cards that not only resulted in Email addresses for the entire firms being harvested and sold, but for every client that had ever used an email address with the company whether it was in a word doc file or an address book somewhere. Eventually, we started getting bogus email bounces where some assclown used our domain as the sender address and we ended up on a few black lists.
I have also seen other programs break shit or give unauthorized access to systems. I had one person install one of those remote desktop programs so he can access shit from home. Well, his home computer was a virus riddled clusterfuck that not only proceeded to place some nasty shit on the network, but allowed someone completely unknown who got the logon from the Trojans on the system and had access to the system before we got it caught. The guy was in with the CIO getting his ass handed to him when I noticed activity on his system, thinking it was another virus that someone survived a format and re-image, I noticed someone accessing files from his home system through the remote desktop program.
All of those are great reasons to lock the systems down. If you have been at your job more then a couple of week, you will know what you need to get it done and it will be installed appropriately. There is no need for a user to install their own shit unless they are a developer running programs they are working on. For everything else, nothing magically changes overnight that makes someone unable to do their job if something can't be installed. And if there is, the rarity of it will easily offset the costs of waiting 15 or more minutes compares to taking care of the other crap.
Instead of making Mr. Screensaver wait in the queue because of his counterproductive antics, YOU MAKE EVERONE ELSE WAIT INSTEAD???
Such a strategy would only make sense if >50% of all calls were for unnecessary/unauthorized things. And IF that were true, then a lockdown would work so well that support staff could be cut, right?
How about just making sure what is needed to get the job done is installed in the first place then the majority of call will be because something isn't working the way it should be instead of "can I install something that will waste my time but I will claim it will make me more productive".
What happens if they boot Knoppix from CD? Works pretty well in Windows shops as well. Lockdown the BIOS from CD boot? There are numerous published backdoor passwords; almost every BIOS has one.
Lol.. I'm glad you don't work at any of the shops I administer. Not because your cleaver but because you would
I purpose a massive marketing campaign of inflatable ships and sea monsters to combat this threat.
When the Google satellites pass over, Inflate 200 nuclear subs staging for docking, a lockness stile sea monster or two chained in the middle of the harbor, a couple of dozen people walking on water, and perhaps some other WTF things.
Well, there's what you said (and I apologise if I misinterpreted) - that it's another theory that somehow accounts for the fossil record by positing that all species developed from primordial micro-organisms without and branching or speciation - and there's what I could find from google (that bubbles in the ocean propagated early genetic material.
That's pretty much the gist of it. The deviations in the chemical makeup of the bubbles in the primordial soup are responsible for differences in life as we know it today.
FAICT your description is directly contradicted by genetic/DNA evidence. And the second thing is not incompatible with any other theory
Well, no. Evidence is an observation, what it contradicts is the current interpretation of evidence. A rock falls from the sky and breaks a window, is it a meteorite, a crude projectile in an acts of war, or a couple of kids hitting rocks down the street with a baseball bat? Evidence held us explain actions and things that happen in our natural environment. You could look at theories around the evidence and explain that it had to be the kids hitting rocks with a ball bat and totally miss that it was I attempting to piss someone off without getting caught (act of war). Evidence is fact as in we know this happened or this does this, our interpretation of evidence isn't fact and rarely becomes fact.
Please read up on the origins of the current "ID" movement and their "thin end of the wedge" strategy, a cynical attempt to use people's loyalty to god to try and divorce them from scientific thought, in order to try and go back to some sort of simpler panacea in which people believed preachers and scripture over the evidence.
Christ, I don't care about ID. Their theories or science or Pseudoscience will have to stand the tests of scientific principles and will survive only on their merits. If science is your objective, there is no need to fear alternative ideas. The only reason for that it to protect something that might not otherwise stand or to make a statement about about the religions surrounding it. Why is it that science can't be science and work these things out to a best possible conclusion? If the scientific theories on the table are sound, they don't need to be protected against encroachment from the undesirables.
I would genuinely appreciate enlightenment on any alternate theories that can account for even a good proportion of the genetic and fossil evidence we have. I looked for bubble theory and found only something about the propagation mechanisms of either abiogenesis or panspermia, not a competing theory to evolution. Absolutely genuinely, I would love to read about it/them.
If the Bubble theory is correct, then there isn't a need for the single cell to miraculously spout into different species interconnected across the chain or tree of life. In other words, it would play into the same fossil evidence we have now except our interpretation of it would change slightly. Instead of having a bunch of genus's that branch into groups of species, we would have the species in itself connected only by the genetic material that originally made life to begin with. We don't have a complete fossil record of any animal that would link it back to another species, what we have is evidence spread out with a lot of best guess efforts linking them together. In other words, we are building the interpretations of evidence from preexisting assumptions that may or may not be right.
I did investigate, couldn't find anything. What you described is flatly contradicted by evidence.
What evidence? Or do you actually mean our interpretation of evidence. I think I explained the difference above well enough so I won't spend any more time here with it.
Yes, it is very hard to model something that does not exist. Do you always claim such obvious facts?
When it is relevant, yes. Too often people seem to forget those "facts".
So you talk about evolution as a scientific theory on point (1), and then bring up evolution at point 2, but it is not the evolution theory? As evolution can be interpreted as observable evolution as well as the scientific theory and model of evolution, it is ambiguous to not explicitly specify which of the two you are referring to. Calling me an idiot because of this miscommunication is unnecessarily rude in my book.
IS either statement I made false? I didn't think so. I also think the distinction between the two was obvious because the definition of Abiogenesis and the fact that it is clear that evolution as observable fact as well as a theory is dependent on life existing. I'm not sure how you didn't get it, but the idiot comment was an inflamed response to your "One word: bullshit." comment so if rudeness is the issue, I rose to your occasion.
What you say could be right in that you may not know anyone who has made such claim. However, please re-read my original post: it says 'speciation'. Now look at the title of the quoted article: "Mechanisms of diversification and speciation (...). It is right there. This is a scientific paper stating facts. Do you still want to go against this article? Please write a scientific rebuttal.
Like I previously stated, they observed evolutionary changed but they did not observe speciaction. The E-coli bacteria was still e-coli and no one has claimed different. Perhaps it is one of those communication things you keep running into. I'm not sure, but in the context of what I said, the paper you linked to does not rebuke me nor does it say what you think it does. Changes within a species would be a breed not a new species.
You can participate in science. If you have different findings that contradict this scientific report, do your own experiments and put the results up for peer review. That is how science works. Don't bring up strawman arguments abouts dogs and 1 generation. Put up or shut up is an appropriate US expression, I believe.
Or I can read the report, I can read the reporting on the report, and I can read the statements made by the scientist responsible for it and take it for what it says instead of what people imagine it says. In the paper you presented, which is identical to others I have seen on the subject, it doesn't claim speciation occurred, just that evolutionary changes did. No one I know of claims evolutionary changes can't occur, That's a simple matter of observation, what we can't produce or reproduce is speciation- a new species from an existing one. We can create new breads, strains, and chains, but not new species. When we can, let me know.
Even if there are valid competing theories, they're not mainstream enough for the legislature to have been referring to anything besides ID. For that I fault them, since it underscores a general political bias against objective fact-finding and learning.
They don't really have to be mainstream, they just have to have the possibility to be brought up. Saying the science is settled or something like this is fact and no other thing could be possible ceases to be a scientific endeavor and turned into a quasi religious on.
"Diversity of thinking" at least has the form of a proper complaint against him. Furthermore, the complaint is correct in so far as one includes non-science under the umbrella of "diversity". I don't think science has an obligation to not hurt people's feelings. If we accept a narrower view of "diversity" and just include scientific ideas, then I'm not sure how you would substatiate the claim.Science has an obligation to entertain any alternative theories to the value of their merits. If the theory doesn't hold water, it can then be dismissed or altered until it does contain merits. Without the ability to explore, experiment, and investigate out side the narrowly defined box created by some people, science simply cannot happen and ceases to be the explanation of natural events. Science ceases to be present. Even if it is something pushed by some religious zealot, science doesn't invalidate concepts based around who brought them to the table. Science doesn't discriminate based on someone's connections to a religion, Science cannot dismiss something because of the messenger, science ceases to be the natural explanation of evens or science itself when it does so. Dawkins, at least from what I have saw, seems to not be in the real of science and pushing his "versions" the way he does is really no different the ID or YECs.
You may not agree, but I would caution that your not taking an objective look and instead are biasing what you yourself agree with. However that is dangerous because you end up like Dawkins and rejecting anything that doesn't fit into the predefined box. If the truth is what we are after, we simple cannot do that.
But to attack a scientist because the evidence doesn't jive well with various cultures? Or because it doesn't match the thinking of a majority of the citizens of the state? They're not condemning Dawkins for being scientifically intolerant, they're condemning him for not compromising his views and representation of the evidence to suit the unscientific majority.
Actually, I don't think they are attacking Dawkins because of the evidence. It's because of how he has grasped the evidence and attempts to halt evidence he doesn't agree with. In short, it's more about his technique then the facts. It's how he presents the facts. There is a difference between "science say X happened because of or through A, B, then C" and "A, B, C, happened to get X and no other modifier or way could be present or possible". The previous is science, the later is more of a religion, the later is Dawkins.
I understand that you're trying to guard against a complacency in science that we need not challenge our existing ideas. But from what I've seen of Dawkins so far, your attacks are misplaced. You had a better claim against him when you called him inflammatory, but he is not unscientific.
I don't know if I'm trying to guard against anything other then to simply make the statement that the reaction to this is ridiculous. The state legislature acted on the information it had availible but as you will notice, their position isn't over evolution in itself but the person speaking about it. The school is having a month long celebration on evolution and you would think if the state was a bunch of bible thumpers pushing ID as most are attempting to imply, they would have censured that too. But instead, they passed
Fuck dude, I need to proof read my shit better. I hacked that all up and apologize. The first paragraph should have been this instead.
I don't support a legislature censure but I don't have a problem with it being done. Now doing take that isn't an "either your for it or against it", it's not that at all. There are the "it isn't significant enough to get your panties in a knot over" position and probably a few in between.
You call me an idiot while you cannot even grasp the basics of what we are discussing here. Try to understand this:
The scientific theory and model of evolution does not give a rats ass on how life started, it is concerned only how life changes, evolves.
Yes, I call you an idiot and I think now, all doubts about it are gone. I wasn't talking about the scientific theory, I was talking about the model itself being dependent on life being present with is dependent on a universe being here. I stated that not once now, not twice now, but this will be the third time and you still probably won't get it. Lets see if I can't put this in other terms that you might be able to understand Z=evolution. Z is dependent on A and B happening before Z can happen. Z can be it's own formula but without events that make up A and B, Z cannot exist.
Because of this, almost all atheist and most smart religious people can agree with this piece of science. Whether you think that a magician came by and waved his want to start life, or whether some god snipped his fingers, or whether it was a matter of change and probability has nothing to do whatsoever with the theory of evolution. The pope believes the christian god bootstrapped the process, science is still trying to find out how it started. Both think equal about evolution. Now do you get it?
This has nothing to do with what I said. Please get off your kneejerk ass and pay attention. And BTW, science can't claim a god because it's untestable so it would have to be abiogenesis.
No, it does not make sense, but that is because you use a strawman argument (which I think reveals the weakness of your position). No evolutionary scientist ever claimed that speciation will occur in one specific generation of your choosing. It happens gradually, over time, where it is often difficult to exactly pinpoint a discrete point in time where you suddenly have 2 different species. To stick with your dogs, try to make a male saint bernard dog to mate with a female maltese. It is physically impossible, while they belong to the same species. This is possibly a case of speciation in progress.
And yet if you goto talk origins which claims to report all the relevant science, you see exactly that. They did it with the claim of the salamanders in California to claim they are a new species, they changed the capable of interbreeding to not willingly and even put the separated by geographical structure there. Yet while the border collies presented are still the same species, and while dogs are perhaps on of the most manipulated species in the world, we have never seen a dog "evolve" into another species. Same goes for cattle and farm animals, the cow and pig can be bread for completely extreme opposite effects and yet they don't jump the species. So changing a definition to fit specific observances fail when applies outside that box, regardless of if a scientist says so or not, it probably means that those definitions are being manipulated to create something that just isn't there.
And speciation has been observed, google for it. Quite recently there was a repeatable case of speciation with e-coli bacteria, so please stop spreading misinformation.
Actually, no. The E-coli bacteria evolved a trait that it's not supposed to have through normal observances. This doesn't mean it speciated, it means that our understanding of it was wrong. It was still E-coli bacteria and no one connected with the experiment that I know of has claimed it to be a new species outside of a variant of the existing species. I know this creates a problem for you because you obviously like to add to what was said. I noticed that with you other two replies. This of course goes back to the above where definitions are being changed because some want this to be something it isn't. We have a new strain of e-coli, not a new species in and of itself.
So you support legislative censure based on the statement of multiple valid theories because you think there could be other valid theories.
I don't support a legidlature censure but I don't have a problem with it being done. Now doing take that and an "either your for it or against it", it's not that was at all. There are the "it isn't significant enough to get your panties in a know over" position and probably a few in between.
Whilst it's possible, the fact is that evolution happened. "Bubble theory" as you describe it is a nonsense, and the other competing "theores" we have now are not only false but deliberately dishonest.
Perhaps how I describe it but it isn't nonsense to anyone willing to objectively look at the science. The point is that there is at least one other scientific theory that I know of and there could be more. This entire labeling something false or misleading and deliberately dishonest before even exploring them because they don't fit you mold is exactly what the problem is and why the state legislature felt it necessary to comment on the subject. You have already shown this problem when you labeled a plausible theory as nonsense when there wasn't enough time for you to find information on it and evaluate it, your not interested in science or scientific theory, your interested in preserving things to the understanding you have came to believe in. How is science supposed to work when this is happening? How are we supposed to realy find the understanding of how things work, of how nature works when anything not in the current versions of the scriptures is dismissed as dishonest or nonsense without the slightest investigations. Any alternative is going to look like nonsense until it plays out on it's own merits. Evolution looks like nonsense to the majority of the world until things started lining up.
And where do you think the legislature are drawing their standpoint?
The only valid place to look is in the viewpoint stated. It appears to me they are drawing it from science itself in much the same ways I just criticized you and Dawkins for being closed minded and unscientific. If that wasn't your intent, then you need to look outside your own box to see how your representations are viewed by open minded people.
There's one big difference: at every step back in that chain you moved to assuming something simpler.
Well, no. Not simpler, just supporting of the theories that build off of it. It could be more complex but it still needs to provide the enviroment that iltimately leads to the accepted theory which builds from it.
Where did the complexity that is life today come from? It evolved from simpler forms, through processes we can observe.
Well, that's what we currently believe anyways. But it doesn't have to be that way. Imagine walking a straight line and ending in the same place you started. It has everything to do with the perspective of the observer, for the person walking this straight line, they have no idea they are walking around a cylinder and it is straight to the whereas the people observing the action may know more then that. So far, we only know what we can perceive and assume the pieces that are missing. It's sort of like the Neanderthal man which is now thought to have interbred away with modern humans making it little more then a breed or race of humans then a species of it's own.
We hypothesize that they were created from non-living molecules through abiogenesis, which we've made steps towards recreating in the lab. Where did those molecules and elements come from? They're created from even simpler elements through fusion, which we can observe. Etc.
As you noted, we have attempted to test but having been able to prove the possibility. Yet it is often cited as fact when it is little more then a best guess hypothisized based around what we know and what we think we know. A lot of the entire process is little more then educated guesses built off of other guesses. This doesn't make it wrong, but it leaves lots of room for improvements and perhaps an entirely different understanding.
Positing a god is the opposite. Where did we come from? This intelligent, aware, omnipotent, necessarily extremely complex God created us. Not only is that explanation horribly complex and fraught with contradictions but there isn't a shred of evidence for it.
There isn't a shred of evidence outside of If this is true, this should be also in the entire evolutionary/everything before it argument. In fact, the biggest reasons why evolution, abiogenesis, and the bug bang is separates is because improvements in the theories started causing other portions of theories to have problems. It's pointless to think they aren't interconnected at least on a superficial level but the relationships are not ancillary to each other either. Saying a god did it is not stopping people from understanding how he did it. I find it rather pretentious to simple say, you god is wrong because we have to stop looking somewhere when the opposite of that does the exact same thing. But for some reason it is touted as fact and the truth while claiming the opposite is the wrong because it starts in the same position, something was there, always had been, and poof, something happened.
Now, here is the big point. Science doesn't even speak to a god. There is no reason for science to concern itself with a god at all. God isn't scientific, it can't be falsified and the only test for the truth requires an action that hadn't happened in modern times. Clearly there are defined rules in physics that seem to be different then in quantum physics. How did those rules come about and how did they grow from chaotic principle into an orderly function that we can understand at more apparent levels but not so much on a subatomic one. The presence of a god does nothing to understanding what is going on there.
This reminds me of a joke that sort of fits. One day some scientists said we know how to create life, we can make it evolve and we can make it intelligent. So one of the scientists went to god and said, we can do all this, we don't need you ever
SAV blows compared to other products out there. The AVG corporate network editions seem to do a better job.
I used to have lots of issues with the symantec corporate edition like no being able to upgrade to hole number versions without visiting each workstation manually, viruses not being caught or SAV not being able to stop their installation or remove them. Now don't get me wrong, AVG has similar ussues but not on the same levels as the symantec products. I gave up on version 10 I think so something may have changed.
Compared to norton products, yes it is decent, compared to other products in the same areas, it still seems to blow.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem pretty knowledgeable here so I have to ask, does the patent actual cover the ability to use the file system or just the file system? It seems wrong to block someone from using a butter knife as a screw driver because the screw has a patent on it.
I'm not entirely sure that the GPL needs to be involved here at all. The device that the TomTom software is distributed on needs a patent license because of it's file system configuration. However, I don't think the code that allows access (the file system driver) would need a license to be redistributed. It certainly isn't needed now for a distro or kernel. It seems that it is only needed when the actual file system itself is in play and distributed.
Because of that, and let me know if I'm wrong, the GPL shouldn't even matter on this. The GPL pertains to the software, not the hardware. If I purchased a Linux server in a turn key application, I wouldn't be expecting distribution rights to patents in the Bios, patents on the CPU, video card, or any other device. I wouldn't even expect the GPL to apply to the LBA code in the harddrive even though it controls it.
Maybe Obama should scale back this "transparency" thing. It seems like everyone he knows has something illegal, corrupt, or somehow shady hanging over him.
You do realize that American Idol was originally started to promote or vet for record labels right? Each one of the judges own their own labels or parts of each others. It's a test bed for what will make them money. Just about anyone who makes it on the show has proven to be a possible money maker even if it's small time. The ones who get kicked off earlier just make less money then the ones who stay longer.
I think you got something wrong on that there. Perhaps your employer is only claiming to pay half but according to those numbers, it would be over 45K a year. This provides(PDF warning) some more current information on costs but they are averages and 3 years old. However, it puts your claimed cost to around 6 times the national average for the most high costing age group (50-54 at $6,751 average anal family coverage). Of course it says that premiums vary from state to state and even breaks down those for us. It says that your numbers would be 2.5 times the average in Massachusetts which seems to have the highest rates. In fact, if you look at the states, the more liberal states seem to have the highest costs for some reason and pretty much set the national average. My state seems to be right in the middle of the state list and for single coverage, the average is actually lower then what I was paying but I also had indemnity instead of a HMO plan.
The types of plans will effect price but then again, if you going after the most expensive plan, your not complaining about coverage costs, your complaining about costs of certain coverage which is quite different.
Most people I speak with don't think we should be spending that much in the first place. But that wasn't the point. The point is that you are still spending the same amount of money regardless of if it comes out of your pocket at your will or if it is taxed and comes out at the will of some politician who seems more interested in kickbacks or greasing some fatcat's pockets in order to secure campaign donations and retain power. If for some reason you believe it would be cheaper with the government controlling it, you really aren't paying attention.
As for trickle down, the federal budget has increased every year in recent years, so have the tax revenues, you can't claim something doesn't work when you're simply not playing by the rules. To say we should have had a surplus and blame an economic principle without acknowledging the increases in spending is like blaming your boss for you bouncing a checks you wrote. The problem with surpluses is that the money isn't allowed to just sit there. If the government is taking too much, it has to give the money back or it has to spend it. Those are the rules set up. Recently, they have chosen to spend it which has the side effect of reoccurring costs, and when the funding doesn't come in, you have a deficit. That shouldn't be new to anyone, the only difference is that when the US government spends like that, it's business as usual. When companies or even you spend lik
When an officer cites you for driving too fast for conditions (which is what an excessive speed charge when doing the speed limit would be), he has to make the case that the conditions required you to drive slower to permit safe operation.
Obviously, if he claimed there was 10 inches of snow on the road in the middle of July in AZ, he couldn't make the case. If he said there was some substance the was spilled on the road making it slippery, then he would have to show that you had warning of it. In other words, it isn't as simple as writing a ticket for 50 in a 50 zone. It may be hard to fight it but it isn't exactly that simple.
Your sort of spot on. The problem is with the punishment.
There are a lot of things that are infractions but normal people do because of necessity or lack of knowledge. It doesn't absolve them from a crime but it could change the punishment or make it completely non-existent. The problem is that a cop isn't the judge or the jury. Punishment shouldn't be the focus, rather the punishment or case being decided by the courts should be.
The reason for this is because when cops decide they are the judge and jury and let people off, they also decide they are and just maybe there was a way to arrest the guy without shooting him, maybe there was a way to arrest him without tazing him, maybe the guy didn't exactly resist arrest, maybe there was a way of doing what needed to be done without the cops predetermining guilt and exacting punishment on the suspect before he got the right to a judge and jury. Maybe some dumbass in the bay area metro station would still be alive if cops didn't do that. This story is exactly about that. A cop who thought he was the judge and jury and did illegal things to make sure someone paid. The cops shouldn't have the power to be a judge or jury- maybe then we would think twice about some stupid laws on the books that only seem to be enforced when the cops want to screw with someone.
Friends or not, the same rules for entrapment and privacy apply. If he willingly admits or tells someone something in confidence and that other person tells someone else, it is availible for all to see and know regardless of any perceived secrecy or confidentiality that isn't otherwise prescribed by law.
Yes, that means, if you tell your lawyer you did it, he doesn't have to tell anyone else and most likely wouldn't be allowed in court because he is your lawyer and the laws specifically address them. But if you tell your wife in confidentiality that you did it, she can tell the cops where the body is buried and even tell the courts that you admitted to her that you did it.
So the question is, how did the defense know to look at his myspace stuff. Well, it was probably a tip they got from someone that he pissed off or it was covered under and attempt to get online communications like the one posted about the arrest video.
I don't know why you said "poor conservatives" for. I thought we just established the McCain wan't one and HE PICKED Paling in order to appease them. Any logical following of that would be that someone who isn't a conservative didn't exactly know about conservatives. Perhaps we are talking about you too.
Small businesses who become members of the chamber of commerce or other quasi politico entities are able to pool their resources for insurance and get more of a discount or better pricing then many large companies. And yes, there were a few laws passed allowing this to happen.
For instance, when I had my shop open, I received a 35% discount on my automobile insurance just for being a member of the chamber of commerce. I also received a 25% discount on liability insurance for the business, almost 50% off of the unintentional loss insurance (the business version of comprehensive home owners insurance). And get this, during the last election, both parties claimed that the average insurance plan costs 6 grand a person and 12 grand a family per year, I had no family coverage but the 10 employees (including myself) costs an average of $3,800 a year for bluecross/blueshield insurance. That came out to around $75-80 a week and I covered half of that. Of course this was in 2003 so in 5 years the costs could have went up a little but other business owners I know don't complain about the costs.
You say this without acknowledging that it will have to be paid for. I'm not sure why people like you do this but your not the first one to do it. I know plenty of self employed people who claim the government should cover insurance costs because it would be cheaper for them, Usually it's when taking their boat to the lake for some water skiing or when riding 4wheelers. If it already averages $12,000 a year for family coverage and every family is all the sudden getting covered, then every family will have to pay $12,000 a year in taxes to get the nationalized coverage. The extremely poor are already covered and most people with children are covered in some way, I don't expect the costs would be spread over to them so the only option left would be to tax the people being included in some sort of coverage.
The effect is that you don't save anything, the companies don't save anything, but instead of you having a choice to spend that money on a computer instead or to buy a nicer car or to buy a boat or put your kids in a better school or whatever, it will now be forced out of you in the terms of taxes.
Just like your wild assertion on small businesses, I don't think you have thought this through enough or even considered all the facts of the situation. The money won't magically appear from nothing, it won't just be there, it will come from taxes and it will be your increased taxes paying for it. And this time, you won't have the choices you have now.
Perhpas McCain doesn't support it because some of the provisions were struck down in court as unconstitutional and it's ineffective and doesn't make sense now. Then he not even pretending to be a conservative barometer. BTW, that is what Palin was supposed to have been.
I think I know why you posted AC, I wouldn't want a name associated with your response either.
Anyways, the post is still with my original point, the software needs to be properly licensed and using linux does not remove that.
I think you have a problem with context. That paragraph was talking about software in general and needing a license for it. The point your attempting to compare to was where the post in between attempted to assert that linux would have "free" software in order to negate the licensing requirements. In effect, we are talking about two separate issues within a general topic. One is ensuring we have the proper licenses. The other is about the types of licenses and why they don't always fit.
Now I know that can be confusing but please do your best to follow along.
First, it's not exactly hard in windows. In most cases, you can simply install an asset tracking program that reports everything to a server that in turn notifies someone of changes. Second, what does writing a script to check the smart status of the hard drive have to do with tracking installed software? The SMART status does nothing to the contents of the drive, it checks certain conditions of the drive and yes, most asset tracking software have that ability too.
Hard drive status is a minor inconvenience though. Hard drive failure is a minor inconvenience for the most part. If your doing things right, all your data will be on a server with at minimum of a raid 5 array and hopefully a raid 10 or even better with different NAS technologies out there. Either way, there will be.should be a backup of the data and as long as the drive is imaged on the workstation, a failed drive turns into a 20-30 minute trip to install a cloned drive. The cloning can be done with proprietary programs or simply by using DD on a boot able Linux CD. It doesn't matter.
First of all, the users shouldn't even be buying or installing printers. If they are, that means I didn't do my job correctly. I don't know of any large company in which the employees provision their own printers or attempt to connect them on their own. If someone needs access to a printer on another floor or if the existing printer craps out, it is trivial to give them another printer- even remotely. And if the business is using walmart or best buy printers, they are probably wasting a ton of money on supplies. I think your confusing a mom and pop business and not a well run company. Now don't take that as mom and pop businesses aren't well run, take it as their needs are completely different.
BTW, if you want to do IT so bad, then why arne't you working in IT? I mean it doesn't make sense for you to be tas
Historically, it was a planet until an arbitrary decision was made and poof it all the sudden wasn't. Actually, arbitrary is probably too harsh of a word and the incorrect usage of it. There was a reason for the process. It doesn't necessarily have to be an ego thing, tradition is often marked by less then ego. Statues, monuments, and all sorts of other items of historic value could refere to it as a planet and the new classification could make it all invalid and worthless or out of place now. It could have been just as easy for the scientific definition to provide an exclusion for an existing classification of just one planet. It would be no more complicated then saying what was once a planet is now not one.
Personally, I see a legislature having every right to name or classify something in space or even in science as long as it is understood that it is a legislative convention and not a scientific one. Ego could be a motivation behind it but people need ego in order to create heroes too. Folk lore like Johny Appleseed (who was a real person on a land grab), Abraham Lincoln, or even George "I cannot tell a lie" Washington, have a place at inspiring people to do more then just enough. IF a statue of a man remains valid because the inscription remains true and that statue or plaque or whatever inspires one person to do something great, then it's probably worth more then all the salaries of the government people voting on it combined. OF course science isn't often a direct quid pro quo like that, it's probably going to be more likely that some people (plural) will be inspired and make small advancements that all lead to or add up to something great.
Imagine if you will, that Alfred Nobel was only remembered for creating easier ways of killing people and destroying things instead of all the benefits of the buildings and bridges he built or the stabilization of Nitroglycerin into dynamite or the blasting cap that allows their placement in more convenient and practical places with less costs. Even today, principles he pioneered makes building demolition safer and aids in mining and other fields. Instead of being the demon that created safer ways to kill the enemy or Le marchand de la mort est mort ("The merchant of death is dead") as a premature obituary claimed, he has a piece prize named after him that served nothing but to serve an ego but also rewards people for achievement in sciences and literacy works as well as international unity based on their positive impacts on society. So now there is a goal to strive for as well as recognition to other people who "did good" (which can be a relative term) and I think this sort of ego soothing has benefited society greatly over the years.
Ego isn't bad, and sometimes it's appropriate. But there can be other reasons and I think it is such a non-issue that it doesn't matter. Anyone doing science will know the difference, everyone who isn't, might get inspired to do so.
Well, of course the theory doesn't speak to it in itself. But it is still important because what if life doesn't exist. Or what if it was created or was created/happened naturally in ways that make Evolution impossible in completeness of our current understanding or interpretations of it today. What if instead of being carbon based life, we started out as nitrogen or helium based life introduced by meteorites (panspermia) and whatnot from other planets that adapted to a carbon rich environment and instead of one tree of life (which actually has some ancient religion meanings) there are several dozen or millions and the relations between animals genus' and possibly up to domains or even the LUA are completely off. But how do you test against something like that? There is the importance, the one doesn't concern itself with the other but couldn't be drastically effected by it.
I apologize for using Wikipedia as a source. I don't think the accuracy of the article is as important as you understanding what was meant by the concept of LUA so we should be fine with it.
Well, I would include Commensalism simply because it leads to lateral sharing of genetic material or the possibility of it. This could be especially dependent in a panspermia event which could throw our understanding of things completely out of whack.
How the origin of life benefits from the theory of evolution is that it can be a possible source of falsification. Now, let me explain before I screw this up and confuse myself. If we accept that evolution is the most accurate representation we can have given the facts availible, we may find a source of Abiogenesis (well, actually creationism because we would be causing it but attempting to lend it to abiogenesis) that can't fit within the current model. At that point, we would have to examine which is most likely to have happened and figure a way to test it.
I'm not sure if your familiar with the Bubble theory of evolution but it basically says that when the conditions for life was present, the different chemicals collected in differing concentrations like foam on the sea ripe with different chemicals bouncing against the shore and it is possible that all the differences in life stem from that. Everything else we see as similarities between life is either un-evolved versions of the same species or close relatives that were in the same pool of primordial soup but separated enough that the chemical differences resulted in different species. And this process could have happened multiple times at multiple places producing the same life because of the same chemicals and chemical concentration existing.
Now I bring that up because depending on the geneses of the life, we could be forced to reevaluate our interpretations of the "facts". There are already different theories out there too which have fallen into or out of or even skipped favor from the scientific community throughout the years. If we created a life that can reproduce and we can find genetic drift enough to validate the current evolutionary theory, we can justify the principles behind it more so then before. But if we cannot, we can either conclude that we were wrong on the creation or the theory of evolution. So at least as a validation or test, it's mutual beyond needing life to be present for life to exist. Now imagine a panspermia event over several million years of similar life but because of t
Not really. It's actually a little more complicated with a lot more things being dual licensed with home use versions and business use versions. Of course that isn't unique to linux but it's more applicable with more software.
Not everything that is open source is enterprise ready. Some of it just isn't reliable or good enough, some of it doesn't have the support network in place, and some of them are just perfect. But here is the rub, most of the times, the license purchase isn't the issue. It's properly recording it and making sure you can track what is where how many time. Having open source licenses for many things wouldn't negate that tracking need, it would just be another entry.
What I was talking about was a per user bases with one user per machine on the floor. Linux would have done nothing to soften the fright because each other user installed the app after seeing the first one messing with it. But that is sort of besides the point, Linux stores the Codecs in /usr/local/lib/codecs/ and /usr/lib/win32 depending on the media players present. This would have caused the same situation to be present regardless of who logged in at the terminal.
Now, note that permission to install from .rpm or .deb isn't significant in the case because we are talking about locking the machine down verses letting the user have free reign to install things. Not giving them permission would fall under the same lock down headings.
Unfortunately, I think your right, Linux isn't immune from this. However, it is more rare as far a I know and it isn't automated like in windows with viruses. It will take either a determined person or an act of social engineering tricking them into running a program of some sort. But even with those limitations, it is quite popular on windows machines.
On most systems, yes, we do block thumbdrives. On the few that don't, it get locked to a specific directory and then scanned as the information goes from one directory to the local network or back. It's also part of how we monitor file access. Virus aside, there is also a very real threat of losing work because someone took something home to work on while someone at work updated the files after the fact. Now the files don't replace each other but sit side by side with a revisioning system similar to a code tracking system and they can be compared before being merged or renamed to go directly into a specific directory for the users. It adds some overhead to the system because all file access is through a proprietary browser window.
However, Rdesktop probably wouldn't have worked because the firewalls would have to of been opened up for it. The purpose of the remote des
Wouldn't that be the companies computer or your employers computer and not yours or "their computer"? It would be silly for them to expect you to provide your own computer and then allow them to lock it down.
And perhaps this will be the year of Linux I keep hearing about? No seriously, I keep hearing about not gaining market shares and Linux on the desktop and here is a legitimate reason/concern that someone brought up so it might be worth noticing if anyone ever expects Linux adoption to significantly increase. I mean if that isn't the goal, then we should stop pretending it is and just face the reality that it's just a hobbyist OS with a little outside fanfare. It personally doesn't matter to me but I figured I should at least point it out.
Umm.. yea, I want them stopping and calling to get permission. First of all, these aren't your mom and dad's home network or their small business networks. Anything they need to do their job will already be installed and if it's not, we need to ensure we have a proper license before allowing it on the systems.
Next, I have seen things go seriously wrong when it never should have because of users installing their own apps. One situation that comes to mind was a video player someone wanted to install to watch sports games from a streaming device they had at home. Other users decided to "get it" too. The installation replaced a few codec and defaulted some extensions to the new player and all the sudden we didn't have a machine on the floor that could view the security video footage. This was pretty serious because the lawyers needed to see what was caught on the tape to defend the clients. And no, removing the play didn't revert the codecs.
I have also seen people install apps to view their damn E-greeting cards that not only resulted in Email addresses for the entire firms being harvested and sold, but for every client that had ever used an email address with the company whether it was in a word doc file or an address book somewhere. Eventually, we started getting bogus email bounces where some assclown used our domain as the sender address and we ended up on a few black lists.
I have also seen other programs break shit or give unauthorized access to systems. I had one person install one of those remote desktop programs so he can access shit from home. Well, his home computer was a virus riddled clusterfuck that not only proceeded to place some nasty shit on the network, but allowed someone completely unknown who got the logon from the Trojans on the system and had access to the system before we got it caught. The guy was in with the CIO getting his ass handed to him when I noticed activity on his system, thinking it was another virus that someone survived a format and re-image, I noticed someone accessing files from his home system through the remote desktop program.
All of those are great reasons to lock the systems down. If you have been at your job more then a couple of week, you will know what you need to get it done and it will be installed appropriately. There is no need for a user to install their own shit unless they are a developer running programs they are working on. For everything else, nothing magically changes overnight that makes someone unable to do their job if something can't be installed. And if there is, the rarity of it will easily offset the costs of waiting 15 or more minutes compares to taking care of the other crap.
How about just making sure what is needed to get the job done is installed in the first place then the majority of call will be because something isn't working the way it should be instead of "can I install something that will waste my time but I will claim it will make me more productive".
Lol.. I'm glad you don't work at any of the shops I administer. Not because your cleaver but because you would
I purpose a massive marketing campaign of inflatable ships and sea monsters to combat this threat.
When the Google satellites pass over, Inflate 200 nuclear subs staging for docking, a lockness stile sea monster or two chained in the middle of the harbor, a couple of dozen people walking on water, and perhaps some other WTF things.
Misinformation is the worse information to have.
That's pretty much the gist of it. The deviations in the chemical makeup of the bubbles in the primordial soup are responsible for differences in life as we know it today.
Well, no. Evidence is an observation, what it contradicts is the current interpretation of evidence. A rock falls from the sky and breaks a window, is it a meteorite, a crude projectile in an acts of war, or a couple of kids hitting rocks down the street with a baseball bat? Evidence held us explain actions and things that happen in our natural environment. You could look at theories around the evidence and explain that it had to be the kids hitting rocks with a ball bat and totally miss that it was I attempting to piss someone off without getting caught (act of war). Evidence is fact as in we know this happened or this does this, our interpretation of evidence isn't fact and rarely becomes fact.
Christ, I don't care about ID. Their theories or science or Pseudoscience will have to stand the tests of scientific principles and will survive only on their merits. If science is your objective, there is no need to fear alternative ideas. The only reason for that it to protect something that might not otherwise stand or to make a statement about about the religions surrounding it. Why is it that science can't be science and work these things out to a best possible conclusion? If the scientific theories on the table are sound, they don't need to be protected against encroachment from the undesirables.
If the Bubble theory is correct, then there isn't a need for the single cell to miraculously spout into different species interconnected across the chain or tree of life. In other words, it would play into the same fossil evidence we have now except our interpretation of it would change slightly. Instead of having a bunch of genus's that branch into groups of species, we would have the species in itself connected only by the genetic material that originally made life to begin with. We don't have a complete fossil record of any animal that would link it back to another species, what we have is evidence spread out with a lot of best guess efforts linking them together. In other words, we are building the interpretations of evidence from preexisting assumptions that may or may not be right.
What evidence? Or do you actually mean our interpretation of evidence. I think I explained the difference above well enough so I won't spend any more time here with it.
When it is relevant, yes. Too often people seem to forget those "facts".
IS either statement I made false? I didn't think so. I also think the distinction between the two was obvious because the definition of Abiogenesis and the fact that it is clear that evolution as observable fact as well as a theory is dependent on life existing. I'm not sure how you didn't get it, but the idiot comment was an inflamed response to your "One word: bullshit." comment so if rudeness is the issue, I rose to your occasion.
Like I previously stated, they observed evolutionary changed but they did not observe speciaction. The E-coli bacteria was still e-coli and no one has claimed different. Perhaps it is one of those communication things you keep running into. I'm not sure, but in the context of what I said, the paper you linked to does not rebuke me nor does it say what you think it does. Changes within a species would be a breed not a new species.
Or I can read the report, I can read the reporting on the report, and I can read the statements made by the scientist responsible for it and take it for what it says instead of what people imagine it says. In the paper you presented, which is identical to others I have seen on the subject, it doesn't claim speciation occurred, just that evolutionary changes did. No one I know of claims evolutionary changes can't occur, That's a simple matter of observation, what we can't produce or reproduce is speciation- a new species from an existing one. We can create new breads, strains, and chains, but not new species. When we can, let me know.
They don't really have to be mainstream, they just have to have the possibility to be brought up. Saying the science is settled or something like this is fact and no other thing could be possible ceases to be a scientific endeavor and turned into a quasi religious on.
Fuck dude, I need to proof read my shit better. I hacked that all up and apologize. The first paragraph should have been this instead.
I don't support a legislature censure but I don't have a problem with it being done. Now doing take that isn't an "either your for it or against it", it's not that at all. There are the "it isn't significant enough to get your panties in a knot over" position and probably a few in between.
Yes, I call you an idiot and I think now, all doubts about it are gone. I wasn't talking about the scientific theory, I was talking about the model itself being dependent on life being present with is dependent on a universe being here. I stated that not once now, not twice now, but this will be the third time and you still probably won't get it. Lets see if I can't put this in other terms that you might be able to understand Z=evolution. Z is dependent on A and B happening before Z can happen. Z can be it's own formula but without events that make up A and B, Z cannot exist.
This has nothing to do with what I said. Please get off your kneejerk ass and pay attention. And BTW, science can't claim a god because it's untestable so it would have to be abiogenesis.
And yet if you goto talk origins which claims to report all the relevant science, you see exactly that. They did it with the claim of the salamanders in California to claim they are a new species, they changed the capable of interbreeding to not willingly and even put the separated by geographical structure there. Yet while the border collies presented are still the same species, and while dogs are perhaps on of the most manipulated species in the world, we have never seen a dog "evolve" into another species. Same goes for cattle and farm animals, the cow and pig can be bread for completely extreme opposite effects and yet they don't jump the species. So changing a definition to fit specific observances fail when applies outside that box, regardless of if a scientist says so or not, it probably means that those definitions are being manipulated to create something that just isn't there.
Actually, no. The E-coli bacteria evolved a trait that it's not supposed to have through normal observances. This doesn't mean it speciated, it means that our understanding of it was wrong. It was still E-coli bacteria and no one connected with the experiment that I know of has claimed it to be a new species outside of a variant of the existing species. I know this creates a problem for you because you obviously like to add to what was said. I noticed that with you other two replies. This of course goes back to the above where definitions are being changed because some want this to be something it isn't. We have a new strain of e-coli, not a new species in and of itself.
I don't support a legidlature censure but I don't have a problem with it being done. Now doing take that and an "either your for it or against it", it's not that was at all. There are the "it isn't significant enough to get your panties in a know over" position and probably a few in between.
Perhaps how I describe it but it isn't nonsense to anyone willing to objectively look at the science. The point is that there is at least one other scientific theory that I know of and there could be more. This entire labeling something false or misleading and deliberately dishonest before even exploring them because they don't fit you mold is exactly what the problem is and why the state legislature felt it necessary to comment on the subject. You have already shown this problem when you labeled a plausible theory as nonsense when there wasn't enough time for you to find information on it and evaluate it, your not interested in science or scientific theory, your interested in preserving things to the understanding you have came to believe in. How is science supposed to work when this is happening? How are we supposed to realy find the understanding of how things work, of how nature works when anything not in the current versions of the scriptures is dismissed as dishonest or nonsense without the slightest investigations. Any alternative is going to look like nonsense until it plays out on it's own merits. Evolution looks like nonsense to the majority of the world until things started lining up.
The only valid place to look is in the viewpoint stated. It appears to me they are drawing it from science itself in much the same ways I just criticized you and Dawkins for being closed minded and unscientific. If that wasn't your intent, then you need to look outside your own box to see how your representations are viewed by open minded people.
Well, no. Not simpler, just supporting of the theories that build off of it. It could be more complex but it still needs to provide the enviroment that iltimately leads to the accepted theory which builds from it.
Well, that's what we currently believe anyways. But it doesn't have to be that way. Imagine walking a straight line and ending in the same place you started. It has everything to do with the perspective of the observer, for the person walking this straight line, they have no idea they are walking around a cylinder and it is straight to the whereas the people observing the action may know more then that. So far, we only know what we can perceive and assume the pieces that are missing. It's sort of like the Neanderthal man which is now thought to have interbred away with modern humans making it little more then a breed or race of humans then a species of it's own.
As you noted, we have attempted to test but having been able to prove the possibility. Yet it is often cited as fact when it is little more then a best guess hypothisized based around what we know and what we think we know. A lot of the entire process is little more then educated guesses built off of other guesses. This doesn't make it wrong, but it leaves lots of room for improvements and perhaps an entirely different understanding.
There isn't a shred of evidence outside of If this is true, this should be also in the entire evolutionary/everything before it argument. In fact, the biggest reasons why evolution, abiogenesis, and the bug bang is separates is because improvements in the theories started causing other portions of theories to have problems. It's pointless to think they aren't interconnected at least on a superficial level but the relationships are not ancillary to each other either. Saying a god did it is not stopping people from understanding how he did it. I find it rather pretentious to simple say, you god is wrong because we have to stop looking somewhere when the opposite of that does the exact same thing. But for some reason it is touted as fact and the truth while claiming the opposite is the wrong because it starts in the same position, something was there, always had been, and poof, something happened.
Now, here is the big point. Science doesn't even speak to a god. There is no reason for science to concern itself with a god at all. God isn't scientific, it can't be falsified and the only test for the truth requires an action that hadn't happened in modern times. Clearly there are defined rules in physics that seem to be different then in quantum physics. How did those rules come about and how did they grow from chaotic principle into an orderly function that we can understand at more apparent levels but not so much on a subatomic one. The presence of a god does nothing to understanding what is going on there.
This reminds me of a joke that sort of fits. One day some scientists said we know how to create life, we can make it evolve and we can make it intelligent. So one of the scientists went to god and said, we can do all this, we don't need you ever
SAV blows compared to other products out there. The AVG corporate network editions seem to do a better job.
I used to have lots of issues with the symantec corporate edition like no being able to upgrade to hole number versions without visiting each workstation manually, viruses not being caught or SAV not being able to stop their installation or remove them. Now don't get me wrong, AVG has similar ussues but not on the same levels as the symantec products. I gave up on version 10 I think so something may have changed.
Compared to norton products, yes it is decent, compared to other products in the same areas, it still seems to blow.