First, the messenger service can be useful when it's not being abused, so if you have a firewall blocking incoming traffic from the Internet you can continue using the messenger service inside your network.
Second, a hardware firewall keeps unwanted traffic off of the local network.
Third, if you have the messenger service turned off, I can still send network traffic to your computer that will be received on the messenger port and will then give me total control of your system. I just made that up, but if you're using a closed OS you have no way to prove that statement false. A firewall, particularly a non-MS firewall, gives you an extra layer of security.
My hardware firewall also doesn't block programs that run as a service and pop up regular windows containing advertising, or any other malware. A software firewall, in your example, is hiding a symptom but not addressing the cause. No firewall, whether in hardware of software, will stop someone from clicking on an email entitled "Download this cool new game!"
Yes, SP2 should probably be installed and it will probably stop a number of problems. However, unless SP2 has fixed every Windows vulnerability, it is unsafe to have a Windows machine (even with SP2) connected directly to the Internet. I use and like* a number of Microsoft's products, but I don't think it's safe to assume the vulnerabilities are suddenly all gone.
*-Please don't hate me for this. I'm learning Linux as I have time.
And do you trust the built-in firewall to keep your computer safe? There have been a ton of holes in Windows, and until SP2 has been out for a while and proven itself, I'm going to keep a piece of non-Microsoft hardware between the Internet and my Windows machines.
I agree, SP2 seems like a step in the right direction. Given the huge number of MS security problems, though, I still don't think it's responsible to connect a Windows computer directly to the Internet.
Even better is the SOG Paratool. You can open it with one hand, and when you squeeze your palm is pressing against a flat surface, as opposed to pressing against the area where the tools are stored on the Leatherman.
Agreed. The biggest problem I see with it is that it violates my favorite proverb:
"Never stand when you can sit, and never sit when you can lie down."
Why stand and go at slow speeds when some sort of bike or scooter (even an electric one) will go faster, be more comfortable, and not look as goofy?
Try this one:
Vote for me, and I'll give you $100. I also promise to pardon anyone who gets in trouble for supporting me in this manner.
How does the FBI and DOJ handle that one, now that the guy who is tampering with the system is in charge of both the FBI and DOJ?
Yeah, just in time for all the N64 ports!
Note to Nintendo: When designing a handheld system capable of running games for $console, please include at least as many buttons as were present on $console's controllers.
There was some very limited combat in the original Civilization board game, although nothing to write home about. It was basically just alternating who took pieces off the board, until the number of pieces in an area was below the limit for that area. You could succeed with a military strategy, especially in the Advanced Civilization add-on, but the point of the game was definitely to grow your own civilization, rather than tearing down the others.
As an aside, Civilization and Advanced Civilization have the best-writting instructions of any complex board game I've seen. They are laid out in "outline" style, according to the turn order, and until you've learned the rules you can just follow along in the rule book on each turn, and the rules you need are in exactly the order you'll need them. This is contrasted with the poorly written rules for the new Civ board game, which requires you to jump around in the rule book a lot until you've got the hang of it.
What you said was:
It's mathematical fact that if something can occur it will occur given enough time.
You then went on to show (sort of) that the "enough time" you spoke of was actually "an infinite amount of time". I, and the Shakespeare-typing monkeys next door, agree with you here. However, showing that the probability of a random event approaches 1 as the time involved approaches infinity is not the same as showing that the probability will be 1 for any time less than infinity.
Thus, until you show our universe to have an infinite amount of time, those conclusions aren't applicable to our universe.
First, the OP didn't state that his needs superceded all others, and neither did I. The OP did, however, question why anyone would ever need more than 6 hours of battery life, because he couldn't imagine being gone that long without a car charger or power outlet.
Look at his (your?) replies to the people that came up with good examples for cases where longer battery life would be nice. He suggests that people wouldn't really want to listen to more than six hours of music on a long plane trip, just because he wouldn't want to. He suggests that someone in a mud hut use disposable batteries instead of the longer-lasting rechargable battery they want. All of these boil down to "I don't see the need for that, so I question your need for it." This attitude is what my original post was pointing out. Never did I suggest that other people were mistaken for not having the same needs as me--something the OP did repeatedly.
You make a good point that the story-arc was originally unplanned and not really part of many of the middle books, but I nonetheless found it to be a somewhat satisfying way of bringing everything together and saying "Don't worry, the galaxy is going to turn out okay."
I also agree completely about Heinlein; many of his later books start off really well and then break down into a Heinlein character reunion. The worst example of this, in my opinion, is The Number of the Beast.
You're conflating the probability of finding another planet with different conditions necessary (although, statistically the odds are good) with the absolute of knowing a set of conditions.
No, I'm saying that without another planet known to have developed life, we have no way of knowing which conditions present on Earth are necessary (or even "probably necessary") for life. Without knowing that, we have no way of making an intelligent guess as to the probability (or even possibility) of life developing elsewhere in the universe.
For example, suppose that (for reasons we don't yet understand), the conditions for life include being in exactly the same position as Earth relative to the rest of the universe. Obviously, the set of planets meeting this definition is just the Earth. While this is unlikely based on what we know about life here on Earth, we have no way of knowing for sure that this is not actually the condition for life until we find a planet with life that doesn't meet this condition.
Obviously, this example is an exaggeration, but I think it makes the point. Only when we have multiple examples can we begin to narrow down our list of planetary properties likely to lead to the development of life.
Finally, given that we have never found life anywhere besides Earth, and given that we therefore don't know which of Earth's properties are required for the development of life, your statement that "statistically, the odds are good" has no real basis in statistics.
Slashdot Mirror
He was talking about Timmy's collection of GBA games, not the DS titles that are in development.
Failure to understand the point of a comment on your part does not constitute idiocy on mine.
First, the messenger service can be useful when it's not being abused, so if you have a firewall blocking incoming traffic from the Internet you can continue using the messenger service inside your network.
Second, a hardware firewall keeps unwanted traffic off of the local network.
Third, if you have the messenger service turned off, I can still send network traffic to your computer that will be received on the messenger port and will then give me total control of your system. I just made that up, but if you're using a closed OS you have no way to prove that statement false. A firewall, particularly a non-MS firewall, gives you an extra layer of security.
old 386/486 + NIC + Modem + *nix = dialup firewall that does not depend on Microsoft security
My hardware firewall also doesn't block programs that run as a service and pop up regular windows containing advertising, or any other malware. A software firewall, in your example, is hiding a symptom but not addressing the cause. No firewall, whether in hardware of software, will stop someone from clicking on an email entitled "Download this cool new game!" Yes, SP2 should probably be installed and it will probably stop a number of problems. However, unless SP2 has fixed every Windows vulnerability, it is unsafe to have a Windows machine (even with SP2) connected directly to the Internet. I use and like* a number of Microsoft's products, but I don't think it's safe to assume the vulnerabilities are suddenly all gone. *-Please don't hate me for this. I'm learning Linux as I have time.
And do you trust the built-in firewall to keep your computer safe? There have been a ton of holes in Windows, and until SP2 has been out for a while and proven itself, I'm going to keep a piece of non-Microsoft hardware between the Internet and my Windows machines.
I agree, SP2 seems like a step in the right direction. Given the huge number of MS security problems, though, I still don't think it's responsible to connect a Windows computer directly to the Internet.
Or, even better, put a damn firewall between your (Windows) computer and the Internet.
Yes, because nothing in the universe has ever broken a second time. Ever.
AOL is still the provider, though.
Even better is the SOG Paratool. You can open it with one hand, and when you squeeze your palm is pressing against a flat surface, as opposed to pressing against the area where the tools are stored on the Leatherman.
It seems like going back and forth between the touchscreen and the regular buttons would be slow, though.
Agreed. The biggest problem I see with it is that it violates my favorite proverb: "Never stand when you can sit, and never sit when you can lie down." Why stand and go at slow speeds when some sort of bike or scooter (even an electric one) will go faster, be more comfortable, and not look as goofy?
Try this one: Vote for me, and I'll give you $100. I also promise to pardon anyone who gets in trouble for supporting me in this manner. How does the FBI and DOJ handle that one, now that the guy who is tampering with the system is in charge of both the FBI and DOJ?
Yeah, just in time for all the N64 ports! Note to Nintendo: When designing a handheld system capable of running games for $console, please include at least as many buttons as were present on $console's controllers.
Considering how many times my Windows computers have crashed, I'd hate to think what Microsoft Brain Server 2008 will do to me.
As an aside, Civilization and Advanced Civilization have the best-writting instructions of any complex board game I've seen. They are laid out in "outline" style, according to the turn order, and until you've learned the rules you can just follow along in the rule book on each turn, and the rules you need are in exactly the order you'll need them. This is contrasted with the poorly written rules for the new Civ board game, which requires you to jump around in the rule book a lot until you've got the hang of it.
Agreed. I've said some insightful things, here and there, but this one was really going for funny.
Similarly, would these offend the Hindu belief that cows are sacred, thus ending Indian outsourcing?
It's mathematical fact that if something can occur it will occur given enough time.
You then went on to show (sort of) that the "enough time" you spoke of was actually "an infinite amount of time". I, and the Shakespeare-typing monkeys next door, agree with you here. However, showing that the probability of a random event approaches 1 as the time involved approaches infinity is not the same as showing that the probability will be 1 for any time less than infinity. Thus, until you show our universe to have an infinite amount of time, those conclusions aren't applicable to our universe.
First, the OP didn't state that his needs superceded all others, and neither did I. The OP did, however, question why anyone would ever need more than 6 hours of battery life, because he couldn't imagine being gone that long without a car charger or power outlet. Look at his (your?) replies to the people that came up with good examples for cases where longer battery life would be nice. He suggests that people wouldn't really want to listen to more than six hours of music on a long plane trip, just because he wouldn't want to. He suggests that someone in a mud hut use disposable batteries instead of the longer-lasting rechargable battery they want. All of these boil down to "I don't see the need for that, so I question your need for it." This attitude is what my original post was pointing out. Never did I suggest that other people were mistaken for not having the same needs as me--something the OP did repeatedly.
I also agree completely about Heinlein; many of his later books start off really well and then break down into a Heinlein character reunion. The worst example of this, in my opinion, is The Number of the Beast.
No, I'm saying that without another planet known to have developed life, we have no way of knowing which conditions present on Earth are necessary (or even "probably necessary") for life. Without knowing that, we have no way of making an intelligent guess as to the probability (or even possibility) of life developing elsewhere in the universe.
For example, suppose that (for reasons we don't yet understand), the conditions for life include being in exactly the same position as Earth relative to the rest of the universe. Obviously, the set of planets meeting this definition is just the Earth. While this is unlikely based on what we know about life here on Earth, we have no way of knowing for sure that this is not actually the condition for life until we find a planet with life that doesn't meet this condition.
Obviously, this example is an exaggeration, but I think it makes the point. Only when we have multiple examples can we begin to narrow down our list of planetary properties likely to lead to the development of life.
Finally, given that we have never found life anywhere besides Earth, and given that we therefore don't know which of Earth's properties are required for the development of life, your statement that "statistically, the odds are good" has no real basis in statistics.
Show me the proof that the universe will be/has been around for an infinite amount of time, and then we'll talk.
Would they have made almost $4 million that way?