You are playing fast-and-loose with the words "all" and "fact", which seems to be the standard mode of operation for left-wing nutjobs.
The facts are:
1. We have a lot of evidence suggesting that climate change is happening.
2. We have some evidence that human pollution has caused some of the symptoms of climate change.
3. We also know for a fact that the overall climate of the earth has changed and fluctuated to extremes without the help of humans, in FACT, before humans even existed.
Do you think that there are any people at Apple with Windows laptops? Probably a few, but talk about a career limiting move:)
Fun fact: new employees at Google are told that "they better have a good reason" if they request a Windows laptop for their primary machine.
... Education.
Why is it we can individually choose everything important in our lives except who gets to teach our children and what curriculum they teach?!?
The exploits came out after the announcement and not before. It begs the question, do we need to give M$ credit for pushing the patch before the exploit became common knowledge? Compare this to Cisco who tried to squash recent publicizing of their vulnerability.
I have been hesitant to reference WikiPedia as an authority in my university assignments because of the fact that it's not necessarily an authority. The article could have been written by a complete yahoo. You can't even attribute the reference to a particular author! Having said that, I do find it a great place to find authorities on various topics using the links that are gathered with each article.
To clarify: My wife worked for the local telco and now she works for a national cable company. She is telling me that while cable has dominating the market, DSL has made some inroads due to there lower prices on low-end "high-speed" access. The thing is, a lot of those new lines DSL has collected recently cannot be considered high-speed when compared to the basic packages from most cable companies.
with allowing a company to profit from the infrastructure they have built without being forced to allow other companies to profit from it! The bottom line is that there is real competition when it comes to competing technologies. The fact is, cable is eating DSL's lunch!
I would like to point out that TFA doesn't say anything about editing reviews. It talks about reviews being rejected.
The policies described in the section about NewEgg seem reasonable to me, but as they have reevaluated their filtering process, it is probably a good sign.
I tend to put more stock in the reviews on sites like www.pricegrabber.com because they seem a lot more unbiased.
I agree with your points 100%, but I will also submit that current theories about the nature of the universe and the frabric of spacetime are also completely unprovable today.
Newton's theories of motion are extremely accurate in regard to the macro universe, but they do not describe the universe's true nature.
Einstein's theories of special and general relativity are also extremely accurate at predicting physical events, but it has been shown that they too, do not accurately depict the true nature of the universe.
Quantum mechanics and particle physics have also been "proven" through experimentation to accurately predict physical phenomena, but they, too, don't unify all forces in our universe.
Superstring theory looks like an extremely likely candidate for explaining the elemental properties of the universe, the shape of spacetime, and unification of all forces (gravity, electroweak, strong nuclear, Higgs, etc.), but there are those who doubt that it will ever be provable except to the extent that it predicts or explains observations.
I, like you, am a Christian, and I take my faith very seriously, but I can reconcile the strides we have taken in understanding our universe and the teachings of the Bible by simply saying "God is Great!"
What I find objectionable about the anti-ID crowd are quotes like this:
Opponents of intelligent design, which a Kansas professor once called "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," say there is no legitimate debate. - TFA
Doesn't this smack of intellectual elitism? Can we ever say, in science, that there is "no legitimate debate" when many extremely accurate theories in use today are still unproven in absolute terms?
The article started out somewhat on the silly side with a quote from Keran O'Brien: "I do not see how the problem of this hostile radiation environment can be easily overcome in the future." Whoever said it was going to be easy?
Here's Kennedy on the matter: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."
The article ended on a completely ridiculous note:
Others suggest more radical solutions might be needed. "Radiation exposure is certainly one of the major problems facing future interplanetary space travellers," says Murdoch Baxter, founding editor of the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. "Unless we can develop instantaneous time and space transfer technologies like Dr Who's TARDIS."
There have been extremely impressive strides made in theoretical particle physics recently. I think it is too soon to discount the idea of interplanetary travel.
When you start sputtering "fundamentalist republican" this and "neocon" that, you make it obvious that you're not up for serious, logical argument.
I'll ask you the same question I asked another poster: How do you get your DNC talking points delivered? Did your tin-foil hat start buzzing and order you to post on/.?
Unless you can point to a specific clause in the Patriot Act that abridges free speech and violates the first ammendment, I must reiterate my assertion that you are using a fallacious argument and confusing two distinct constitutional principles.
He specifically asked for violations of the 1st Ammendment (free speech). Privacy is protected by the... oh wait... there is no ammendment protecting privacy. Maybe you're referring to the 4th ammendment? The one about unreasonable search and seizure. I'll agree with that, but your post as an argument against the original poster's premise is terminally flawed because you are not even talking about the same legal principles.
Unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo do not constitute valid logical argument. If you have some examples why not list them, with references, instead of just repeating the "Big Lie" that liberals have been spewing for the last five years?
How do you get your DNC talking points delivered? FAX? E-Mail? Tin-foil hat?
They talked about Usenet in the article. The fact is that Usenet news is still very much alive and there are tons of copyrighted material floating around on it. There's also lots of legitimately published stuff too. Does anyone know of any efforts by RIAA and others to shut it down? ISP's have been carrying the alt.binaries.* groups for as long as I can remember. Have there been any legal challenges to that?
Are you saying that they didn't strongly urge customers to install the patch? I can't get into their download site without a password, so I can't verify your statement one way or the other.
Please support it.
Also, if Cisco did know about it and kept it under wraps while they worked on the problem I call that common sense not secrecy. How would you like it if someone posted a sign on your street giving the code to your alarm system or garage door opener?
And before everybody starts yelling about the need for these things to be reported, there are channels he could have gone through that would have made Cisco aware of the problem (if they weren't already) without endangering the safety of the nation's network by talking to a bunch of black hats!
Slashdot Mirror
Because you don't.
You are playing fast-and-loose with the words "all" and "fact", which seems to be the standard mode of operation for left-wing nutjobs. The facts are: 1. We have a lot of evidence suggesting that climate change is happening. 2. We have some evidence that human pollution has caused some of the symptoms of climate change. 3. We also know for a fact that the overall climate of the earth has changed and fluctuated to extremes without the help of humans, in FACT, before humans even existed.
Do you think that there are any people at Apple with Windows laptops? Probably a few, but talk about a career limiting move :)
Fun fact: new employees at Google are told that "they better have a good reason" if they request a Windows laptop for their primary machine.
... Education. Why is it we can individually choose everything important in our lives except who gets to teach our children and what curriculum they teach?!?
XML is like violence: If it doesn't solve your problem, just use more.
The exploits came out after the announcement and not before. It begs the question, do we need to give M$ credit for pushing the patch before the exploit became common knowledge? Compare this to Cisco who tried to squash recent publicizing of their vulnerability.
I have been hesitant to reference WikiPedia as an authority in my university assignments because of the fact that it's not necessarily an authority. The article could have been written by a complete yahoo. You can't even attribute the reference to a particular author! Having said that, I do find it a great place to find authorities on various topics using the links that are gathered with each article.
To clarify: My wife worked for the local telco and now she works for a national cable company. She is telling me that while cable has dominating the market, DSL has made some inroads due to there lower prices on low-end "high-speed" access. The thing is, a lot of those new lines DSL has collected recently cannot be considered high-speed when compared to the basic packages from most cable companies.
with allowing a company to profit from the infrastructure they have built without being forced to allow other companies to profit from it! The bottom line is that there is real competition when it comes to competing technologies. The fact is, cable is eating DSL's lunch!
The policies described in the section about NewEgg seem reasonable to me, but as they have reevaluated their filtering process, it is probably a good sign.
I tend to put more stock in the reviews on sites like www.pricegrabber.com because they seem a lot more unbiased.
Exactly my point.
I agree with your points 100%, but I will also submit that current theories about the nature of the universe and the frabric of spacetime are also completely unprovable today.
Newton's theories of motion are extremely accurate in regard to the macro universe, but they do not describe the universe's true nature.
Einstein's theories of special and general relativity are also extremely accurate at predicting physical events, but it has been shown that they too, do not accurately depict the true nature of the universe.
Quantum mechanics and particle physics have also been "proven" through experimentation to accurately predict physical phenomena, but they, too, don't unify all forces in our universe.
Superstring theory looks like an extremely likely candidate for explaining the elemental properties of the universe, the shape of spacetime, and unification of all forces (gravity, electroweak, strong nuclear, Higgs, etc.), but there are those who doubt that it will ever be provable except to the extent that it predicts or explains observations.
I, like you, am a Christian, and I take my faith very seriously, but I can reconcile the strides we have taken in understanding our universe and the teachings of the Bible by simply saying "God is Great!"
What I find objectionable about the anti-ID crowd are quotes like this:
Doesn't this smack of intellectual elitism? Can we ever say, in science, that there is "no legitimate debate" when many extremely accurate theories in use today are still unproven in absolute terms?
The article started out somewhat on the silly side with a quote from Keran O'Brien: "I do not see how the problem of this hostile radiation environment can be easily overcome in the future." Whoever said it was going to be easy?
Here's Kennedy on the matter: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard..."
The article ended on a completely ridiculous note:
There have been extremely impressive strides made in theoretical particle physics recently. I think it is too soon to discount the idea of interplanetary travel.
ROFL! Mod's got his head up is arse!
Now, I will be able to hijack my neighbor's high speed connection ten times as fast!
I'll ask you the same question I asked another poster: How do you get your DNC talking points delivered? Did your tin-foil hat start buzzing and order you to post on /.?
Unless you can point to a specific clause in the Patriot Act that abridges free speech and violates the first ammendment, I must reiterate my assertion that you are using a fallacious argument and confusing two distinct constitutional principles.
He specifically asked for violations of the 1st Ammendment (free speech). Privacy is protected by the ... oh wait ... there is no ammendment protecting privacy. Maybe you're referring to the 4th ammendment? The one about unreasonable search and seizure. I'll agree with that, but your post as an argument against the original poster's premise is terminally flawed because you are not even talking about the same legal principles.
Unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo do not constitute valid logical argument. If you have some examples why not list them, with references, instead of just repeating the "Big Lie" that liberals have been spewing for the last five years?
How do you get your DNC talking points delivered? FAX? E-Mail? Tin-foil hat?
They talked about Usenet in the article. The fact is that Usenet news is still very much alive and there are tons of copyrighted material floating around on it. There's also lots of legitimately published stuff too. Does anyone know of any efforts by RIAA and others to shut it down? ISP's have been carrying the alt.binaries.* groups for as long as I can remember. Have there been any legal challenges to that?
Why didn't he blow the whistle to the US-CERT, then? Yeah, this is a good idea, let's present it at a Black Hat convention. Jeez
Are you saying that they didn't strongly urge customers to install the patch? I can't get into their download site without a password, so I can't verify your statement one way or the other. Please support it.
If it weren't at least somewhat effective the Internet wouldn't even exist because the black hats wold pwn everyone's machines.
Also, if Cisco did know about it and kept it under wraps while they worked on the problem I call that common sense not secrecy. How would you like it if someone posted a sign on your street giving the code to your alarm system or garage door opener?
And before everybody starts yelling about the need for these things to be reported, there are channels he could have gone through that would have made Cisco aware of the problem (if they weren't already) without endangering the safety of the nation's network by talking to a bunch of black hats!