Close yes, but almost certainly a little higher. Most winners will understand that the stock they own has that value. There will be some sales afterword though, and in general the seller wont be willing to sell for less than he KNOWS the stock to be worth. Other factors may play in though. If the value is less than people expect, they may lose confidence, and the price would go down. Again, not by much.
Detrimental? The Bible? What was detrimental wasn't the Bible, or God; but religious impostors claiming divine authority while doing works of evil. Sure they often claimed the Bible as their source of authority. That doesn't mean that the Bible made them do it. Today, this has put a sour taste in everyones mouth.
Please don't troll, many of us don't like it.
The lesson stands: Don't believe or do something just because your ecclesiastical leader tells you to. Read and understand your own religious books. Pray to God (Christian or not). Then decide if a teaching is good.
I respect your opinion, but I do object strongly to "government is about keeping things in order right here and right now. Religion's about the afterlife." This is one of the key underlying problems with religion today. I'm not saying that religion and government should be mixed. But, religion is just as much about this life as it is the next. From religions' point of view, this life is part of the same purpose and existence as the next life. Thus religion should not be discounted as a very effective means to keep things in order. I'm not saying that religion should ever be imposed on anyone, but never underestimate the power for good that self imposed religion can play.
Was the prosecution saying these had been deleted, or was there software specifically to keep data in unallocated space. This merits some level of understanding at least.
Security experts who were asked to review Jack's claims said it is possible that a browser hijacker could have been the reason porn images were found on Jack's computer. But they also pointed out some discrepancies in the story.
Some of the images were found in unallocated file space, and would have to have been placed there deliberately since cached images from browsing sessions wouldn't have been stored in unallocated space.
You'd be fooling yourself if you actually thought you were teaching them anything. They've got it down to a science. (But I think you knew that already, lol.)
Someone in town has a spam zombie that is spoofing my yahoo account, and I get stuck with all the return mail! (It's very likely someone I know, I just haven't figured it out yet)
Yes, but he was only given 10 minutes. It seems to me that he jumped into something that he knew about, and had little chance of coming across as an irredeemable idiot in those limited ten minutes. He was also hoping that Jack would be aware of certain tech frameworks which he wasn't.
By the by, anyone know which forums he was referring to?
In your original post you said that Mary had done the preserving. Although I still find this hard to believe, it makes a lot more sense than the first version. I don't want to offend, but accuracy in posting is key if you want to be taken seriously.
I will agree, though, that there have likely been scriptures lost throughout the ages. There are also plenty of false text that have been written. Choosing extra biblical text to believe must be done with great care (and inspiration of the Lord).
I don't agree with what I think your saying, but here's the spelling anyway. A profit (prah - fit) is what businesses try to make. A prophet (prah - fet) is one who speaks for God.
Although I agree with you, I would like to nitpick your sentence here. We do not have the original texts. We probably have exact ancient copies, but we can't tell for certain unless an original is found and identified. No one I have ever heard of has made that claim.
...but not that Mary Magdalene preserved Jesus' foreskin in oinment which she used when washing his feet?
Mabee you're makeing up some examples of what may be excluded, but something bothers me here (as does the previous sentence, but I wont go there.)
Bear in mind that Mary Magdalene was NOT Mary, mother of Jesus. What kind of relationship would be required for this statement to work. Not only does it sound absurd, but I cannot think of a rational situation for that to happen.
Why, it seems to be one of the least trollish posts in this discussion. What is your reasoning. (I'll assume you have a rationale, otherwise you'd be the troll.)
Science is not some alternative to religion, it's only a tool. I guess the truth scares religous folk, and hence they always see science as some sort of competitor.
I'll agree to most of that. The reverse is also true. Religion is also treated as a competitor. Science is unfortunately treated by some "scientifically minded" people as though it were their religion, and as such, infallible.
The best argument I have ever heard goes as such: "If something is true, it is true!". Science says it's theories are consistent with observation, and religion says it has a series of old documents containing truth from God. Both may reflect truth (and I personally believe both do) but neither creates truth. It is equally absurd to suggest that religionists create God as it is to suggest that scientist destroy Him. He exist (or doesn't if you prefer) independently from whether we want Him to or not.
And how do you know that kangaroos came from Australia in the first place? I'm seeing too much of this type of logic in this discussion. Don't assume that things are now like they were before the flood. We don't assume that science is now like it was before the dark ages. Let me give you a circular argument that is perfectly true. When things change, things change.
It doesn't sound to me that the Canadian government has anything to do with this project. Why are you blameing these students. They may, or may not, also be trying to fix whatever problems Canada may have. I doubt you know about that. I don't.
Perfect obscurity is perfect security. The problem is this: there is no perfect obscurity. It has been said "Two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead". While obscurity is no substitute for other forms of security, I don't believe it's only a small advantage. (I'm not saying where Linux should or should not be used, only that a valid argument could be made on this front.)
As I understand it:
A square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.
Crackers are (often) hackers, but being a hacker doesn't make you a cracker.
That is part of the reason it can be hard to convince people of the difference. When they say "hacker" it's often technically correct, just not what they meant to convey.
I'm still new to Linux, but isn't that what the "sticky bit" is for? You can set the file permissions such that any user can run an application, but that it always runs with the permission of it's owner.
(I realize your proposing a step further, but I'm just pointing out a current possibility.)
A nice idea, but I think your interpreting the icon idea a bit more extreme than I. I think the implication was that the icons would be needed ONLY for the default settings. If a program that runs in the background can be set to start automatically at startup, but you had to manually turn that feature on, it would still not require the warning icon.
(That's what I think is being proposed, legislation could go the other way though.)
Is this 'cos they're good, or is it the case that the two tasks (suborbital flight, orbital flight) really don't bear any comparison? Five years from now, will Slashdot be covering the Y prize (orbital flight) or ultimately even the Z-prize (presumably an amateur moonshot)
Is there anything "amateur" about a moonshot?
(but yes, it would be awesome)
I don't want to draw away from the point that you made, but I do take exception to one of your comments:
I have come to the belief that religion is not about whether you can explain it or not, or even if it makes sense. If it had to make sense, there wouldn't be any Mormons or Scientologists.
I won't defend Scientology out of lack of knowledge, but I will defend my faith. People have a general misunderstanding and distrust of the LDS faith (aka mormons). Things do make sense in a cohesive way. Many just have a hard time grasping that, because they have to think outside of the framework they are used to. For example, most denominations believe in a "closed cannon"*, whereas we do not. So many religions take it for granted, that it simply doesn't make sense to them. A serious study of the LDS faith would show that there are some unanswered questions, but that is not unique. I don't know of any religion that has ALL the answers. Science doesn't even claim that it ever will.
Add to this the amount of FUD spread by people who know better, and by those who don't. I'm not surprised that you chose us as an example, but it really hurt to see.
*a religious cannon is a standard by which religious truth is compared; it's like checking the textbook to see if your answers are right. Christianity uses the Bible, Judaism uses the Torah, Islam uses the Koran, and other religions also have standard to measure new ideas. Latter-Day Saints believe the heavens are not closed, and that there are additional writings (such as the "Book of Mormon") also written under the direction of God by prophets. Such an idea is a little to novel for many people (in the early A.D.s it was a little too novel for many Jews too).
Slashdot Mirror
Close yes, but almost certainly a little higher. Most winners will understand that the stock they own has that value. There will be some sales afterword though, and in general the seller wont be willing to sell for less than he KNOWS the stock to be worth. Other factors may play in though. If the value is less than people expect, they may lose confidence, and the price would go down. Again, not by much.
Detrimental? The Bible? What was detrimental wasn't the Bible, or God; but religious impostors claiming divine authority while doing works of evil. Sure they often claimed the Bible as their source of authority. That doesn't mean that the Bible made them do it. Today, this has put a sour taste in everyones mouth.
Please don't troll, many of us don't like it.
The lesson stands: Don't believe or do something just because your ecclesiastical leader tells you to. Read and understand your own religious books. Pray to God (Christian or not). Then decide if a teaching is good.
I respect your opinion, but I do object strongly to "government is about keeping things in order right here and right now. Religion's about the afterlife." This is one of the key underlying problems with religion today. I'm not saying that religion and government should be mixed. But, religion is just as much about this life as it is the next. From religions' point of view, this life is part of the same purpose and existence as the next life. Thus religion should not be discounted as a very effective means to keep things in order. I'm not saying that religion should ever be imposed on anyone, but never underestimate the power for good that self imposed religion can play.
Your .sig makes this funny actually.
I meant to hit preview, and add some commentary.
Was the prosecution saying these had been deleted, or was there software specifically to keep data in unallocated space. This merits some level of understanding at least.
You'd be fooling yourself if you actually thought you were teaching them anything. They've got it down to a science. (But I think you knew that already, lol.)
Someone in town has a spam zombie that is spoofing my yahoo account, and I get stuck with all the return mail! (It's very likely someone I know, I just haven't figured it out yet)
Yes, but he was only given 10 minutes. It seems to me that he jumped into something that he knew about, and had little chance of coming across as an irredeemable idiot in those limited ten minutes. He was also hoping that Jack would be aware of certain tech frameworks which he wasn't.
By the by, anyone know which forums he was referring to?
In your original post you said that Mary had done the preserving. Although I still find this hard to believe, it makes a lot more sense than the first version. I don't want to offend, but accuracy in posting is key if you want to be taken seriously.
I will agree, though, that there have likely been scriptures lost throughout the ages. There are also plenty of false text that have been written. Choosing extra biblical text to believe must be done with great care (and inspiration of the Lord).
I don't agree with what I think your saying, but here's the spelling anyway. A profit (prah - fit) is what businesses try to make. A prophet (prah - fet) is one who speaks for God.
Although I agree with you, I would like to nitpick your sentence here. We do not have the original texts. We probably have exact ancient copies, but we can't tell for certain unless an original is found and identified. No one I have ever heard of has made that claim.
Why, it seems to be one of the least trollish posts in this discussion. What is your reasoning. (I'll assume you have a rationale, otherwise you'd be the troll.)
I'll agree to most of that. The reverse is also true. Religion is also treated as a competitor. Science is unfortunately treated by some "scientifically minded" people as though it were their religion, and as such, infallible.
The best argument I have ever heard goes as such: "If something is true, it is true!". Science says it's theories are consistent with observation, and religion says it has a series of old documents containing truth from God. Both may reflect truth (and I personally believe both do) but neither creates truth. It is equally absurd to suggest that religionists create God as it is to suggest that scientist destroy Him. He exist (or doesn't if you prefer) independently from whether we want Him to or not.
And how do you know that kangaroos came from Australia in the first place? I'm seeing too much of this type of logic in this discussion. Don't assume that things are now like they were before the flood. We don't assume that science is now like it was before the dark ages. Let me give you a circular argument that is perfectly true. When things change, things change.
It doesn't sound to me that the Canadian government has anything to do with this project. Why are you blameing these students. They may, or may not, also be trying to fix whatever problems Canada may have. I doubt you know about that. I don't.
Perfect obscurity is perfect security. The problem is this: there is no perfect obscurity. It has been said "Two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead". While obscurity is no substitute for other forms of security, I don't believe it's only a small advantage. (I'm not saying where Linux should or should not be used, only that a valid argument could be made on this front.)
As I understand it: A square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares. Crackers are (often) hackers, but being a hacker doesn't make you a cracker. That is part of the reason it can be hard to convince people of the difference. When they say "hacker" it's often technically correct, just not what they meant to convey.
I doubt it, seeing that he pled guilty. (unless there were multiple charges perhaps)
I'm still new to Linux, but isn't that what the "sticky bit" is for? You can set the file permissions such that any user can run an application, but that it always runs with the permission of it's owner.
(I realize your proposing a step further, but I'm just pointing out a current possibility.)
A nice idea, but I think your interpreting the icon idea a bit more extreme than I. I think the implication was that the icons would be needed ONLY for the default settings. If a program that runs in the background can be set to start automatically at startup, but you had to manually turn that feature on, it would still not require the warning icon.
(That's what I think is being proposed, legislation could go the other way though.)
(but yes, it would be awesome)
I don't want to draw away from the point that you made, but I do take exception to one of your comments:
I won't defend Scientology out of lack of knowledge, but I will defend my faith. People have a general misunderstanding and distrust of the LDS faith (aka mormons). Things do make sense in a cohesive way. Many just have a hard time grasping that, because they have to think outside of the framework they are used to. For example, most denominations believe in a "closed cannon"*, whereas we do not. So many religions take it for granted, that it simply doesn't make sense to them. A serious study of the LDS faith would show that there are some unanswered questions, but that is not unique. I don't know of any religion that has ALL the answers. Science doesn't even claim that it ever will.
Add to this the amount of FUD spread by people who know better, and by those who don't. I'm not surprised that you chose us as an example, but it really hurt to see.