I believe in Evolution, and I completely disagree with the idea of having a little disclaimer that says it's only a theory. However, I wouldn't go around claiming that evolution is fact. The scientific community also thought for a fact that the earth was solid. Now we know about plate tectonics, which explain our world in a much better way. Someday though, we might have an even better theory than plate tectonics. Preaching that evolution is irrefutable fact is an ideology and puts it into the same realm as preaching creationism. It's quite possible that in 10, 20, 50, 100, or more years there will be a much better theory that explains life than evolution and natural selection can (I highly doubt it will look anything like creationism, though).
Science must have a basis some where though. So we take what we know and see if it fits the data. If it does then we use it until something either shows that it doesn't really fit the data, or something else fits the data better. Newton came up with some great laws that fit the data we had for centuries. Then we learned about space and time as we approach the speed of light that Newton's laws don't hold to well in. So we came up with the theory of relativity and realized that when we are far from c we can still use Newton's laws. Are Newton's laws then fact? No. They work, but not in every case. Does that mean that any knowledge derived from Newton's laws are useless? Certainly not. They work, just not in every case.
By the same token, evolution and natural selection work, but not in every case, so there must be something else out there that explains the data we have. Perhaps we will find that the theory evolution only needs to be tweaked (such as it only works if we aren't approaching c), or perhaps or theories on the origin of life will need a major overhaul, as when Newton came up with his laws.
The point is, evolution is a theory and any self-respecting scientist will acknowledge that. However, they will also acknowledge that for the time being, it's the best theory we have by far.
I also acknowledge that this whole post is being a little pedantic about the word "fact."
It's pretty obvious what it's talking about. It talks about security countermeasures in you inbox. That's obviously viruses and trojans. Thus the squatting Sume Wrestler is taking a crap directly into your inbox if you use MS. The imagery is a little over the top, but it presents the facts quite well.
It's easy if the sites are hosted in an area that you have jurisdiction over. I haven't done any bit of research on the topic, but I'm willing to bet that most of these sites are not hosted by your local webhost service.
Because we want to live in a fantasy world. Look, we've done Western, we've done modern, we've done World War II. Now all we have left is Fantasy or Science Fiction. While we may be far from faster than light travel, or building our own gravity in space ships, we are certainly more likely to live out the Science Fiction life style than Fantasy. We have no elves, trolls, orc, hobbits, or dragons (WHERE ARE ALL THE DRAGONS?!). So colonizing the moon will get us oh so closer to Cat-Women of the Moon.
every season there's some news report about a hunter shooting another hunter.
And those are people with sight. What was your point again?
currently blind people are not legally allowed to hunt
Uhm, maybe you didn't read the bill but this is only making it legal for them to hunt with lasers, as well as requiring them to hunt with a sighted companion. So it was already legal, just like in Wisconsin (PDF WARNING) and many other places.
Wouldn't it be cool if we hook up a machine to the cows rear just like a milking machine. Then we would have an abundant supply of natural gas and be able to end much of the oil/coal usage. Then we would be like the native Americans. When they killed a buffalo, they used every part of it. We raise a cow to eat, and now we would be using every part of it. Beef, leather, tripe, manure, milk, bull-riding, and now abundant supplies of natural gas. It's a win-win situation. Unless you're the cow with the machine in your anus. But then, it wasn't exactly a win for them before that either.
I do hope that someday they will regain control of this frenzied beast, and put power back in the hands of the engineers.
While I am not a fan of MS myself and would never want to work for them, I agree with this in part. I don't know what would happen to the tech industry if suddenly MS were to die and you'd have tens of thousands of engineers looking for jobs. I shudder to think. So with that in mind, I hope they die a long slow painful death.
Actually I really think that MS will be a shell of what it is now in only 5-10 years. I don't really want them to go away. I'd just prefer that they have a drastically reduced market share. And to be honest, if their numbers slip, it will go faster. The biggest hold up for people to switch is Windows only apps. The biggest reason for Windows only apps is Windows market share. If their share were to drop 10%, any smart development house would want to be the first one with their product on competing OSs before their own competition arrives, thus killing the Windows only curse and opening a flood gate of people who want to switch but can't because of apps. I predict, even a slow share drop of 10% would bring about a quick slide down another 20-30 percent.
Well said, but it could be said even more simpler: "The salesperson didn't know what it did either."
I think that sums it up nicely. So everyone wants complex things that they have no idea what it does? That makes a lot of sense. Sounds more like companies are just shoving things into stuff in the hopes people will say "I don't know what all they do but it has more buttons than that other one" and then buy it. Reminds me of when some young (< 7yrs old) cousins of mine were visiting me in Phoenix from their small town and I convinced them that Phoenix was better because it had more crime. They went and complained to their parents that they wanted more crime in their city. They had no idea what it was, they just wanted to have more of it than the next guy.
Murder isn't the right way. In that you are correct. But a someone is a lot less likely to rob you if they have any reason to believe you can and will shoot them if they attempt to do it.
It's also a _lot_ more risky to attempt murder if the victim has a gun. It's a _lot_ more risky to attempt rape if the victim has a gun. It's also a _lot_ more risky to rob if the victim has a gun.
If there were some magical way of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals during criminal acts but in the hands of law abiding citizens doing law abiding things then I would be all for it. Gun bans do the exact opposite. The criminals keep the guns and the law abiding citizens turn theirs in. Now it's become a _lot_ easier to kill because you've removed the risk of the perpetrator. What you are talking about is removing guns completely and that is NOT the same thing as a gun ban.
Oh if everyone who says such things as this would learn one basic truth: bans != elimination.
Not only that, but if the laptops get stolen, then they have less maintenance cost. It's a win in that case.
A: I got one of those $100 laptops but it's starting to cost me a fortune. B: Yeah I had one of those but it was stolen. A: That must suck. B: Nah man, your laptop cost you $970 in maintenance and stuff, but mine only cost $450 before it was stolen, so it's cheaper than yours.
Agreed. I guess if you offered this guy a free car but told him he would have to pay for gas, repairs and insurance he would turn the offer down and say it wasn't worth it.
Re:You are always setting an example for your kids
on
The BlackBerry Orphans
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That might very well be the case. There are things my parents do/did that I don't/didn't. However, you never know what your kids will pick up on. So as a parent you have to be on your best behavior at all times, because once the kid picks up on it, it may be a while and hard to reverse. Waiting for your kids' bad behavior before you change yours means you've waited too long.
You are quite right about the watermark. He could have saved himself a lot of trouble by doing that.
However, I will also point that doing so outside of the US is still legal. The link you gave said that a person does 1) and 2) shall be punished, but it also says if the act would violate section 471, 473, or 474 and all of those refer to intent.
Nevertheless, he could have saved himself a lot of headache.
That number is useless. It sure is nice to know that "30% of insiders...caught launching an attack...have arrest records" but what percentage of people who have arrest records are caught launching an attack? In other words, 30% of attackers have arrest records, but maybe it's only 1% of people with arrest records that luanch an attack. So in their zeal to eliminate that 30%, they might eliminate a lot of good people who are not a threat to launch an attack.
You were gone for nearly three months and that is the best reponse you can come up with? If you made counterfiet US currency as a substitute for monopoly, it would have no value, thus it is legal. According to what you wrote, you could even alter a genuine $20 bill into a $10 bill and that would also be legal. But perhaps, you would have been more wise to read Title 18 section 471.
Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges,
counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the
United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than 20 years, or both.
Now we are talking intent. Thus, counterfeiting money that you never use is in fact legal. Read the whole page you linked to and then read the actual contents of the law, and you will find every time they talk about intent to defraud. Thus the original poster was correct in saying it's not illegal to counterfeit money.
I used to be a teller in a bank a few years ago. It is a very transitory position. I was there for nearly two years and there were few who had been there longer than I and many who had come and gone. Give it some time and people at the bank won't know who you are.
Having said that, I hope that even if they do know who you are, that they ask to see ID every time, like my teller colleagues and I did. A lot of people have this silly notion that the only time we ask for ID is if the person in front of us is not the person on the account. For some reason they didn't understand that we had no way of knowing that until we had seen ID. When we asked we actually had idiots say "Why? I'm the owner of the account," as if we would turn red in the face and say "Of course you are. How silly of me to ask. Certainly a criminal would have provided us with ID without being asked."
But if tellers ever get to the point that store clerks do (and I suspect many have) then any old schmoe will be able to take money out of your account. I can't tell you how many times I've had cashiers ring up a sale without ever even looking at either my ID or my signature on the back of the credit card. I've had times where I offered and was refused, as if they didn't want to have anything to do with security checks of any variety as that might bring upon them responsibility or something. I'm not talking about small purchases here either.
So my point is, if bank tellers get to the point of laziness as most cashiers, you're money isn't safe in the bank whether or not you have an ATM card. The best you can do is keep an eye on it and report anything as soon as it happens.
Advertising works because it usually does not get us to go beyond our moral standing or ask us to forfeit our ethics (our actual morals and ethics, not our professed ones). Most people have no moral standing on which brand of detergent they use, or what brand of sandwich meat they eat, and many other things. So they allow that to influence them.
For example, I have a cousin who honestly believes all GM made cares suck. No amount of advertising will convince him otherwise. He will not allow it to influence him otherwise.
Also, violence in entertainment settings (be it books, movies, music, art, games, etc.) does not usually influence people to think it is bad because it is not reality and most people can figure that out.
For example, I've read lots of books about war, I've seen movies about it, and I've played games with war as a central focus. For reasons I have not yet solidified, Call of Duty made me appreciate war more than any other influence in my life. By appreciate, I mean I came to respect the dangers inherent in it, the risks, the lives lost, the sorrow, the grief, the heartache, and the pains associated with it, as well as the certainty and gravity of death. All this from a game where I can just respawn after dying and move on. Did it influence me? Yes, but it did so in ways that have made me more fearful of violence. Does Unreal Tournament do the same for me? Not one bit, but it also doesn't now, nor did it ever, make me want to commit any sort of violent act.
...though if I did, I would be expect to hear "Flak Monkey!!!"
Slashdot Mirror
I believe in Evolution, and I completely disagree with the idea of having a little disclaimer that says it's only a theory. However, I wouldn't go around claiming that evolution is fact. The scientific community also thought for a fact that the earth was solid. Now we know about plate tectonics, which explain our world in a much better way. Someday though, we might have an even better theory than plate tectonics. Preaching that evolution is irrefutable fact is an ideology and puts it into the same realm as preaching creationism. It's quite possible that in 10, 20, 50, 100, or more years there will be a much better theory that explains life than evolution and natural selection can (I highly doubt it will look anything like creationism, though).
Science must have a basis some where though. So we take what we know and see if it fits the data. If it does then we use it until something either shows that it doesn't really fit the data, or something else fits the data better. Newton came up with some great laws that fit the data we had for centuries. Then we learned about space and time as we approach the speed of light that Newton's laws don't hold to well in. So we came up with the theory of relativity and realized that when we are far from c we can still use Newton's laws. Are Newton's laws then fact? No. They work, but not in every case. Does that mean that any knowledge derived from Newton's laws are useless? Certainly not. They work, just not in every case.
By the same token, evolution and natural selection work, but not in every case, so there must be something else out there that explains the data we have. Perhaps we will find that the theory evolution only needs to be tweaked (such as it only works if we aren't approaching c), or perhaps or theories on the origin of life will need a major overhaul, as when Newton came up with his laws.
The point is, evolution is a theory and any self-respecting scientist will acknowledge that. However, they will also acknowledge that for the time being, it's the best theory we have by far.
I also acknowledge that this whole post is being a little pedantic about the word "fact."
It's pretty obvious what it's talking about. It talks about security countermeasures in you inbox. That's obviously viruses and trojans. Thus the squatting Sume Wrestler is taking a crap directly into your inbox if you use MS. The imagery is a little over the top, but it presents the facts quite well.
It's easy if the sites are hosted in an area that you have jurisdiction over. I haven't done any bit of research on the topic, but I'm willing to bet that most of these sites are not hosted by your local webhost service.
Because we want to live in a fantasy world. Look, we've done Western, we've done modern, we've done World War II. Now all we have left is Fantasy or Science Fiction. While we may be far from faster than light travel, or building our own gravity in space ships, we are certainly more likely to live out the Science Fiction life style than Fantasy. We have no elves, trolls, orc, hobbits, or dragons (WHERE ARE ALL THE DRAGONS?!). So colonizing the moon will get us oh so closer to Cat-Women of the Moon.
can Bob sue Jim because Mary said Jim was a better lover? Of course not.
You would be wrong. Can they win? I sure hope not. Would it get thrown out really fast? I sure hope so. But can he sue? Yes.
every season there's some news report about a hunter shooting another hunter.
And those are people with sight. What was your point again?
currently blind people are not legally allowed to hunt
Uhm, maybe you didn't read the bill but this is only making it legal for them to hunt with lasers, as well as requiring them to hunt with a sighted companion. So it was already legal, just like in Wisconsin (PDF WARNING) and many other places.
Wouldn't it be cool if we hook up a machine to the cows rear just like a milking machine. Then we would have an abundant supply of natural gas and be able to end much of the oil/coal usage. Then we would be like the native Americans. When they killed a buffalo, they used every part of it. We raise a cow to eat, and now we would be using every part of it. Beef, leather, tripe, manure, milk, bull-riding, and now abundant supplies of natural gas. It's a win-win situation. Unless you're the cow with the machine in your anus. But then, it wasn't exactly a win for them before that either.
Perhaps I misunderstood the UN report, but I thought they were saying it was the methane that cows release that was the big problem.
I do hope that someday they will regain control of this frenzied beast, and put power back in the hands of the engineers.
While I am not a fan of MS myself and would never want to work for them, I agree with this in part. I don't know what would happen to the tech industry if suddenly MS were to die and you'd have tens of thousands of engineers looking for jobs. I shudder to think. So with that in mind, I hope they die a long slow painful death.
Actually I really think that MS will be a shell of what it is now in only 5-10 years. I don't really want them to go away. I'd just prefer that they have a drastically reduced market share. And to be honest, if their numbers slip, it will go faster. The biggest hold up for people to switch is Windows only apps. The biggest reason for Windows only apps is Windows market share. If their share were to drop 10%, any smart development house would want to be the first one with their product on competing OSs before their own competition arrives, thus killing the Windows only curse and opening a flood gate of people who want to switch but can't because of apps. I predict, even a slow share drop of 10% would bring about a quick slide down another 20-30 percent.
Well said, but it could be said even more simpler: "The salesperson didn't know what it did either."
I think that sums it up nicely. So everyone wants complex things that they have no idea what it does? That makes a lot of sense. Sounds more like companies are just shoving things into stuff in the hopes people will say "I don't know what all they do but it has more buttons than that other one" and then buy it. Reminds me of when some young (< 7yrs old) cousins of mine were visiting me in Phoenix from their small town and I convinced them that Phoenix was better because it had more crime. They went and complained to their parents that they wanted more crime in their city. They had no idea what it was, they just wanted to have more of it than the next guy.
Murder isn't the right way. In that you are correct. But a someone is a lot less likely to rob you if they have any reason to believe you can and will shoot them if they attempt to do it.
It's also a _lot_ more risky to attempt murder if the victim has a gun. It's a _lot_ more risky to attempt rape if the victim has a gun. It's also a _lot_ more risky to rob if the victim has a gun.
If there were some magical way of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals during criminal acts but in the hands of law abiding citizens doing law abiding things then I would be all for it. Gun bans do the exact opposite. The criminals keep the guns and the law abiding citizens turn theirs in. Now it's become a _lot_ easier to kill because you've removed the risk of the perpetrator. What you are talking about is removing guns completely and that is NOT the same thing as a gun ban.
Oh if everyone who says such things as this would learn one basic truth: bans != elimination.
Not only that, but if the laptops get stolen, then they have less maintenance cost. It's a win in that case.
A: I got one of those $100 laptops but it's starting to cost me a fortune.
B: Yeah I had one of those but it was stolen.
A: That must suck.
B: Nah man, your laptop cost you $970 in maintenance and stuff, but mine only cost $450 before it was stolen, so it's cheaper than yours.
Agreed. I guess if you offered this guy a free car but told him he would have to pay for gas, repairs and insurance he would turn the offer down and say it wasn't worth it.
That might very well be the case. There are things my parents do/did that I don't/didn't. However, you never know what your kids will pick up on. So as a parent you have to be on your best behavior at all times, because once the kid picks up on it, it may be a while and hard to reverse. Waiting for your kids' bad behavior before you change yours means you've waited too long.
You are quite right about the watermark. He could have saved himself a lot of trouble by doing that.
However, I will also point that doing so outside of the US is still legal. The link you gave said that a person does 1) and 2) shall be punished, but it also says if the act would violate section 471, 473, or 474 and all of those refer to intent.
Nevertheless, he could have saved himself a lot of headache.
That number is useless. It sure is nice to know that "30% of insiders...caught launching an attack...have arrest records" but what percentage of people who have arrest records are caught launching an attack? In other words, 30% of attackers have arrest records, but maybe it's only 1% of people with arrest records that luanch an attack. So in their zeal to eliminate that 30%, they might eliminate a lot of good people who are not a threat to launch an attack.
Actually, it isn't.
Now we are talking intent. Thus, counterfeiting money that you never use is in fact legal. Read the whole page you linked to and then read the actual contents of the law, and you will find every time they talk about intent to defraud. Thus the original poster was correct in saying it's not illegal to counterfeit money.
Yeah, I had a car like that once.
I used to be a teller in a bank a few years ago. It is a very transitory position. I was there for nearly two years and there were few who had been there longer than I and many who had come and gone. Give it some time and people at the bank won't know who you are.
Having said that, I hope that even if they do know who you are, that they ask to see ID every time, like my teller colleagues and I did. A lot of people have this silly notion that the only time we ask for ID is if the person in front of us is not the person on the account. For some reason they didn't understand that we had no way of knowing that until we had seen ID. When we asked we actually had idiots say "Why? I'm the owner of the account," as if we would turn red in the face and say "Of course you are. How silly of me to ask. Certainly a criminal would have provided us with ID without being asked."
But if tellers ever get to the point that store clerks do (and I suspect many have) then any old schmoe will be able to take money out of your account. I can't tell you how many times I've had cashiers ring up a sale without ever even looking at either my ID or my signature on the back of the credit card. I've had times where I offered and was refused, as if they didn't want to have anything to do with security checks of any variety as that might bring upon them responsibility or something. I'm not talking about small purchases here either.
So my point is, if bank tellers get to the point of laziness as most cashiers, you're money isn't safe in the bank whether or not you have an ATM card. The best you can do is keep an eye on it and report anything as soon as it happens.
Yeah, tell that to all the other civilizations this universe has seen come and go.
Wow, someone is bitter that they had to vacuum the living room 3 days of the week.
Advertising works because it usually does not get us to go beyond our moral standing or ask us to forfeit our ethics (our actual morals and ethics, not our professed ones). Most people have no moral standing on which brand of detergent they use, or what brand of sandwich meat they eat, and many other things. So they allow that to influence them.
...though if I did, I would be expect to hear "Flak Monkey!!!"
For example, I have a cousin who honestly believes all GM made cares suck. No amount of advertising will convince him otherwise. He will not allow it to influence him otherwise.
Also, violence in entertainment settings (be it books, movies, music, art, games, etc.) does not usually influence people to think it is bad because it is not reality and most people can figure that out.
For example, I've read lots of books about war, I've seen movies about it, and I've played games with war as a central focus. For reasons I have not yet solidified, Call of Duty made me appreciate war more than any other influence in my life. By appreciate, I mean I came to respect the dangers inherent in it, the risks, the lives lost, the sorrow, the grief, the heartache, and the pains associated with it, as well as the certainty and gravity of death. All this from a game where I can just respawn after dying and move on. Did it influence me? Yes, but it did so in ways that have made me more fearful of violence. Does Unreal Tournament do the same for me? Not one bit, but it also doesn't now, nor did it ever, make me want to commit any sort of violent act.