Number of security features does not result in more security
This is self-evidently true, and I didn't address that. I just pointed out that the posting I replied to was dead wrong on basically all accounts. Sadly, the more sophisticated security features of Windows are badly understood by brainless developers, and therefore often open to exploit. If the developers had come from a Unix or Mainframe background, where such security measures are dealt with at the outset, it wouldn't have been a problem, but most developers on Windows (back then) grew up on 3.11, 95 and 98 and were basically clueless.
As an operating system, Windows in general is more secure than Linux though. Too bad about the apps. If "all" developers on Linux wrote apps that required elevated privileges, Linux would have had serious problems too.
For the record, the rubbish Craig Mundie says in the referenced article seems like drug-induced nonsense. Microsoft dropped the ball on security by basically, in Win2K defaulting to run anything under the "root" user, which was a stupid idea, but understandable, most users of Win95/98/ME would have been lost if the security in Windows had actually been used properly.
Oh, there are so many mistakes in this drivel that I am at loss as to where to start. Well, let's begin at the beginning.
Windows (and MS-DOS before it) was not originally designed to be network-aware
And how is that relevant? The Windows NT source code is not based on, and contains no, DOS code. DOS, and Win16 software runs in emulation on Windows since Windows NT, that is Win2K, WinXP etc. There is very little difference between the way Linux runs Win16 software (on Winw) and the way WinNT based OSs run Windows software. WinNT was designed from bottom-up to be a network operating system. In many ways, it has far more network awareness and security built in than does, for example, Linux.
The base of the Windows you are running today was designed to be similar to VMS from DEC, an operating system that actually had the "mainframe mentality".
draconian measures taken by "mainframe mentality" operating systems like UNIX
BZZZZ! WRONG! Unix was written as a "personal" operating system that would be a lot simpler than the operating systems under "mainframe mentality" (whatever that was at the time) and would free its users from the rigors of time-share systems etc.
no surprise to anyone that an operating system that treats all programs and operations as fully privileged
Windows hasn't done that since before Win2K. In WinNT (but that was sadly later dropped) a Microkernel mantra was used, where even most drivers ran in user-space rather than in kernel space. Graphics drivers were later (in Win2K as far as I can remember, but don't quote me on that) moved to kernel space.
Microsoft's campaign, then, was to somehow graft basic security features into an o/s that never had them
Oh, so wrong, so wrong. Clueless drivel in fact. Windows NT had far more security features than most desktop Unices at the time, and Windows still has a much more sophisticated security model than, for example Linux. Even the basic file system security of Windows is heads and shoulders above most Linux file systems.
Honestly, if you want to post about the technical underpinnings of something, you really should get a basic clue fist. Repeat after me
There is no DOS code in the Windows operating system.
Windows was built from ground-up based on VMS as a network-aware, multi-user operating system
Windows has better file and run-time security than almost any personal operating system in use today, including OS/X and Linux.
That, you see, is reality. Not the nonsensical drivel you posted.
A directly-false, that is to say, directly lying, statement
Rubbish. Religion is belief in the supernatural. That is the very definition of superstition. "A widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation". Superstition.
Firstly, it is false to say there is "zero probability
From an external point of view, each religion ever concocted has an equal probability of being true. Since there are so many, they all have a statistical probability of zero of being true. That is the only way to look at it objectively. Since you have a belief in one of these superstitions, you are incapable of looking at it objectively.
maintenance of a belief in the face of -direct factual presentation- otherwise
Direct factual presentation: Each religion has an equal probability of being true. There are enough religions in our history to make the probability statistically zero. Holding to a belief that has a statistical probability of zero is "maintenance in direct face of factual presentation". "Mistaken" would be appropriate if there was any probability of the belief to be true, there isn't any. Statistically.
For a scientist, in the proper sense, his goal is to educate
What on earth gives you that idea? Delusions? Most scientists I have met will do anything they can not to have to teach.
Given that your post is among the stupidest, most directly dishonest ones I have ever encountered on Slashdot
But that raises the obvious point that "Christianity" defined as "adherence to the beliefs and practices taught by Jesus" has also arguably never caused violence. There's always been something extra there, too
Then I will ask (and answer) two very simple questions.
1/ Has any government/organized entity ever set out to kill with Atheism as a motive? The USSR never did, the motives behind the mass murders were based in two things, the moving of personal property into state ownership and the purging of "dangerous" individuals. Neither of those motives are grounded in atheism, one is grounded in a communist world view that private property is undesirable, the other is grounded in personal paranoia.
2/ Has any government/organized entity ever set out to kill with Christianity as the prime motive. This one is actually harder to answer. Most people would argue that The Crusades were motivated by Christianity, I will argue that politically (from the leadership) they were not, though for individuals participating, they probably were. The same could probably (but less strongly) be said for the Inquisition, which appears to have been politically motivated at the start, but primarily motivated by Christian teachings later on.
Nonsense. You need to lay off the hallucinogenics. He killed thousands of those closest to him. Did his closest allies not share his world view? Also, Stalin regularly cooperated with the Russian Church. Were they part of or cause of the mass killings? Hitler was a devout Christian, he felt that his actions were according to Christianity. Some would argue they are not, some would argue they were. Are you seriously going to say that Hitlers actions were a result of his religiosity?
Review the defined worldview of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a political entity, and the millions of people killed, internally and externally, by it, to correct your error.
Wow, you really are that stupid. Sorry, I didn't think anyone was still retarded enough to spout this nonsense. The USSR was a socialist state. It's actions were dictated, not by atheism but by socialism. Hitler was a devout Christian, but, as opposed to you, I am not retarded enough to blame his personal beliefs and his government's official position on religion (Christian) for the actions of that regime. Sorry moron, but if you blame the actions of the USSR on atheism then you also have to accept that the actions of The Third Reich was a result of it's Christianity.
Calling all religious believers "delusional" by definition, meets your criteria fully.
It is a statement of fact, not bigotry. Religion is, by its very definition, superstition. Strong belief in something that has zero probability of being true is being delusional. Don't confuse a statement of fact that some people can feel offended by for a bigoted comment. Scientists can come across as cruel or harsh or demeaning or bigoted when facts are presented, that doesn't mean they are.
As for "beheading", can you name something within Darwinian Naturalism that argues against it, if it increases the propagation of the behead-ers DNA?
Yes. Genetic proclivity towards altruism is documented in science, and from a selfish gene perspective, altruism makes perfect sense. The survival of the herd increases the survival rate of the original DNA strand, therefore animals, such as prairie dogs, have bred altruism into their behavior. Not particularly controversial. You are just looking at it from the wrong perspective, it isn't you as an individual that is seeking to have your lineage survive, it is your very distant ancestors DNA that is looking to survive, and for that DNA, altruism is perfect. It couldn't care less about any one individual, just as enough of its descendants make it.
How much of Dawkins' non-correspondence to this demonstrable history of an actual large-scale test case
Really, you're going to be that dumb?
the atheist worldview would lose immediately and overwhelmingly if we introduced actual hard data
It takes a strong belief (not faith) in your position to claim to be an atheist
In addition to being an atheist, I am also an a-teapot-ist. That is, I am virtually certain that there is no flowery tea pot orbiting the sun somewhere out in the Oort cloud or so. Give or take a million miles. Does it take strong belief in my a-teapotist position to claim to be an a-teapotist? If not, why should this differ from my relationship with some random dudes superstition?
But I do not like to lump myself as atheist nor agnostic
I understand your not liking to label your self, and that is quite OK. By any definition of the word Atheist, you are one though. Don't worry, it doesn't hurt, but you might find you will have problems running for office in the Theocracy that the USofA is becoming.
Atheism is certainly a statement of unprovable belief about the existence of a deity, touted as a fact
It is not. Atheism is a statement of unprovable belief in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
There is an infinite amount of things that probably do not exists. Let's use a for-instance. I believe there is no flower-patterned tea-cup orbiting the Sun somewhere in the vicinity of the oort cloud. If some other dude actually believes in said tea-cup, am I an a-tea-cup-ist? Certainly. Am I touting said a-whatever-ism as a fact? It may seem so, I will state with quite an amount of certainty that we can assume no such tea cup exists, no matter what said lunatic believes. Does that mean that I have a religion that says that no such tea cup exists? Hardly.
Please note that a tea cup as described above has an almost infinitely higher probability of existing than any one particular deity. I am pretty sure there is no deity, but that isn't a belief system any more than not believing in the flowery tea cup is. Statistically I am probably right, even if we limit our selves to deities. There is no reason any one deity is more probable than any other. Given the number of deities ever believed in, the chance of any one being the right one (since most deity believers also believe in existence exclusivity for their particular deity) is for all practical purposes zero.
So, mathematically, there is essentially only one way that believing in a deity makes as much sense as non-belief, and that is if you believe in all of them plus the infinite number of other things that probably do not exist. That's impossible. There is only one rational position. Atheism. Every other position is irrational.
I think the lesson here is if you have a brain you have to get the fuck out of Italy? The entire proceedings were moronic, and every member of the court deserves nothing less than a bullet to the back of their heads.
Not only that, for years and years these morons have been showing TV shows on national, government sponsored TV where Jews are portrayed as baby killers and cannibals, murdering Christian babies etc. Sorry, the only way to deal with the Muslim world right now is to produce film after film after film mocking their ridiculous religion and their abhorrent culture.
We really should support it. There is nothing at the moment that creates more public disturbance than the Qur'an. We support Saudi Arabia in this and instantly work on banning this book all over the world. Then we can start on the Bible and other religious texts.
The sad thing is that these morons don't understand the words that are coming out of their own mouths.
Slashdot Mirror
Number of security features does not result in more security
This is self-evidently true, and I didn't address that. I just pointed out that the posting I replied to was dead wrong on basically all accounts. Sadly, the more sophisticated security features of Windows are badly understood by brainless developers, and therefore often open to exploit. If the developers had come from a Unix or Mainframe background, where such security measures are dealt with at the outset, it wouldn't have been a problem, but most developers on Windows (back then) grew up on 3.11, 95 and 98 and were basically clueless.
As an operating system, Windows in general is more secure than Linux though. Too bad about the apps. If "all" developers on Linux wrote apps that required elevated privileges, Linux would have had serious problems too.
For the record, the rubbish Craig Mundie says in the referenced article seems like drug-induced nonsense. Microsoft dropped the ball on security by basically, in Win2K defaulting to run anything under the "root" user, which was a stupid idea, but understandable, most users of Win95/98/ME would have been lost if the security in Windows had actually been used properly.
Oh, there are so many mistakes in this drivel that I am at loss as to where to start. Well, let's begin at the beginning.
Windows (and MS-DOS before it) was not originally designed to be network-aware
And how is that relevant? The Windows NT source code is not based on, and contains no, DOS code. DOS, and Win16 software runs in emulation on Windows since Windows NT, that is Win2K, WinXP etc. There is very little difference between the way Linux runs Win16 software (on Winw) and the way WinNT based OSs run Windows software. WinNT was designed from bottom-up to be a network operating system. In many ways, it has far more network awareness and security built in than does, for example, Linux.
The base of the Windows you are running today was designed to be similar to VMS from DEC, an operating system that actually had the "mainframe mentality".
draconian measures taken by "mainframe mentality" operating systems like UNIX
BZZZZ! WRONG! Unix was written as a "personal" operating system that would be a lot simpler than the operating systems under "mainframe mentality" (whatever that was at the time) and would free its users from the rigors of time-share systems etc.
no surprise to anyone that an operating system that treats all programs and operations as fully privileged
Windows hasn't done that since before Win2K. In WinNT (but that was sadly later dropped) a Microkernel mantra was used, where even most drivers ran in user-space rather than in kernel space. Graphics drivers were later (in Win2K as far as I can remember, but don't quote me on that) moved to kernel space.
Microsoft's campaign, then, was to somehow graft basic security features into an o/s that never had them
Oh, so wrong, so wrong. Clueless drivel in fact. Windows NT had far more security features than most desktop Unices at the time, and Windows still has a much more sophisticated security model than, for example Linux. Even the basic file system security of Windows is heads and shoulders above most Linux file systems.
Honestly, if you want to post about the technical underpinnings of something, you really should get a basic clue fist. Repeat after me
There is no DOS code in the Windows operating system.
Windows was built from ground-up based on VMS as a network-aware, multi-user operating system
Windows has better file and run-time security than almost any personal operating system in use today, including OS/X and Linux.
That, you see, is reality. Not the nonsensical drivel you posted.
A directly-false, that is to say, directly lying, statement
Rubbish. Religion is belief in the supernatural. That is the very definition of superstition. "A widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation". Superstition.
Firstly, it is false to say there is "zero probability
From an external point of view, each religion ever concocted has an equal probability of being true. Since there are so many, they all have a statistical probability of zero of being true. That is the only way to look at it objectively. Since you have a belief in one of these superstitions, you are incapable of looking at it objectively.
maintenance of a belief in the face of -direct factual presentation- otherwise
Direct factual presentation: Each religion has an equal probability of being true. There are enough religions in our history to make the probability statistically zero. Holding to a belief that has a statistical probability of zero is "maintenance in direct face of factual presentation". "Mistaken" would be appropriate if there was any probability of the belief to be true, there isn't any. Statistically.
For a scientist, in the proper sense, his goal is to educate
What on earth gives you that idea? Delusions? Most scientists I have met will do anything they can not to have to teach.
Given that your post is among the stupidest, most directly dishonest ones I have ever encountered on Slashdot
Find your self a mirror.
While you can't sensibly kill in the name of atheism, you can kill to promote it.
You can kill to promote anything. Did anyone ever kill to promote atheism? Answer is a resounding no.
But that raises the obvious point that "Christianity" defined as "adherence to the beliefs and practices taught by Jesus" has also arguably never caused violence. There's always been something extra there, too
Then I will ask (and answer) two very simple questions.
1/ Has any government/organized entity ever set out to kill with Atheism as a motive? The USSR never did, the motives behind the mass murders were based in two things, the moving of personal property into state ownership and the purging of "dangerous" individuals. Neither of those motives are grounded in atheism, one is grounded in a communist world view that private property is undesirable, the other is grounded in personal paranoia.
2/ Has any government/organized entity ever set out to kill with Christianity as the prime motive. This one is actually harder to answer. Most people would argue that The Crusades were motivated by Christianity, I will argue that politically (from the leadership) they were not, though for individuals participating, they probably were. The same could probably (but less strongly) be said for the Inquisition, which appears to have been politically motivated at the start, but primarily motivated by Christian teachings later on.
Apparently he killed no atheists
Nonsense. You need to lay off the hallucinogenics. He killed thousands of those closest to him. Did his closest allies not share his world view? Also, Stalin regularly cooperated with the Russian Church. Were they part of or cause of the mass killings? Hitler was a devout Christian, he felt that his actions were according to Christianity. Some would argue they are not, some would argue they were. Are you seriously going to say that Hitlers actions were a result of his religiosity?
By contrast, mass-killing is -directly compatible- with Darwinian Naturalism
Ignorant bullshit.
Review the defined worldview of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a political entity, and the millions of people killed, internally and externally, by it, to correct your error.
Wow, you really are that stupid. Sorry, I didn't think anyone was still retarded enough to spout this nonsense. The USSR was a socialist state. It's actions were dictated, not by atheism but by socialism. Hitler was a devout Christian, but, as opposed to you, I am not retarded enough to blame his personal beliefs and his government's official position on religion (Christian) for the actions of that regime. Sorry moron, but if you blame the actions of the USSR on atheism then you also have to accept that the actions of The Third Reich was a result of it's Christianity.
Calling all religious believers "delusional" by definition, meets your criteria fully.
It is a statement of fact, not bigotry. Religion is, by its very definition, superstition. Strong belief in something that has zero probability of being true is being delusional. Don't confuse a statement of fact that some people can feel offended by for a bigoted comment. Scientists can come across as cruel or harsh or demeaning or bigoted when facts are presented, that doesn't mean they are.
As for "beheading", can you name something within Darwinian Naturalism that argues against it, if it increases the propagation of the behead-ers DNA?
Yes. Genetic proclivity towards altruism is documented in science, and from a selfish gene perspective, altruism makes perfect sense. The survival of the herd increases the survival rate of the original DNA strand, therefore animals, such as prairie dogs, have bred altruism into their behavior. Not particularly controversial. You are just looking at it from the wrong perspective, it isn't you as an individual that is seeking to have your lineage survive, it is your very distant ancestors DNA that is looking to survive, and for that DNA, altruism is perfect. It couldn't care less about any one individual, just as enough of its descendants make it.
How much of Dawkins' non-correspondence to this demonstrable history of an actual large-scale test case
Really, you're going to be that dumb?
the atheist worldview would lose immediately and overwhelmingly if we introduced actual hard data
Elaborate please.
It takes a strong belief (not faith) in your position to claim to be an atheist
In addition to being an atheist, I am also an a-teapot-ist. That is, I am virtually certain that there is no flowery tea pot orbiting the sun somewhere out in the Oort cloud or so. Give or take a million miles. Does it take strong belief in my a-teapotist position to claim to be an a-teapotist? If not, why should this differ from my relationship with some random dudes superstition?
But I do not like to lump myself as atheist nor agnostic
I understand your not liking to label your self, and that is quite OK. By any definition of the word Atheist, you are one though. Don't worry, it doesn't hurt, but you might find you will have problems running for office in the Theocracy that the USofA is becoming.
Atheism is certainly a statement of unprovable belief about the existence of a deity, touted as a fact
It is not. Atheism is a statement of unprovable belief in the same way that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.
There is an infinite amount of things that probably do not exists. Let's use a for-instance. I believe there is no flower-patterned tea-cup orbiting the Sun somewhere in the vicinity of the oort cloud. If some other dude actually believes in said tea-cup, am I an a-tea-cup-ist? Certainly. Am I touting said a-whatever-ism as a fact? It may seem so, I will state with quite an amount of certainty that we can assume no such tea cup exists, no matter what said lunatic believes. Does that mean that I have a religion that says that no such tea cup exists? Hardly.
Please note that a tea cup as described above has an almost infinitely higher probability of existing than any one particular deity. I am pretty sure there is no deity, but that isn't a belief system any more than not believing in the flowery tea cup is. Statistically I am probably right, even if we limit our selves to deities. There is no reason any one deity is more probable than any other. Given the number of deities ever believed in, the chance of any one being the right one (since most deity believers also believe in existence exclusivity for their particular deity) is for all practical purposes zero.
So, mathematically, there is essentially only one way that believing in a deity makes as much sense as non-belief, and that is if you believe in all of them plus the infinite number of other things that probably do not exist. That's impossible. There is only one rational position. Atheism. Every other position is irrational.
Ignorance goes hand in hand with religious belief. You are simply wrong in almost every single word you write.
Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. Get your facts straight before you flaunt your ignorance.
They had no scientific basis for them telling people not to worry.
BZZZZZ! WRONG! The people had no reason to be particularly worried at that particular time.
I think the lesson here is if you have a brain you have to get the fuck out of Italy? The entire proceedings were moronic, and every member of the court deserves nothing less than a bullet to the back of their heads.
This doesn't make the people handing in a guilty verdict any less retarded.
Not only that, for years and years these morons have been showing TV shows on national, government sponsored TV where Jews are portrayed as baby killers and cannibals, murdering Christian babies etc. Sorry, the only way to deal with the Muslim world right now is to produce film after film after film mocking their ridiculous religion and their abhorrent culture.
Maybe they will some time in the future grow up.
And your WP7 apps don't get to come along
BZZZT! WRONG!
Nah, let's support this. Then use it to ban all Muslim writings. They disturb public order!
We really should support it. There is nothing at the moment that creates more public disturbance than the Qur'an. We support Saudi Arabia in this and instantly work on banning this book all over the world. Then we can start on the Bible and other religious texts.
The sad thing is that these morons don't understand the words that are coming out of their own mouths.
As I said, it ran fine. Runs fine in fact. Perhaps the problem lay elsewhere. At the chair-keyboard interface perhaps.
Sorry, FoxPro 6 ran fine on XP.
Have you heard about this new thing called Google?
Read the discussions in the Apache Group. I would say members of the group are 80/20 on the MS is right/Fielding is right scale.