Unless you have a huge website with cross-demographic appeal, your data is meaningless. If you want any kind of reliable statistic about browser usage you need to look at a whole bunch of sites like MySpace, YouTube, Wikipedia, Amazon, etc. Even that data could be skewed, the best way to measure it would probably be to ask a large random sampling of the general population what browsers they use (a boring old gallup poll, basically). Then I'd bet you'd find that IE hovers around 80%-85% of all browsers.
This is not strictly true. Scientific theories cannot be proven 100% true because they rely on inductive logic, throwing test cases at them as you say. However, programming is fundamentally a branch of mathematics (remember that every program in a Turing complete language is essentially just a Turing machine), and mathematics is not inductive, its deductive. From that you can, in fact, prove that it would be impossible for code to buffer overflow (given that the compiler, OS or hardware isn't malfunctioning, of course).
It's an idiotic comparison. ME was an in-between, a sideshow to keep the customers happy (and look how well that went) while the real OS was being developed. Vista is one of the largest investments microsoft has ever made. They're gonna push it hard. And virtually everyone who buys it (certainly corporations) won't care one iota about all the DRM stuff. "Look at all that pretty glass!" is going to be way, way more important.
Seeing as it's gonna come preinstalled on pretty much every new computer sold in the next year, I doubt it. There's gonna be dozens (if not hundreds) of millions of Vista users by the end of the year. Believe it
Well, yeah, so you can do it, but it is a hundred times harder. Those kind of bugs do get patched, and the hackers need to constantly look for new ways in, lest their code be obsolete. The XP core you could just modify willy-nilly without anyone caring, but this time it is atleast protected.
This feels like one of those issues that MS just can't win in the geek-community. If they left it open, you'd be complaining that it is insecure. If they lock it down, you complain that their locking third parties out. According to you people, they can't win!
I would rather they went with the linux model of advanced permissions and a (seldom used) root account that had permission to everything, but I see this atleast as a vast improvement over XP. Imagine how much harder it must be to make a rootkit for a kernel that's locked down this way. It's probably not impossible (well, if you modify the system from outside the system, it's certainly possible), but it has to way, way harder.
It's true, maybe my hyperbole was a poor choice of words:) It is indeed true that he had a theory to back it up, but that still doesn't make it ok to inject a 9-year old kid with smallpox.
I think you meant Edward Jenner and smallpox, not Pasteur and rabies. True, Pasteur did give a rabies-vaccine to a boy and did so at some risk to himself (he wasn't a licensed physician), but the boy would have died if he had done nothing. You can't really say that what he did was unethical, he didn't really have a choice!
Edward Jenner however gave a 9-year old boy cowpox, which made him sick for 48 days. After that, he injected him with the smallpox virus, "just to see if it would work". This is hugely unethical, but it did eventually lead to the eradication of one of the worst diseases ever to plauge humanity.
That's NOT THE DAMN CONSTITUTION, you dumbass! That's the declaration of independence, which holds no position in modern american law. This is the constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This means that you can believe in whatever the fuck you want, including nothing at all.
You're wrong. The fourth amendment doesn't give you a full right to privacy, and it doesn't give you any rights to your own body. It gives you a right not to have your house searched without a warrant, but that's it. Sure that is a small part of privacy, but it sure as hell ain't the whole thing! It says nothing about, say, homosexuality (which is THE most important issue in privacy-law), nor does it mention right to your own body anywhere.
No, both of those rights are ensured by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The most famous cases related to "right to privacy" and "right to your own body" is arguably Lawrence v. Texas and Roe v. Wade. BOTH of those cases was won because the law that was broken was found to be in violation of the fourteenth amendment. And the GP has sort-of a murky point there somewhere; due process is anything but clear. The constitution never explicitly states that you have any sort of right to privacy. This statement: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." has been interpreted that way, but it is in no way clear-cut.
Before you start lecuring people in law, make sure you've got your amendments straight.
That's not entirely correct. When we think of right to privacy (for instance, Lawrence v. Texas) and peoples right to their own body (Roe v. Wade) it's almost always the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that is invoked. True, the fourth amendment protects against illegal searches and such, but it says nothing about allowing people to be gay. Among non-lawyers, the Fourteenth Amendment is easily forgotten, but it is one of the greatest of them all, right up there with amendment one. It made institutionalized racism illegal, it ensures equality, and it gives due process rights to everyone. That last one is mindnumbingly important, it is what ensures that all americans are granted the liberties that they have a right to, even though they aren't specifically spelled out in the constitution. Stuff like abortions, contraceptives, choice in secual partner, privacy, etc.
You don't need an active imagination to read a book. The writers do it for you! The requirements for enjoying a book is exatcly two: Being able to read, and being a human being.
So in other words, this is what you are saying: "If we found out that the universe is made from tiny pixies that have pink hair, but they are so small we can't see them, then ID is wrong".
You obviously have no idea how the scientific method works (if you did, you'd know that it's called Avogadros number, no agrivados number). This is what you need: give me a "If you do X, and Y happens, ID is wrong" or "If we find X by observing Y, ID is wrong". Concrete examples, concrete and testable. For every other dicipline of science, that experiment exists. But it doesn't for ID.
The difference is that you're a troll. He isn't. Sure, the system can be abused, but that vast majority of people don't abuse it. You do, and therefore you are an asshole. You are just proving the posters thesis: you can't be trusted with any of your comments. He was right. You just proved him right.
Are you seriously saying that logging in to websites is hard? Every single person on MySpace, not really a place for intellectual discourse, can do it. Why can't you? Is it so hard to click "remember me" when you go to a website? Is it so hard to have your browser save your password? Is it really that hard to remember them?
If it's that much of a bother to login to a website, you are not lazy, you are stupid. Simple as that.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, in any way, shape or form. If you think that it is, Karl Popper will beat you, repeatadly, in the afterlife. It can be called a concept, a belief, a line of thought, a philosophy even, but it is NOT a theory. It never will be.
Show me an experiment or a prediction or anything really that would prove ID wrong. Go on, show me. You can't, can you? If you could, it might qualify as a hypothesis. But you can't.
He has made 291 comments in the past. He has a number of fans and a number of freaks. He has made comments that some people like and some people don't like, and no matter what he stands for it, by using his account. You're a coward because you make trollish comments and don't have the balls to stand for what you say. You're worried that some people might use your comments against you in a future discussion, or you're worried that this might harm your karma.
The difference? He's a man that's not afraid to stand by what he said, you're a small boy that runs around a creates a mess and then blames some one else. If you have any sort of backbone and not a spine made of jello, you should reveal your username. No? I figured you wouldn't.
Exactly! If the terrorists use encryption and anonymizers (like TOR) it's going to be impossible to track them. They don't even have to go that far, I'd like to see the FBI track a terrorist planning session going on in a lvl 60 raid in World of Warcraft (Al-Qaida, the guild!). You can always hide online, and the damn feds are too stupid to realise it.
Yes you're right... Let's see, an new name... A descriptive name maybe... "Image Manipulation"? Yeah, that's good. And it's software, so obviously "Program". We really should highlight that it's open source, so we'll stick a "GNU" infront of it (as you are want to do with GPL licensed software). That's it! The "GNU Image Manipulation Program"! I love it!
Seriously though, it's not the name, dude. I mean, do you think people aren't using Linux because it has a strange name? Open source tools aren't used because there are some suspicions of it and a large part because of inertia. The vast majority of office-workers use MS Office so OOo won't get adopted by many, the vast majority of graphics people use Photosho so GIMP won't get adopted by many, and the vast majority of desktop users use Windows so Linux won't be adopted by many. It's as simple as that
The one field where open-source is vastly superior, even to the desktop user, is browsers. And even in that field it's going slow as hell, Firefox is still only at 15% or so. Inertia is a powerful force.
You should remember that ALS is a horrific disease that kills almost everybody within a couple of years after diagnosis. It's truly a miracle that Hawking is still alive. Let's be grateful for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless you have a huge website with cross-demographic appeal, your data is meaningless. If you want any kind of reliable statistic about browser usage you need to look at a whole bunch of sites like MySpace, YouTube, Wikipedia, Amazon, etc. Even that data could be skewed, the best way to measure it would probably be to ask a large random sampling of the general population what browsers they use (a boring old gallup poll, basically). Then I'd bet you'd find that IE hovers around 80%-85% of all browsers.
This is not strictly true. Scientific theories cannot be proven 100% true because they rely on inductive logic, throwing test cases at them as you say. However, programming is fundamentally a branch of mathematics (remember that every program in a Turing complete language is essentially just a Turing machine), and mathematics is not inductive, its deductive. From that you can, in fact, prove that it would be impossible for code to buffer overflow (given that the compiler, OS or hardware isn't malfunctioning, of course).
That's.... I mean.... WOW! Thank you for explaining.
It's an idiotic comparison. ME was an in-between, a sideshow to keep the customers happy (and look how well that went) while the real OS was being developed. Vista is one of the largest investments microsoft has ever made. They're gonna push it hard. And virtually everyone who buys it (certainly corporations) won't care one iota about all the DRM stuff. "Look at all that pretty glass!" is going to be way, way more important.
Seeing as it's gonna come preinstalled on pretty much every new computer sold in the next year, I doubt it. There's gonna be dozens (if not hundreds) of millions of Vista users by the end of the year. Believe it
Well, yeah, so you can do it, but it is a hundred times harder. Those kind of bugs do get patched, and the hackers need to constantly look for new ways in, lest their code be obsolete. The XP core you could just modify willy-nilly without anyone caring, but this time it is atleast protected.
This feels like one of those issues that MS just can't win in the geek-community. If they left it open, you'd be complaining that it is insecure. If they lock it down, you complain that their locking third parties out. According to you people, they can't win!
I would rather they went with the linux model of advanced permissions and a (seldom used) root account that had permission to everything, but I see this atleast as a vast improvement over XP. Imagine how much harder it must be to make a rootkit for a kernel that's locked down this way. It's probably not impossible (well, if you modify the system from outside the system, it's certainly possible), but it has to way, way harder.
That was my first thought when I heard that he got his voice back. "Just join a new damn channel, Scott!"
It's true, maybe my hyperbole was a poor choice of words :) It is indeed true that he had a theory to back it up, but that still doesn't make it ok to inject a 9-year old kid with smallpox.
I think you meant Edward Jenner and smallpox, not Pasteur and rabies. True, Pasteur did give a rabies-vaccine to a boy and did so at some risk to himself (he wasn't a licensed physician), but the boy would have died if he had done nothing. You can't really say that what he did was unethical, he didn't really have a choice!
Edward Jenner however gave a 9-year old boy cowpox, which made him sick for 48 days. After that, he injected him with the smallpox virus, "just to see if it would work". This is hugely unethical, but it did eventually lead to the eradication of one of the worst diseases ever to plauge humanity.
This is hilarious :)
That's NOT THE DAMN CONSTITUTION, you dumbass! That's the declaration of independence, which holds no position in modern american law. This is the constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This means that you can believe in whatever the fuck you want, including nothing at all.
Seriously dude, you're a hoot!
You're wrong. The fourth amendment doesn't give you a full right to privacy, and it doesn't give you any rights to your own body. It gives you a right not to have your house searched without a warrant, but that's it. Sure that is a small part of privacy, but it sure as hell ain't the whole thing! It says nothing about, say, homosexuality (which is THE most important issue in privacy-law), nor does it mention right to your own body anywhere.
No, both of those rights are ensured by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. The most famous cases related to "right to privacy" and "right to your own body" is arguably Lawrence v. Texas and Roe v. Wade. BOTH of those cases was won because the law that was broken was found to be in violation of the fourteenth amendment. And the GP has sort-of a murky point there somewhere; due process is anything but clear. The constitution never explicitly states that you have any sort of right to privacy. This statement: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." has been interpreted that way, but it is in no way clear-cut.
Before you start lecuring people in law, make sure you've got your amendments straight.
That's not entirely correct. When we think of right to privacy (for instance, Lawrence v. Texas) and peoples right to their own body (Roe v. Wade) it's almost always the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that is invoked. True, the fourth amendment protects against illegal searches and such, but it says nothing about allowing people to be gay. Among non-lawyers, the Fourteenth Amendment is easily forgotten, but it is one of the greatest of them all, right up there with amendment one. It made institutionalized racism illegal, it ensures equality, and it gives due process rights to everyone. That last one is mindnumbingly important, it is what ensures that all americans are granted the liberties that they have a right to, even though they aren't specifically spelled out in the constitution. Stuff like abortions, contraceptives, choice in secual partner, privacy, etc.
You don't need an active imagination to read a book. The writers do it for you! The requirements for enjoying a book is exatcly two: Being able to read, and being a human being.
So in other words, this is what you are saying: "If we found out that the universe is made from tiny pixies that have pink hair, but they are so small we can't see them, then ID is wrong".
You obviously have no idea how the scientific method works (if you did, you'd know that it's called Avogadros number, no agrivados number). This is what you need: give me a "If you do X, and Y happens, ID is wrong" or "If we find X by observing Y, ID is wrong". Concrete examples, concrete and testable. For every other dicipline of science, that experiment exists. But it doesn't for ID.
The difference is that you're a troll. He isn't. Sure, the system can be abused, but that vast majority of people don't abuse it. You do, and therefore you are an asshole. You are just proving the posters thesis: you can't be trusted with any of your comments. He was right. You just proved him right.
Are you seriously saying that logging in to websites is hard? Every single person on MySpace, not really a place for intellectual discourse, can do it. Why can't you? Is it so hard to click "remember me" when you go to a website? Is it so hard to have your browser save your password? Is it really that hard to remember them?
If it's that much of a bother to login to a website, you are not lazy, you are stupid. Simple as that.
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, in any way, shape or form. If you think that it is, Karl Popper will beat you, repeatadly, in the afterlife. It can be called a concept, a belief, a line of thought, a philosophy even, but it is NOT a theory. It never will be.
Show me an experiment or a prediction or anything really that would prove ID wrong. Go on, show me. You can't, can you? If you could, it might qualify as a hypothesis. But you can't.
Yeah, because an open proxy is SO hard to find :P
He has made 291 comments in the past. He has a number of fans and a number of freaks. He has made comments that some people like and some people don't like, and no matter what he stands for it, by using his account. You're a coward because you make trollish comments and don't have the balls to stand for what you say. You're worried that some people might use your comments against you in a future discussion, or you're worried that this might harm your karma.
The difference? He's a man that's not afraid to stand by what he said, you're a small boy that runs around a creates a mess and then blames some one else. If you have any sort of backbone and not a spine made of jello, you should reveal your username. No? I figured you wouldn't.
Exactly! If the terrorists use encryption and anonymizers (like TOR) it's going to be impossible to track them. They don't even have to go that far, I'd like to see the FBI track a terrorist planning session going on in a lvl 60 raid in World of Warcraft (Al-Qaida, the guild!). You can always hide online, and the damn feds are too stupid to realise it.
Yeah, I know. How come you can land of the frontpage of /. by simply repeating the plot from the The Time Machine? Silly rabbit...
Yes, we do love our bastu, but not as much as you finns love your sauna. We love it, but it's not part of our national identity or anything :P
Yes you're right... Let's see, an new name... A descriptive name maybe... "Image Manipulation"? Yeah, that's good. And it's software, so obviously "Program". We really should highlight that it's open source, so we'll stick a "GNU" infront of it (as you are want to do with GPL licensed software). That's it! The "GNU Image Manipulation Program"! I love it!
Seriously though, it's not the name, dude. I mean, do you think people aren't using Linux because it has a strange name? Open source tools aren't used because there are some suspicions of it and a large part because of inertia. The vast majority of office-workers use MS Office so OOo won't get adopted by many, the vast majority of graphics people use Photosho so GIMP won't get adopted by many, and the vast majority of desktop users use Windows so Linux won't be adopted by many. It's as simple as that
The one field where open-source is vastly superior, even to the desktop user, is browsers. And even in that field it's going slow as hell, Firefox is still only at 15% or so. Inertia is a powerful force.
You should remember that ALS is a horrific disease that kills almost everybody within a couple of years after diagnosis. It's truly a miracle that Hawking is still alive. Let's be grateful for that.