Also, why did you only answer one of my questions and avoid the others?
Sorry, because I was busy and overlooked the other one. I realized after the fact that I had not answered the other one, but decided I would not unless someone showed interest in an answer. Now that you have, here we go.
So why don't you cry every time a family member leaves somewhere?
Because it's only a short amount of time.
Is it because you don't miss them?
Again, it's because it's only a short amount of time. When I had my first college girlfriend I discovered the capacity to miss someone five minutes after we parted ways. That kind of passion does not usually last long, though. As time went on, things mellowed out some. Nevertheless, I didn't cry. I didn't even cry when she went out of the country for a semester. You can't make blanket statements about crying or not crying proving something about our religion because people are different, even if they all believe the same things. One person may have little emotions when a loved one leaves for half-a-year and not show anything, another may have little emotions and be brought to tears, another may have intense emotions and still not show anything, while another may have intense emotions and start bawling.
Conversely (to the question of why don't we cry, because in this case I did cry), when my parents dropped me off at uni my freshman year, I shed, I believe, a single tear. It wasn't so much that I missed them (a big part of me didn't as I had been ready to get out of the house since my last two years of high school), but that life was inexorably changing, which is something into which emotions come to play. As time went on, I began to appreciate them more, and now I do actually miss them.
It seems like you're trying to apply logic to emotions, which is not something that is usually successful (see xkcd #55).
Why do Christians wear seat belts in states where it's optional?
For me, because:
-I don't want to get in a car crash and be injured or die. Why don't I want to be injured or die?:
-If I don't die in the crash, chances are a seatbelt will nonetheless lessen the amount of injury I undergo. If I'm not going to be taken to heaven as a result of the accident I'd still like to avoid being disabled or in intense pain while still living here on earth.
-I do actually like my life.
-There are people on this earth I love.
-I think God still has plans for me on this earth and I will not tempt fate by doing reckless things. I will not be paralyzed by fear of danger, but where there are opportunities to mitigate risks, I will do so.
Shouldn't they be happy to die?
The people crying at funerals are not the ones dying. The dead person is not crying. I think what you meant was "shouldn't they be happy that their friend has died and gone to heaven?" Assuming that's what you meant, my answer is that they probably are happy, but sad at the same time. They are happy their friend has gone to a better place, but sad that they no longer get to be with them. This is similar to parents who cry when their child leaves for college or gets married. They are happy for the great things in life the child is moving on to, but sad because they will miss them. Experiencing two (or more) contrasting emotions at once is not an uncommon thing.
We cry at funerals for the same reason that anyone else cries at funerals: the person has died and we will miss them. Even if we are sure they are also Christian and therefore we will see them in heaven someday doesn't mean we won't miss them now, similar to how you may very much miss a good friend who moves across the country, even if you know that sometime in the next couple years you'll be able to go visit them. Being Christian and being assured of eternal life doesn't change the fact that we are humans and do have emotions.
Encryption without authentication is worthless to anyone who cares about security; if you don't know who you're communicating with, what's the point of encryption?
Because not every site on the Internet is particularly at risk of being targeted. There is such a thing as acceptable risk. Also, because performing an all-out attack of impersonating a host is a signficant bit more difficult than simply eavesdropping on traffic.
Windows permissions aren't actually that bad. We have everyone run with regular Windows user permissions and all the software we have installed works. We usually re-image our machines once or twice per semester (at a university).
The difference is that now you can do this stuff and get the data immediately, while shopping, as opposed to having to go do research, go back home, sync, read the data, and then go out and buy. Few people these days are patient enough do that kind of research before buying something.
Also, to be fair, this is not Google "doing it". This is because now there is a phone with supposedly a high-enough quality camera to understand barcode pictures, running a platform (yes, made by Google) which OTHER people can then write barcode scanning apps for and is apparently also capable of quick enough process to make the wait for relevant product information non-annoying.
I'm not sure what our university-wide IT dept. does with the public labs, but ghosting every time you log out seems a little excessive. I realize that Windows isn't that great on security, but it seems that if you set things up right it makes it pretty difficult to install malware, if you're running as a user who's not allowed to install anything. Is there some loophole I'm missing that allows Joe Sixpack to effortlessly own a public PC?
Well, to be fair, it's a lab that's almost exclusively used by computer science or other sciencey majors who generally know what they're doing with computers, at least enough not to screw things up by intentionally installing crap. Our users run with regular user-level permissions on Windows and Linux and therefore cannot install anything to the system, where the strength of "cannot" is determined by the strength of security in the operating system.
We also keep our systems patched pretty well (e.g. for Windows we run WSUS so new patches get put out basically as soon as I approve them, or within a day since WSUS takes its sweet time about things).
My boss and I run a university computer lab of about 60 machines which run Windows (also Linux, dual-booting). We rarely re-image them more than once a semester, and that's to push out new applications and settings. To the best of my knowledge we have never had to re-image a computer because it got owned by malware.
Slashdot Mirror
I've put the link in my sig. Enjoy that iPod. Hope you can still put food on the table.
Also, why did you only answer one of my questions and avoid the others?
Sorry, because I was busy and overlooked the other one. I realized after the fact that I had not answered the other one, but decided I would not unless someone showed interest in an answer. Now that you have, here we go.
So why don't you cry every time a family member leaves somewhere?
Because it's only a short amount of time.
Is it because you don't miss them?
Again, it's because it's only a short amount of time. When I had my first college girlfriend I discovered the capacity to miss someone five minutes after we parted ways. That kind of passion does not usually last long, though. As time went on, things mellowed out some. Nevertheless, I didn't cry. I didn't even cry when she went out of the country for a semester. You can't make blanket statements about crying or not crying proving something about our religion because people are different, even if they all believe the same things. One person may have little emotions when a loved one leaves for half-a-year and not show anything, another may have little emotions and be brought to tears, another may have intense emotions and still not show anything, while another may have intense emotions and start bawling.
Conversely (to the question of why don't we cry, because in this case I did cry), when my parents dropped me off at uni my freshman year, I shed, I believe, a single tear. It wasn't so much that I missed them (a big part of me didn't as I had been ready to get out of the house since my last two years of high school), but that life was inexorably changing, which is something into which emotions come to play. As time went on, I began to appreciate them more, and now I do actually miss them.
It seems like you're trying to apply logic to emotions, which is not something that is usually successful (see xkcd #55).
Why do Christians wear seat belts in states where it's optional?
For me, because:
-I don't want to get in a car crash and be injured or die. Why don't I want to be injured or die?:
-If I don't die in the crash, chances are a seatbelt will nonetheless lessen the amount of injury I undergo. If I'm not going to be taken to heaven as a result of the accident I'd still like to avoid being disabled or in intense pain while still living here on earth.
-I do actually like my life.
-There are people on this earth I love.
-I think God still has plans for me on this earth and I will not tempt fate by doing reckless things. I will not be paralyzed by fear of danger, but where there are opportunities to mitigate risks, I will do so.
Shouldn't they be happy to die?
The people crying at funerals are not the ones dying. The dead person is not crying. I think what you meant was "shouldn't they be happy that their friend has died and gone to heaven?" Assuming that's what you meant, my answer is that they probably are happy, but sad at the same time. They are happy their friend has gone to a better place, but sad that they no longer get to be with them. This is similar to parents who cry when their child leaves for college or gets married. They are happy for the great things in life the child is moving on to, but sad because they will miss them. Experiencing two (or more) contrasting emotions at once is not an uncommon thing.
We cry at funerals for the same reason that anyone else cries at funerals: the person has died and we will miss them. Even if we are sure they are also Christian and therefore we will see them in heaven someday doesn't mean we won't miss them now, similar to how you may very much miss a good friend who moves across the country, even if you know that sometime in the next couple years you'll be able to go visit them. Being Christian and being assured of eternal life doesn't change the fact that we are humans and do have emotions.
Actually I do demand the physical CD and DVD. There are still some of us out there who like the packaging.
Palin is the only one out the 4 who strikes me as only seeming to care about increasing her power rather than improving the country.
Interesting, what makes you say that (not trying to start a flame war, I'm genuinely interested)?
Any work, which I lawfully own, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of exercising me fair use rights.
They'll take that one, right?
Encryption without authentication is worthless to anyone who cares about security; if you don't know who you're communicating with, what's the point of encryption?
Because not every site on the Internet is particularly at risk of being targeted. There is such a thing as acceptable risk. Also, because performing an all-out attack of impersonating a host is a signficant bit more difficult than simply eavesdropping on traffic.
Windows permissions aren't actually that bad. We have everyone run with regular Windows user permissions and all the software we have installed works. We usually re-image our machines once or twice per semester (at a university).
The difference is that now you can do this stuff and get the data immediately, while shopping, as opposed to having to go do research, go back home, sync, read the data, and then go out and buy. Few people these days are patient enough do that kind of research before buying something.
Also, to be fair, this is not Google "doing it". This is because now there is a phone with supposedly a high-enough quality camera to understand barcode pictures, running a platform (yes, made by Google) which OTHER people can then write barcode scanning apps for and is apparently also capable of quick enough process to make the wait for relevant product information non-annoying.
I'm not sure what our university-wide IT dept. does with the public labs, but ghosting every time you log out seems a little excessive. I realize that Windows isn't that great on security, but it seems that if you set things up right it makes it pretty difficult to install malware, if you're running as a user who's not allowed to install anything. Is there some loophole I'm missing that allows Joe Sixpack to effortlessly own a public PC?
Well, to be fair, it's a lab that's almost exclusively used by computer science or other sciencey majors who generally know what they're doing with computers, at least enough not to screw things up by intentionally installing crap. Our users run with regular user-level permissions on Windows and Linux and therefore cannot install anything to the system, where the strength of "cannot" is determined by the strength of security in the operating system. We also keep our systems patched pretty well (e.g. for Windows we run WSUS so new patches get put out basically as soon as I approve them, or within a day since WSUS takes its sweet time about things).
My boss and I run a university computer lab of about 60 machines which run Windows (also Linux, dual-booting). We rarely re-image them more than once a semester, and that's to push out new applications and settings. To the best of my knowledge we have never had to re-image a computer because it got owned by malware.
-Bill
Except he didn't actually say that (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bill_Gates#Misattributed).
DMCA takedown in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ....