I suppose while you're making such grandiose statements that you're also suggesting that includes every H1B, student work visa, immigrant, and illegal worker, whether working in a technical area, in education, driving a cab, working the food or retail industries, doing manual labor, or working in some sweatshop or another...
That has every earmark of a knee jerk random statistic that is complete and utter crap.
If you know this for a fact, how about some actual data to support that outrageous claim?
I'm perfectly willing to entertain statements regarding relative levels of education that are supportable, but there are no free passes (especially here...).
Effectively 'Rewritten' (that is to say, very 'creatively interpreted'), or openly disregarded, in many instances, yes.
The Bill of Rights was too inconvenient for the Shrubinator, so thanks to Patriot, and other absurdly dangerous legislation, they have systematically attempted to create a 'new, convenient, streamlined legislative environment' free of such cumbersome restrictions, all, they would have it, in the name of 'national security'.
To be very clear, I agree with the quote generally attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Who's been paying attention? Let's take a quick inventory to see where we stand.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of speech, and the right to peaceably assemble
This now appears to apply only if you're in a 'designated free-speech *zone*' far away from the Shrub, or other government officials.
Freedom of the Press
Mostly, journalism from major news outlets in the US appears to be in significant danger from numerous sources. While it is still possible to find information if you dig for it, many of the significant stories never make major headlines, if they even see the light of day.
The Shrub has significantly reduced press events, and when holding them, has required journalists to submit questions in advance, selecting only those questions he chooses to answer, and calling only upon reporters who agree to 'stick to script'. Rather than challenge these policies, reporters have agreed to these stipulations, resulting in chilling effect, effectively self-censorship, rather than ask questions the President didn't like, at the risk of press room access.
Concurrently, starting in 2001, regulations limiting the scope of ownership of media outlets, designed to maintain diversity of opinion, so as to prevent control of too much of the media by a small number of individuals have been systematically attacked and dismantled. The result is that now most major media outlets in the US are owned by a small number of conservatives. (This has bee
While I am troubled by the current measures being taken to track people (which will never meet the stated objectives of enhancing security, but which given the track record whenever such information is gathered *will* be used in unpredicted and probably dangerous ways), let's keep our conspiracy theories straight, shall we? (Knowing a little bit about history goes a long way when debunking 'talk-radio style' nonsense.)
Social Security had nothing to do with any deliberate intent to try to 'track citizens'. It really was intended to be a safety net -- not 'free money', an entirely disingenuous label -- but a reasonable pension for people who *worked* their entire lives, but who knew nothing about investments, in an era where investing was uncommon, and corporate pensions nearly non-existent (most people worked in small businesses that didn't have them).
It was implemented so that people might be able to afford to eat, and at least survive at a subsistence level when they finally reached the end of their working career, enacted by FDR in 1935, along with the first national unemployment compensation plan, federal support for state unemployment programs already in place, and 'Aid to Dependent Children' as part of his new deal legislation to address the significant social issues brought about by the Great Depression.
Having to keep track of individual's identities in order to deliver the appropriate benefits was a *byproduct*, not the original intent.
It was also originally paid in a single lump-sum. The practice of paying benefits on a monthly basis was implemented later, making it less likely that an elderly person could be swindled out of their savings in one go, while providing a more substantial financial base for interest. A side effect of this was that the program re-absorbed what was not paid out lump-sum, when the recipient died, so an offshoot of that was the addition of survivors benefits (which were not originally paid).
there was no proper procedure behind the request from MySpace to begin with -- they simply asked an entire domain be taken down -- without having any right to do so -- and GoDaddy complied.
GoDaddy did NO review, to determine if there was an actual problem with content.
GoDaddy didn't 'take down the problematic content' they took down the entire site.
since no legal process was followed (which would have had at least some level of fact-finding), and GoDaddy did no fact-finding review of its own, there has been nothing to establish that posting the content would be 'illegal', even if it doesn't happen to be a 'good thing'.
To clarify: even in the event there possibly did turn out to be an actual, legitimate, legal basis for the complaint, no process was followed to actually attempt to asses what that might be, nor to determine what a proper response -- other than taking down the entire domain -- might have actually been.
This, in the simplest of terms, is entirely a case of thoughtless censorship without even the most basic attempt at fact-finding.
How should they have handled it?
They should have:
indicated that they are:
a domain registrar,
(only if actually also the hosting provider to the specific site, that they are) the hosting provider, not the content provider, and as such that
that they themselves do no review whatsoever of any content posted (on sites they do host) by any of their customers.
(Perfoming content review makes them liable for content posted. Remaining a neutral content provider does provide them some level of legal protection. -- note IANAL, but do have some experience in this area. If there is a lawyer that would like to address this, please do feel free to enlighten us.)
directed the MySpace representative to contact the Administrative Contact for the site.
contacted the site Administrative Contact to give them notice of the complaint lodged by MySpace to allow the person(s) responsible for the site content to review the content and decide for themselves about appropriate actions to either voluntarily remove the content, or to deal with MySpace directly (providing an explanation to MySpace why they felt there was no need to remove the content).
This should have been the end of GoDaddy's involvement.
In the event the site's Responsible Party and MySpace did not come to an understanding, and they were again approached by MySpace, GoDaddy should then have:
if they were only the registrar, and not the hosting provider:
directed MySpace to take legal action against the site, as they are only the registrar.
if they were also the hosting provider, they should then have:
asked for the legal basis for MySpace request that GoDaddy take action if they did not receive satisfaction from the site Responsible Party, including the details of the basis for the scope of the request to shut down a domain, rather than review the specific material in question.
asked that the specific potentially problematic material in question be explicitly cited, in order that they could conduct a review of the content in question.
performed a review of the explicitly cited material to determine whether the claim from MySpace appeared to have any merit.
Only in the event that GoDaddy's preliminary review did lead them to believe the claim was founded, they should have either (in general, so bear with me):
if the material fell under DMCA,
asked that MySpace provide proper notice of a DMCA violation to the site Administrative Contact (again returning the issue to the proper responsible party).
or, if not covered by DMCA,
asked that MySpace seek legal recourse against the party(ies) responsible for site c
There is already a proper mechanism for this for software. It's Copyright.
Software patents should simply be eliminated completely. As it is, they were originally snuck in under the guise of 'business process', and have no business being patents to begin with.
Yeah, that's right. Windows is easy and Linux is hard.
Nonsense.
Definitely so. While there are some differences in getting things set up initially, the constant nagging little pains and annoyances of Windows where it won't get out of the way certainly add up. And similarly, while newer versions are much more stable than they used to be, it's still considerably less stable than Linux or OS X.
The real issue here is not that Linux desktops need to progress anywhere. I use both Windows and Linux for hours a day and they both have their share of frustrations and joys. Your Quake example is a joke, since most people don't care about playing games like Quake on their computers. You might have a point if you use a more realistic example of software that simply is written to run on Linux at all. But so what? There's lots of great Linux/Unix-only software that I can't run on Windows. Although, I must say that I think the free software aspect of most Linux software makes it much more likely that a Windows port exists for good Linux software than a good Linux port exists for good Windows software.
For the most part, well put.
The problem for Linux on the desktop is not usability or availability of games or a host of other problems at this point. It's things like lagging support for new versions of ubiquitous software, like Flash.
True. Availability for the newest flash versions does still tend to lag for all non-windows OSes. But, flash isn't a necessity for a lot of folks, either, so this isn't a real deal-breaker either.
It's the non-existence of any Quicken products for Linux.
True again. Intuit, seemingly forgetting it's early origins, has been an extremely Windows-centric company for years now, at least where Quicken is concerned. There are a number of decent competitive products out there available on other OSes. Are any really as nice as Quicken Premier Home and Business, with all of it's features? Not that I've found yet, but there are some products that are becoming quite competitive with the entry-level version.
It's the fact that OpenOffice is a relative new-comer and MS Office/Works products have been around since the 80s.
Again, true. It's worth noting that, for the most part, OpenOffice has almost reached feature parity with Word, and has reached that point very rapidly, considering how long it's been around. It's also worth noting that it's increasingly common that even folks working for M$ have had to resort to using OpenOffice to salvage presentations they were making at Industry Conferences. While Office is still the leader in Suites, it can still be finicky, especially PowerPoint, and sometimes (though less so) even Word.
I've also had several occasions where colleagues have had problems with viruses attached to Office documents, while I, using OpenOffice on Linux, was totally unaffected, and was able to (again) salvage the documents and provide them virus free.
At most major computer retailers, the only operating system you can buy pre-installed on a machine is Windows. The average user never installs an operating system.
Sad, but true.
Mac has a devoted base of people willing to pay a premium price for Apple products, why I'll never know, since Apple's offerings have been an inferior price-to-value proposition since at least the release of Windows 2000.
I think perhaps you don't know because you've bought into complete and utter FUD, based in old preconceptions, not the modern market.
Let's make it easy for the next commenter to bring out the old tried and true/. checklist.
A price comparison done today at Dell and Apple's websites for a very reasonable entry configuration, between comparable Dell and Apple Laptops, configured with nearly identi
Simply observing that Windows operating systems and Linuces/Unices each have vulnerabilities (they do, including root level exploits) does not mean they are a priori, equally vulnerable.
The root source of vulnerablility is not based in the underlying progamming languages, but in the coding standards, practices, and methodologies whereby code is designed, implemented, and vetted, and what corrective processes are in place for discovering, implementing, and distributing patches when vulnerabilities are uncovered.
To fully evaluate and compare vulnerability, you must examine the types of vulnerabilities upon each platform, the severity of each vulnerability, the ease of exploiting each vulnerability, and the overall likelihood of an actual exploit being possible, practical, or even likely, based upon the above.
When you do, you'll see the problem is not that 'there are simply more people targeting ISS and Windows'. (If it was about market penetration, more folks would be trying to exploit Apache, since it has had, and continues to have, the largest installed web-server base.) The root of the matter is that the OS upon which IIS is based, and the codebase of IIS itself, are inherently more vulnerable because Microsoft's standards, practices, methodologies, and implementations are considerably more flawed.
That's not to say that continued improvement of Linux security model are not in order. A more robust rights, permissions, and ownership model for Linux would certainly be beneficial (and is in fact, underway through such project initiatives as SE Linux).
Currently, however, the core vulnerabilities of Microsoft's codebase more than significantly outweigh the (relatively minor?) design issues inherent in the 'owner/group/other' permissions model.
There's a point where a priori discussions of theoretical exploits must take a back seat to the real world actualities of the curent state of internetworked systems, and the actual real world data available demonstrating the severity of security issues on each platform, both in relative and absolute terms.
Neither family of operating system are perfect. When it comes right down to it, however, Windows operating systems are at vastly greater risk. The raw number of exploits, and their usual severity, is enormously higher than for Linuces.
Now [flamebaiting not intended], If we want to wander off a little into the weeds and discuss some of the overlap between a priori security design, and the actual ad hoc implementations of theory, some of the core issues are the use of relatively insecure services such as RPC, easily-vulnerable default implementations of smb file- and print-sharing (something poor implementations upon Linux can share, along with potentially problematic NFS implementations), and the continuing failure to implement robust and functional seperate system-level, and user-level rights models, which still contribute significantly to the problem.
At the file-level, Microsoft's adoption of LDAP-based authentication in Active Directory (heavily modelled upon Novell's NDS, itself modeled upon Vines Streettalk model), has helped, but AD still sufferes from the fundammentally flawed subtractive rights (default allow) model, instead of the more sound additive right (default deny) model. That core difference aside, reasoned overall debate of the relative merits and flaws of AD's subtractive model, with somewhat more robust group permissions than are available in Linux more-limited, but still additive rights model, would likely become long and involved, with good points to be made of relative strengths and weaknesses for each model. (As far as comprehensive security models go, Novell's NDS and that of VMS have significant advantages over the models for either Windows or Linux/Unix, but NDS is limited in it's ability to control rights on local hosts, and VMS is, well, VMS, so while some of the underlying security concepts may be adopted [SE Linux is presenting more extensive thread-lev
Actually. 30 years ago global cooling had already lost significant credibility as a theory because real data failed to suppport it.
As of 25 years ago, in my Earth Science class, while we discussed global cooling as a largely discredited theory, we did also discuss a growing body of evidence that suggested global warming.
Examining global warming as another theory, we tried to determine what we might see if it was indeed taking place. We thought, if it was, that given human nature, we expected the vast majority of people (who refuse to actually learn anything from science, or pay attention to history or to human nature) would stick their heads in the sand, or make stupid jokes about it until it was too late to avoid significant impacts to the environment, that the politicians and corporations would deny there was any such trend, then (once that was no longer possible) deny that humans were capable of causing a noticable impact, most loudly denying that major corporate attacks upon environmental regulation and a near-complete disregard of environmental concerns would have anything to do with it, all while the politicians and executives continued line their pockets and decide how much further north they'd have to move. In the interim, they would continue to stir up debate upon the possible sources, and upon possible actions, to delay as long as possible any action whatsoever that might impact their own fiscal bottom line, regardless of the cause.
To some degree, while the specific causes are important to identify and understand, the more significant question at hand is the what the extent of its impact will be, at what point we begin to have serious concerns, and at what point, if any, we should make serious attempts to mitigate the impact, or to even attempt to reverse it. We expected during our discussions that it would be at least thirty years or so from that point before global changes, if they were in fact occurring, would be generally significant enough for there to be some concensus that it was taking place. We expected it to be another fifteen to thirty years before any concensus at all about a response might be forthcoming, and probably another fifteen to thirty years before the effects of any response might be significant. All in all, the blink of an eye, in geologic terms, but long enough that most people would be reluctant to do anything that meant they might have to change one iota how they live. Human nature, after all, is to maintain habits (good or bad), and generally to be selfish and short-sighted. This still left open-ended, however (as any good discussion of theory does), whether a warming trend would be observed, or if one was, whether or not an attempt to counter it might be determined to be desirable or even viable.
In the meantime, however, we expected there would be progressively more significant increases in the severity of weather events (in number and severity for major storms, hurricanes, typhoons, and so on, with cold snaps and harsher winters in other areas, since continuing to add energy to a system increases the chaos inherent in the system, and contributes to swings toward both hotter and colder extremes until the system reestablishes some sort of equilibrium), increased flooding and loss of land area in regions at and close to sea level.
I for one, would like to see (and examine in toto) a number of studies of the last 25 years worth of data, year by year, and how they correlate to the large body of data available from other sources (glacial cores, tree cores, and other sources do, in fact, provide a record that goes back much further than the last hundred years or so of recorded meteorological data). Actually examing available data, however, is probably too much of a bother for all of the folks who's already decided they would prefer to simply make flippant comments about it, and listen to idiot politicians, pundits, and corporate mouthpieces rather than to engage in anything resembling science o
It would be inappropriate for me to frame an argument for religion, since I do not have academic qualifications in philosophy. As a result, my only choice is to refer the OP to qualified people.
Inappropriate? Certainly not. The only real qualifications required to actively engage in philosophy are an active mind, the ability to think critically, and an aptitude for clearly articulating your thoughts. Formal training, while certainly very helpful, is not a requirement.
I understand that in this instance you favour Swinburne's arguments in the source you cited, that you feel he is better able to articulate them than you may be, and that, perhaps, you believe you may not do his arguments justice. The focus of my observation was that when citing a reference, it is appropriate when using it to attempt to counter a position to provide your own reasoning as to why the reference is a counter.
At least I have some respect for the academy, you look like you're trying to subvert it.
Subvert it? Not really. Perhaps to properly contextualize it.
I greatly value a good education, and especialy one that trains and promotes critical thinking. However, I also very clearly recognize that formal education is neither a necessary requirement nor a sufficient component in and of itself to create skilled thinkers or brilliant minds.
Thomas Edison, for example, only had formal education halfway through primary school, at which time his teacher declared him an idiot who would never amount to anything and threw him out. Clearly, if academic credentials were a requirement, we'd never have heard of him, and the world would be a very different place than it is today. Conversely, there are many people with advanced degrees who we have never heard of, nor are we likely to, not because their education was of no value, but because they have no aptitude nor inclination to actually put it to use.
Everyone engages in philosophy, to one degree or another, in that everyone forms their own (or at least picks and chooses from those presented to them) personal ideas about life, and the world around them (whatever those ideas might be). Those ideas, in turn, form personal philosophies, whether people are consciously aware of them or not.
While that doesn't by any stretch of the imagination give everyone's ideas equal merit, the basis for determining the actual merit of any given theory is not the letters behind someone's name, or the areas they've studied. It's how well that theory has been thought through, how well it addresses the subject matter and is able to explain it, whether it stands against cross-examination, and whether observable empirical data supports or contradicts it.
The strength of Evolution as a theory, for example, is not that Darwin was a physician, or that the many thousands of people who have contributed to our understanding of it happen to be well-trained academicians. It's strength comes from those tens of thousands of intelligent individuals who have made countless millions of empirical observations who have vetted and refined the details of that theory, and that all of the evidence continues to reinforce and improve the theory. [And, just so everyone is clear on the use of the word theory, every descriptive set of ideas in science is a 'theory', even those few things sometimes called 'laws', so attacking Evolution based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific method is unsound]. The education all of those individuals have provides excellent tools whereby they can evaluate data, and function properly as a scientist, but it's what they do with that education that gives value, not simply that they happen to have a diploma.
Similarly, while having a formal background in philosophy and scientific method certainly helps for many things, in that a good program will teach and help hone critical thinking, train an individual to examine, break down, and evaluate material, other theories, or arguments, help identify the s
Being as I am a philosopher, I think I'm actually in a position to give a little critique of your response.
The vast majority of philosophers uphold theism. -- Proof by reference to obscure authority is not a sound argumentive technique. If you are going to make such a claim, the burden is upon you to support it. Further, word choices such as 'vast majority' simultaneously attempt to represent claims as being strong while leaving them vague. Philosophical arguments are not well founded or defended using superlatives nor vagueness. You're making a large claim. How, exactly, do you actually plan to support it?
'theism,' incidentally, refers to the belief that there is/are a god or gods, and that they are some way involved with existence. It is not, as a theologial position, restricted to, or inherently supporting of, Christianity or any other specific religion.
The two most widely respected (even among their atheist colleagues) philosophers of religion are Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, who have spent most of their careers showing that many Christian doctrines can be supposed to be true. -- Again, you make a completely undefended claim, yet attempt to represent it as a widely accepted fact. This is also an unsound argumentive method. If you are going to try to make a claim about the opinion of a large number of people, you must clearly define the members of the group, and then present evidence to support your claim. Further (while not making a critism of either Plantinga or Swinburne), someone making a career out of a debate upon suppositions does not in any way in and of itself have any bearing upon the possible existence of god(s).
Take a look, for example, at Swinburne's The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003). -- Yet again, you make an attempt to invoke a reference to a seperate authority, rather than present an argument of your own. While you've provided a specific reference, there is still an expectation that one will present at least the outline of an argument, rather than expect someone to infer it from an entirely seperate work.
Therefore, one cannot say that religion in general is a "silly thing". -- You attempt to claim your unsound references in some way actually constitute and argument, and form the basis for a conclusion. They do not. Your conclusion in no way follows from them, and in no way actually addresses Grishnakh's statement of personal opinion.
If you held the necessary academic qualifications -- philosophers (formally credentialed or not) refer to this as the Genetic Fallacy, the source of an argument in no way actually affects the validity or soundness of the argument itself.
and were able to frame an argument correctly, -- perhaps this is an unfair aspertion, since you have not demonstrated you yourself would recognize a correctly formed argument if you saw one, not having presented one yourself. (People in glass houses...)
people might care. -- You cared enough to respond to begin with, so it's apparent that other people might care about the topic regardless of your own opinion of a position different than your own.
There are different classes of thought that are sometimes called an opinion that lead to the confusion where some people think they should all be given equal standing.
One kind of opinion is simply a statement or observation, for example, of preference: "My favorite color is blue." versus "My favorite color is green."
This type of opinion is of equal interpretive value, yes.
But, a second common usage of the word opinion is the promotion of a personal theory (about anything).
In this case, the same standards apply as for any theory, and as such these 'opinions' are NOT entitled to the same neutral status of "different but equal" as, like in the above example, the simple expression of one's favorite color.
In the second type of opinion, the realm of theory, some are well founded, based upon fact and analysis, while others are crap, formed, or worse, simply borrowed, with no basis in fact, and no actual thought whatsoever.
The former is an opinion with a sound basis, and strong support. The latter is just so much line-noise.
They may both be opinions, but that's the sole extent of the similarity, and that does not put them on an equal footing.
An unsound opinion, even when held by a majority, is still unsound, and therefore NOT of equal value.
We've already seen how humans can survive 2 years in zero gravity, and that's frankly all we need to know. The personnel will degrade, which is an acceptable loss. If it were important to test humans in zero gravity for more than the current 430 day record, we could already have left a man on the ISS for 2,000 days. But no one did, because it's not a useful or important question.
That's simply not the case. Yes. Personnel do degrade. The question as to what is an 'acceptable' level of degradation (decalcification of bone, loss of muscle mass, exposure to radiation, et cetera) is certainly not cut and dried, as you seem to believe. It's simple enough to make such claims when you're simply a participant in an armchair discussion of the issue, but it's an entirely different matter for the folks who'll really be looking at the actuality of it. The reason no one has been on ISS continuously is not that much more information about the problem is not 'useful or important', but that the prolonged effects are significantly, if not severely debilitating.
The costs of lengthy rehabilitation and chronic disability for a score of brave volunteers are minute compared to all the money still poured into STS and ISS operations, which might someday maybe do research on human survival in space. Instead, when the first Mars Expedition happens, we can label it a simultaneous medical experiment on prolonged low-gravity.
When measuring costs, dollar amounts are certainly not the only ones to measure. Realistically, in order for long-distance manned space travel to become viable, methods to reduce (if not eventually hopefully eliminate) those effects will be necessary, at the very least, so that the participants will be able to function during the mission, and to be able to return to receive rehabilitation. (And, however 'labelled', any long-term exposure to weightlessness will of course provide additional data, regardless of whether that is the primary objective.)
There will be abundant volunteers regardless of personal risk- and the data from that trip can be used to plan medical improvements to any later ones.
I strongly suspect your volunteer pool may be significantly reduced if you effectively tell people a trip to Mars is likely to be only one-way. And, while I think even then that yes, you'd have some volunteers, that in no way guarantees they'd necessarily be qualified. Even presuming you have a full compliment of willing and competent volunteers, that still raises the question of what is gained by rushing folks off, if the trip is only one way. Whether you happen to like it or not, that raises all sorts of thorny questions about the nature of long-term objectives, and what they're worth, in terms of money and lives.
What it comes down to is: Do you, or do you not want to see a Mars colony in your lifetime?
Would I like to see that? Certainly. (Given an actual opportunity to be a part of it, I'd strongly consider going, myself.) There's a middle path, however, between the pessimistic and unimaginative position that humanity is doomed to remain on only on only one planet forever, and rushing off willy-nilly just for the sake of doing it.
No, I don't think that by simply waiting and gathering endless reams of data that eventually the risks will simply go away, and no, I do not think that trying to achieve zero risk is realistic. But, on the other side of things I don't think it is unreasonable to try to mitigate the levels of risk, and to bring them down to a reasonable level, either.
If there's an analogy to the 1491 expedition, it would be
"Sorry Columbus, we won't fund you a super-boat to go to 'India', we've got the International Boat Station to think of. Those two brave men must be continually supplied with fresh water so we can further study the effects of prolonged sea-sickness, and there's just no money left for a risky 'ocean-crossing' vessel. Let's 'orbit' this place for another 40 years, and recons
Of course, the fanatical believers in manned space flight would never even consider that this shows the monstrous demerits and grotesque waste of manned flight versus unmanned.
Nonsense.
While there is, certainly, a great deal of value from unmanned space flight, and while there should be appropriate consideration as to how the objectives of any given mission can be best achieved, unmanned missions ultimately have their own limitations, as well.
The idea that we should simply stay put, and not actively pursue a manned program with the specific intention of gathering medical information about the effects of a low/zero gravity environment upon the human body, so as to further the longer-term goals of manned long-range exploration, and eventually extraterrestrial colonization at some future date is the modern equivalent of saying "Gee, Ferdinand, we shouldn't be funding those crazy sailing expeditions. We know this Columbus guy's math is whacked out, so nothing can possibly come of it..." or "Man will never fly. And even if we could, we shouldn't bother, because we can walk, ride, or sail anywhere we'd ever want to go, so it would just be a waste of time and resources to try. We'd just be wasting them and never see any return..."
Columbus himself may not have, in the end, brought back a real route to the East Indies, or piles of gold, but that doesn't mean his trips were wasted. The knowledge he brought back of what he did find is what, in turn, led Vespusci and other explorers to take their own more successful journeys based upon his initial expeditions.
Manned exploration is more than simply a method that happens to be (a lot) more expensive than doing some things via unmanned missions. It's really a big part of the overall long-term objective as well.
Okay, since we can't actually use any really useful formatting tags, I'm having to post this as 'code'.
First, to address the apparently obligatory bitching:
- Yes, there were a ton of ads and cookie crap. - Yes, the pages loaded incredibly slowly for a while. [ We/.'ed them, so I think we should be happy they load at all...:) ] - Yes, there are almost certainly better discussions on building silent boxen. - Yes, it was a little long.
But, as a general review of four silent power supplies, though, the actual article format really wasn't too bad.
Better more information than less, neh?
And I thought the real-time price checking was an interesting touch. Not necessary, no, and I'm sure it contributed to how slowly pages loaded [ how often do we get to meta-slashdot another site?:D ], but not a bad way to keep price details from being outdated.
When looking at the data (there was actual data buried in at page 12, if you got that far...) what struck me was that the conclusions were flawed.
All four power supplies (much to the apparent disappointment of some folks) did perform well within tolerences, yes. The actual stability analysis, however, I believe is incorrect.
Here's the data provided: (I'd love to be able to use a table tag now... or even a pre tag... sigh.)
It appears from this that the conclusions drawn in the article are based solely upon what I've labeled the Absolute Total Deviation from Target Voltages, and not from an actual assessment of the relative variance in voltage observed during the test.
Someone [presuming you actually know;D ] please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe as long as the power provided is within acceptable tolerances, it is better to run slightly hot on a given bus, but be dead spot steady than to run slightly closer to an exact target voltage but have greater overall relative variance.
From the perspective of Absolute Total Relative Variation, it's clear that the Thermaltake (while running slightly hot on the 5V bus) was by far the most stable power supply, varying only by -0.04V on the 12V bus, and remaining rock steady on the 5V and 3.3V buses.
After that, it's a near tie between the Antec and the SilverStone, but it appears that the Antec actually edges out the Silverstone, in terms of overall stability. having a Absolute Total Relative Variation of only 0.12, while the SilverStone has an overal absolute variance of 0.14. (The SilverStone does, however, maintain a zero variance on the 5V bus, which could be argued to be more stable, on a bus by bus comparison, being stable on one bus, versus none for the Antec.)
I guess I'm an evil immoral monster then. I'd rather 25000 Iraqis dead for THIER country IN their country and while I regret the deaths of ANY Soldiers, the miltary deaths have not yet equaled the losses at the WTC and Pentagon and those folks were NON-COMBATANTS. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a immoral evil monster who does not deserve the rights the men/woman have been dying to protect for 200+ years. I suggest you go read the Koran where it tells them to KILL the infidels where ever they may be and then tell me the war against Terror is unjustified. They are not going to give in until the last "infidel" is dead, so if you value your way of life, get on board or get the F*CK out of they way of those trying to protect themselves or mark my words, we WILL run over you. I'm done battling some one who is an idiot, I got much better things to do than deal with kids.
If you really think so, step up to your rhetoric and go sign up. Perhaps you might end up one of the folks coming back in a body bag.
Let's go over a couple of details you seem to be a little fuzzy about:
Those 25,000 civilians aren't dead for their country they're simply dead, as a result of an invasion that had nothing to do with terrorism. Plainly and simply, the Bush administration fabricated an excuse, and used patently false evidence to convince congress to allow 'Dubya' to be the war-time president he had stated he wanted to be. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11.
Invading a country that had not, and has never attacked the US, for many people quite understandably makes the 'self-defense' argument a bit of a hard sell.
Many senior members of the military and the Intelligence community opposed the invasion of Iraq, because they were aware that Iraq posed no threat, and that it would (as it has) divert the vast majority of our forces away from the real threat, that being Al Qaida. They were also well aware that any invasion of Iraq would meet with the very forms of resitance we now see, and that it would provide a rally-point and a recruiting tool for Anti-American extremism.
Terrorism is a tool used by many extremist groups, not just a very small number of followers of Islam. Examples: Zionists, including current members of the Israeli government, used terrorist tactics against the British because they wanted a Jewish state; terrorist tactics have been used by both IRA and Protestant militias in Northern Ireland; Timothy McVey (not a muslim) was an American who used terrorist tactics against other Americans; various religious factions in India have all used terrorism against one another; Greek and Turkish Cypriats have also used terrorism to promote their causes; as has Eta, the Basque separatist movement; and it was used by the Weather Underground in the US in the '60's.
You can't win a 'war' against terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy in and of itself. It's just rhetorical nonsense to even attempt to claim you can. The Bush and Blair administrations are using such language to hang on to wartime powers they would otherwise not possess, and to attempt to use fear and hate to simultaneously silence criticisms of their own illegal actions on multiple fronts, while continuing to promote their own agendas. (Want wartime powers? Don't have a war? Just make one up.) -- Haven't read 1984? Perhaps you should...
It evidently hasn't occured to you that, like it or not, many of the insurgents in Iraq are trying to protect their country from an illegal foreign invasion. However, Iraq has now also become a focal point for numerous Anti-American extremist groups, and it has become, as was predicted, a battlefield against the US. When many of the combatants are not Iraqi themselves, it's not difficult to see why (whether it's because they're happy the US is there, or simply because they don't much care one way or another) Iraqis who have
Sadly, this is true since Time/Warner purchased them, and it was reputedly one of several things (boardroom power struggles not to be minimized) that eventually drove Ted Turner to leave.
CNN may still be one of the better commercial news sources these days, but it's now just that, a commercial source, so that's not really saying much...
For broadcast news, the BBC, and by extension, the CBC seem to be the only major sources still interested in maintaining any journalistic integrity.
All of that aside, ThinkSecret does have an excellent track record...
They [Macs] aren't any more expensive than PCs (I don't understand who is perpetuating this myth)...
You're correct, in that if comparably equivalent systems are compared, the price difference has always been pretty small, if not actually nonexistent. But, Joe Consumer, if he's not a technically savvy user already familiar with Mac hardware, usually has no clue when it comes to figuring out what he should be comparing. The lowest-end Macs have always had better hardware and specs than the lowest-end PCs, which is the hardware continually used to make the claim when doing such comparisions.
Add to that choices like SCSI (for a long time, much better performance and better expansion capabilities, but also not something the casual consumer understood, other than to see it cost more), and hardware advances like FireWire (yet-another-now-common-technology developed by Apple), again something many folks didn't know about, and very early adoption of USB, and you have a much nicer system, but also a knowledge gap that needed to be overcome.
Of course, it's not just the result of miscomparisons made by the uneducated consumer.
Enter, stage left, the marketing weasels who started advertizing PC screen measurements for the size of the tube instead of the viewable area, and then claimed Mac screens were smaller because Apple didn't misrepresent their useable screen sizes. Add to that the myth that CPU cycles are equivalent for x86 and PPC processors, because the same marketing weasels claim bigger numbers always mean better performance (which is simply not always so across HW platforms -- this is a widespread misconception when comparing any processors of differing architecture, actually, and you still see it when folks try to compare Intel and AMD processors, as well -- CPU cycles simply don't track that way).
Eventually, of course, Apple caved on the monitor dimension front, and started listing tube sizes, too. (At least these days, in a flat-panel market, they're finally the same again...) And, they switched their systems over to use IDE when it actually became somewhat competitive in terms of performance. From the other side, most x86 boards now have USB and FireWire, and that's driven the cost of the technology down to a tiny fraction of the initial pricetag.
What this means is that these days, not only is the consumer at least a bit more savvy about hardware, but that there are more similarities between the hardware platforms, so the base price points are more similar, even in the eyes of folks who still don't really understand what they're comparing.
The past behind us, at the moment there are Minis, G5 towers, and top-notch laptop offerings that are still managing to compete, even with the current doldrums we've been in in terms of new systems. But then, Macs have pretty much always had a significantly longer effective lifespan before obsolescence than hardware on the x86 side of the house, because they haven't had constantly increasing Windows-OS bloat driving new hardware sales. And, to be fair, they haven't had mad numbers of FPS-games (other than, say, Quake, Doom, Half-life, Marathon, Rune, and such) demanding ever higher frame rates from bleeding edge processors and video cards, either.
It's not nonsense at all. You simply still miss the point.
How can you consider yourself free if you can't even walk out the door without worrying about someone taking your life?
How? Because I'm a rational individual who has an active, reasoned, carefully considered view of the world. Because I'm not ruled by childish fears.
Because I understand and acknowledge that the world is an inherently dangerous place, and when I walk out the door I'm not constantly grippped with fear and _don't_ constantly worry about someone taking my life.
Every time I get in my car to drive anywhere, it entails risk. Someone might run into me, and I might not be able to do anything about it, and it might kill me. Every time I get on an airplane, it entails risk. There may be a simple mechanical failure that causes it to crash and kill me. If I go for a walk, or even stay home in bed, there's still a risk that same airplace might just happen to fall out of the sky and kill me. (Notice here that I mention mechanical failure, not terorrists. Mechanical failure is much more likely. And even then, it's still safer than driving my car.) If I try a new food, there's always a small risk I might be deathly allergic to it. If I'm bitten by a misquito, there's a small chance it might carry Blue Nile Virus or Bird Flu, or even Malaria, and that might kill me. If I go to a restaurant, there's a small chance that a food worker has hepatitis. Eventually, something is going to happen to me, and I'm going to die.
And, none of that makes me any less free. I'm just adult enough to acknowledge that that's just the nature of life itself, and that no one can change that, 'the government' no more than anyone else.
As for people agreeing that the government's job to make and enforce laws to protect individual rights, I'd suggest that while that's a noble and laudable sentiment that I wish were true, that it is a bit naive, and a bit of a misunderstanding of how law works in the every day world. Laws don't grant or protect rights. Laws restrict rights. Even the US Constitution, or the French Rights of Man, or the Constitution the EU is still debating, don't grant or protect people's rights. They acknowledge that they are inherent to life. If your premise was true, for example, rather than having all sorts of ballot initiatives in the US attempting to ban gay marriage, or, even worse, idiots who want to amend the Constitution to attempt to deprive people of their rights, US lawmakers would be following the lead of more enlightened countries such as Canada and Spain to pass laws to protect gay rights. Wanting the right to marry someone they love, and have that union legally recognized certainly looks like pursuit of happiness to me.
Lawmakers are sadly, often irrational, and no good laws have ever come as a kneejerk reaction to a significant and tragic event that is then rushed through on a groundswell of passion or fear rather than reason.
If your government is unable to protect your life, your individual right is jeopardized.
That's part of the point all of us have been trying to make, that you haven't yet grasped. The government isn't able to protect your life. And no matter how many liberties you give up, it never will be able to protect it. People (not just terrorists, but anyone) don't need guns, or knives, or explosives to hurt you or to kill you. Someone could stab you to death on a bus with a ball point pen. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to carry pens on buses? Or, with a little training, they could break your neck with their bare hands. Does that mean that in order to use mass transit, we should all be handcuffed? But wait, then they could still strangle you with the cuffs.
Do you understand the point? Everything is about intent and opportunity, and being able to recognize and take advantage of events.
You don't have liberty without security, so what's the point of talking about preserving all your civil liberties when you're not free anyway? In reality compromises must be made to maximise freedom.
That's not insightful. That's just nonsense and doublespeak, and exactly the sort of confusion about "reality" that the current administration wants you to believe. You have it backwards. Such "compromises" as those imposed by PATRIOT, and the powers now desired by the British police really are demands that we give up freedom.
Anyone who tells you that giving up those freedoms will make you any safer is simply lying to you, or is tragically misinformed, or both. As long as terrorists have a will to attack people, and a willingness to die to achieve their objectives, they will sometimes succeed.
The only thing you achieve by giving up freedom is to allow 1) the terrorists to succeed in fundamentally altering the nature of our societies for the worse by giving in to terror, and 2) giving far too much power to a small group of people who now have no accountability to anyone else. Do not forget that it has been demonstrated time and time again that when such powers are granted, they -- are -- invariably -- abused. If you can't come up with examples of your own, try on the Jananese-American Internment during World War II, Senator MacCarthy, Herbert Hoover, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanimo Bay. If you want another, grimer example, look to the Argentinian Disaperado, as the path we're now treading rapidly leads in that direction.
You can't "protect" freedom by giving it up. We have freedoms only as long as we are willing to fight to protect them from the people who try to take them away from us. In this case, these demands are of far greater danger than what they claim to want to protect us against.
"Security" is not -- nor ever has been -- nor ever will be -- some concrete thing you either have or don't have. There is always an element of risk in anything we do, and in all things there is a point where we must simply resort to a certain amount of trust. Freedom does not require a "secured" society, but rather one that understands that freedom requires a certain amount of personal responsibility to be aware of what is going on in the world around us, and an acceptance that there are certain things that are sometimes, whether we like it or not, beyond our own personal control. If we are to be free, we must accept that we are adults, and that we bear that responsibility ourselves. We cannot simply hand over our freedoms to some arbitrary custodial parent or elder sibling to control us 'for our own good', and call that freedom.
To quote Benjamin Franklin, from the Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759:
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
He was right, then, and it is still true now. I would much rather maintain those essential freedoms, accepting that to maintain them does entail a certain but entirely acceptable amount of risk, rather than give them over to a small cadre of individuals who, without oversight, are empowered to remove those rights with impunity, all in the name of some false illusion of "security".
Obviously someone is moderating under the influence of some serious designer drugs while wearing their aluminum foil deflector beanie... [Or perhaps those fumes are really strong...];)
Seriously, now. Who actually thinks we need to be worried about the vast political power of PETA?
I think you've sort of addressed your own observation...
Yes indeed, many hardware firewalls (read all that I can think of, too) are embedded linux or bsd systems with a web-based gui. This dedicated 'hardware' reference is of course the conventional sense in which I was referring to a 'hardware' firewall. I was not, in some literal sense, referring to some sort of solid-state 'hard-wired' firewall.
As you yourself observe (emphasis mine):
No one actually uses hardware firewalls because fabricating new chips (thousands or even millions of dollars) each time you want to open a new port is just not practical.
Since in that literal sense that is, of course, true. I'd suggest that you might be one of very few people, if not the only one, who might have construed that I was intending to refer to anything other than a conventional dedicated embedded system (such as a Linksys, D-Link, or some other such).
If you're always browsing from behind a hardware firewall that would provide some protection.
If you aren't then you really should use something like Zone Alarm.
Not using IE certainly helps, but that doesn't eliminate all threats.
If you don't share disks (amazingly, some folks still use sneakernet), and you're careful about how you manage your e-mail
that also goes a long way.
And, disabling non-essential services is also a really good practice, so you're right, that will help, too.
That being said, I now have a question:
If you have no anti-virus software installed, how can you say with any authority (or confidence, for that matter) that your system isn't completely compromised, and you're simply unaware of it?
The same goes for spyware.
Lots of viruses and spyware don't show symptoms that are immediately obvious.
Perhaps you might be surprised what you find if you do install some.
If your wintel system is completely free of viruses and spyware, then yes, you are one of the luckiest folks on the planet.
You might not want to continue to rely on that, however. For a bit more about the subject you might want to read this.
Slashdot Mirror
You know for a fact...
I suppose while you're making such grandiose statements that you're also suggesting that includes every H1B, student work visa, immigrant, and illegal worker, whether working in a technical area, in education, driving a cab, working the food or retail industries, doing manual labor, or working in some sweatshop or another...
That has every earmark of a knee jerk random statistic that is complete and utter crap.
If you know this for a fact, how about some actual data to support that outrageous claim?
I'm perfectly willing to entertain statements regarding relative levels of education that are supportable, but there are no free passes (especially here...).
Effectively 'Rewritten' (that is to say, very 'creatively interpreted'), or openly disregarded, in many instances, yes.
The Bill of Rights was too inconvenient for the Shrubinator, so thanks to Patriot, and other absurdly dangerous legislation, they have systematically attempted to create a 'new, convenient, streamlined legislative environment' free of such cumbersome restrictions, all, they would have it, in the name of 'national security'.
To be very clear, I agree with the quote generally attributed to Benjamin Franklin:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Who's been paying attention? Let's take a quick inventory to see where we stand.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Freedom of speech, and the right to peaceably assemble
This now appears to apply only if you're in a 'designated free-speech *zone*' far away from the Shrub, or other government officials.
Similar aggressive tactics have been employed when confronted with any public opposition to administration positions. Steven Howards was arrested for simply voicing disagreement with Administration polices during a chance meeting with Cheney during a mall photo-op. Howards was taking his son to a piano lesson, and took the time to voice his opinion.
Another example is of the peaceful protesters ejected and threatened with arrest at the Ohio State commencement where Dubya spoke, simply because they attempted to peacfully and non-disruptively express disagreement with the Shrub and his his policies.
Still another is when two women, one the wife of a Congressman, were ejected from the Capitol building, simply for wearing T-Shirts with anti-Bush slogans into the Congressional Gallery. (The article references numerous other examples, as well.)
Freedom of the Press
Mostly, journalism from major news outlets in the US appears to be in significant danger from numerous sources. While it is still possible to find information if you dig for it, many of the significant stories never make major headlines, if they even see the light of day.
The Shrub has significantly reduced press events, and when holding them, has required journalists to submit questions in advance, selecting only those questions he chooses to answer, and calling only upon reporters who agree to 'stick to script'. Rather than challenge these policies, reporters have agreed to these stipulations, resulting in chilling effect, effectively self-censorship, rather than ask questions the President didn't like, at the risk of press room access.
Concurrently, starting in 2001, regulations limiting the scope of ownership of media outlets, designed to maintain diversity of opinion, so as to prevent control of too much of the media by a small number of individuals have been systematically attacked and dismantled. The result is that now most major media outlets in the US are owned by a small number of conservatives. (This has bee
Oh, good grief.
While I am troubled by the current measures being taken to track people (which will never meet the stated objectives of enhancing security, but which given the track record whenever such information is gathered *will* be used in unpredicted and probably dangerous ways), let's keep our conspiracy theories straight, shall we? (Knowing a little bit about history goes a long way when debunking 'talk-radio style' nonsense.)
Social Security had nothing to do with any deliberate intent to try to 'track citizens'. It really was intended to be a safety net -- not 'free money', an entirely disingenuous label -- but a reasonable pension for people who *worked* their entire lives, but who knew nothing about investments, in an era where investing was uncommon, and corporate pensions nearly non-existent (most people worked in small businesses that didn't have them).
It was implemented so that people might be able to afford to eat, and at least survive at a subsistence level when they finally reached the end of their working career, enacted by FDR in 1935, along with the first national unemployment compensation plan, federal support for state unemployment programs already in place, and 'Aid to Dependent Children' as part of his new deal legislation to address the significant social issues brought about by the Great Depression.
Having to keep track of individual's identities in order to deliver the appropriate benefits was a *byproduct*, not the original intent.
It was also originally paid in a single lump-sum. The practice of paying benefits on a monthly basis was implemented later, making it less likely that an elderly person could be swindled out of their savings in one go, while providing a more substantial financial base for interest. A side effect of this was that the program re-absorbed what was not paid out lump-sum, when the recipient died, so an offshoot of that was the addition of survivors benefits (which were not originally paid).
Certainly, it was wrong.
GoDaddy did nothing right in this.
Specifically:
To clarify: even in the event there possibly did turn out to be an actual, legitimate, legal basis for the complaint, no process was followed to actually attempt to asses what that might be, nor to determine what a proper response -- other than taking down the entire domain -- might have actually been.
This, in the simplest of terms, is entirely a case of thoughtless censorship without even the most basic attempt at fact-finding.
How should they have handled it?
They should have:
This should have been the end of GoDaddy's involvement.
In the event the site's Responsible Party and MySpace did not come to an understanding, and they were again approached by MySpace, GoDaddy should then have:
if they were only the registrar, and not the hosting provider:
if they were also the hosting provider, they should then have:
Only in the event that GoDaddy's preliminary review did lead them to believe the claim was founded, they should have either (in general, so bear with me):
if the material fell under DMCA,
or, if not covered by DMCA,
There is already a proper mechanism for this for software. It's Copyright .
Software patents should simply be eliminated completely. As it is, they were originally snuck in under the guise of 'business process', and have no business being patents to begin with.
Definitely so. While there are some differences in getting things set up initially, the constant nagging little pains and annoyances of Windows where it won't get out of the way certainly add up. And similarly, while newer versions are much more stable than they used to be, it's still considerably less stable than Linux or OS X.
For the most part, well put.
True. Availability for the newest flash versions does still tend to lag for all non-windows OSes. But, flash isn't a necessity for a lot of folks, either, so this isn't a real deal-breaker either.
True again. Intuit, seemingly forgetting it's early origins, has been an extremely Windows-centric company for years now, at least where Quicken is concerned. There are a number of decent competitive products out there available on other OSes. Are any really as nice as Quicken Premier Home and Business, with all of it's features? Not that I've found yet, but there are some products that are becoming quite competitive with the entry-level version.
Again, true. It's worth noting that, for the most part, OpenOffice has almost reached feature parity with Word, and has reached that point very rapidly, considering how long it's been around. It's also worth noting that it's increasingly common that even folks working for M$ have had to resort to using OpenOffice to salvage presentations they were making at Industry Conferences. While Office is still the leader in Suites, it can still be finicky, especially PowerPoint, and sometimes (though less so) even Word.
I've also had several occasions where colleagues have had problems with viruses attached to Office documents, while I, using OpenOffice on Linux, was totally unaffected, and was able to (again) salvage the documents and provide them virus free.
Sad, but true.
I think perhaps you don't know because you've bought into complete and utter FUD, based in old preconceptions, not the modern market.
Let's make it easy for the next commenter to bring out the old tried and true /. checklist.
A price comparison done today at Dell and Apple's websites for a very reasonable entry configuration, between comparable Dell and Apple Laptops, configured with nearly identi
Simply observing that Windows operating systems and Linuces/Unices each have vulnerabilities (they do, including root level exploits) does not mean they are a priori, equally vulnerable.
The root source of vulnerablility is not based in the underlying progamming languages, but in the coding standards, practices, and methodologies whereby code is designed, implemented, and vetted, and what corrective processes are in place for discovering, implementing, and distributing patches when vulnerabilities are uncovered.
To fully evaluate and compare vulnerability, you must examine the types of vulnerabilities upon each platform, the severity of each vulnerability, the ease of exploiting each vulnerability, and the overall likelihood of an actual exploit being possible, practical, or even likely, based upon the above.
When you do, you'll see the problem is not that 'there are simply more people targeting ISS and Windows'. (If it was about market penetration, more folks would be trying to exploit Apache, since it has had, and continues to have, the largest installed web-server base.) The root of the matter is that the OS upon which IIS is based, and the codebase of IIS itself, are inherently more vulnerable because Microsoft's standards, practices, methodologies, and implementations are considerably more flawed.
That's not to say that continued improvement of Linux security model are not in order. A more robust rights, permissions, and ownership model for Linux would certainly be beneficial (and is in fact, underway through such project initiatives as SE Linux).
Currently, however, the core vulnerabilities of Microsoft's codebase more than significantly outweigh the (relatively minor?) design issues inherent in the 'owner/group/other' permissions model.
There's a point where a priori discussions of theoretical exploits must take a back seat to the real world actualities of the curent state of internetworked systems, and the actual real world data available demonstrating the severity of security issues on each platform, both in relative and absolute terms.
Neither family of operating system are perfect. When it comes right down to it, however, Windows operating systems are at vastly greater risk. The raw number of exploits, and their usual severity, is enormously higher than for Linuces.
Now [flamebaiting not intended], If we want to wander off a little into the weeds and discuss some of the overlap between a priori security design, and the actual ad hoc implementations of theory, some of the core issues are the use of relatively insecure services such as RPC, easily-vulnerable default implementations of smb file- and print-sharing (something poor implementations upon Linux can share, along with potentially problematic NFS implementations), and the continuing failure to implement robust and functional seperate system-level, and user-level rights models, which still contribute significantly to the problem.
At the file-level, Microsoft's adoption of LDAP-based authentication in Active Directory (heavily modelled upon Novell's NDS, itself modeled upon Vines Streettalk model), has helped, but AD still sufferes from the fundammentally flawed subtractive rights (default allow) model, instead of the more sound additive right (default deny) model. That core difference aside, reasoned overall debate of the relative merits and flaws of AD's subtractive model, with somewhat more robust group permissions than are available in Linux more-limited, but still additive rights model, would likely become long and involved, with good points to be made of relative strengths and weaknesses for each model. (As far as comprehensive security models go, Novell's NDS and that of VMS have significant advantages over the models for either Windows or Linux/Unix, but NDS is limited in it's ability to control rights on local hosts, and VMS is, well, VMS, so while some of the underlying security concepts may be adopted [SE Linux is presenting more extensive thread-lev
Ah, the imfamous "they..."
Actually. 30 years ago global cooling had already lost significant credibility as a theory because real data failed to suppport it.
As of 25 years ago, in my Earth Science class, while we discussed global cooling as a largely discredited theory, we did also discuss a growing body of evidence that suggested global warming.
Examining global warming as another theory, we tried to determine what we might see if it was indeed taking place. We thought, if it was, that given human nature, we expected the vast majority of people (who refuse to actually learn anything from science, or pay attention to history or to human nature) would stick their heads in the sand, or make stupid jokes about it until it was too late to avoid significant impacts to the environment, that the politicians and corporations would deny there was any such trend, then (once that was no longer possible) deny that humans were capable of causing a noticable impact, most loudly denying that major corporate attacks upon environmental regulation and a near-complete disregard of environmental concerns would have anything to do with it, all while the politicians and executives continued line their pockets and decide how much further north they'd have to move. In the interim, they would continue to stir up debate upon the possible sources, and upon possible actions, to delay as long as possible any action whatsoever that might impact their own fiscal bottom line, regardless of the cause.
To some degree, while the specific causes are important to identify and understand, the more significant question at hand is the what the extent of its impact will be, at what point we begin to have serious concerns, and at what point, if any, we should make serious attempts to mitigate the impact, or to even attempt to reverse it. We expected during our discussions that it would be at least thirty years or so from that point before global changes, if they were in fact occurring, would be generally significant enough for there to be some concensus that it was taking place. We expected it to be another fifteen to thirty years before any concensus at all about a response might be forthcoming, and probably another fifteen to thirty years before the effects of any response might be significant. All in all, the blink of an eye, in geologic terms, but long enough that most people would be reluctant to do anything that meant they might have to change one iota how they live. Human nature, after all, is to maintain habits (good or bad), and generally to be selfish and short-sighted. This still left open-ended, however (as any good discussion of theory does), whether a warming trend would be observed, or if one was, whether or not an attempt to counter it might be determined to be desirable or even viable.
In the meantime, however, we expected there would be progressively more significant increases in the severity of weather events (in number and severity for major storms, hurricanes, typhoons, and so on, with cold snaps and harsher winters in other areas, since continuing to add energy to a system increases the chaos inherent in the system, and contributes to swings toward both hotter and colder extremes until the system reestablishes some sort of equilibrium), increased flooding and loss of land area in regions at and close to sea level.
I for one, would like to see (and examine in toto) a number of studies of the last 25 years worth of data, year by year, and how they correlate to the large body of data available from other sources (glacial cores, tree cores, and other sources do, in fact, provide a record that goes back much further than the last hundred years or so of recorded meteorological data). Actually examing available data, however, is probably too much of a bother for all of the folks who's already decided they would prefer to simply make flippant comments about it, and listen to idiot politicians, pundits, and corporate mouthpieces rather than to engage in anything resembling science o
It would be inappropriate for me to frame an argument for religion, since I do not have academic qualifications in philosophy. As a result, my only choice is to refer the OP to qualified people.
Inappropriate? Certainly not. The only real qualifications required to actively engage in philosophy are an active mind, the ability to think critically, and an aptitude for clearly articulating your thoughts. Formal training, while certainly very helpful, is not a requirement.
I understand that in this instance you favour Swinburne's arguments in the source you cited, that you feel he is better able to articulate them than you may be, and that, perhaps, you believe you may not do his arguments justice. The focus of my observation was that when citing a reference, it is appropriate when using it to attempt to counter a position to provide your own reasoning as to why the reference is a counter.
At least I have some respect for the academy, you look like you're trying to subvert it.
Subvert it? Not really. Perhaps to properly contextualize it.
I greatly value a good education, and especialy one that trains and promotes critical thinking. However, I also very clearly recognize that formal education is neither a necessary requirement nor a sufficient component in and of itself to create skilled thinkers or brilliant minds.
Thomas Edison, for example, only had formal education halfway through primary school, at which time his teacher declared him an idiot who would never amount to anything and threw him out. Clearly, if academic credentials were a requirement, we'd never have heard of him, and the world would be a very different place than it is today. Conversely, there are many people with advanced degrees who we have never heard of, nor are we likely to, not because their education was of no value, but because they have no aptitude nor inclination to actually put it to use.
Everyone engages in philosophy, to one degree or another, in that everyone forms their own (or at least picks and chooses from those presented to them) personal ideas about life, and the world around them (whatever those ideas might be). Those ideas, in turn, form personal philosophies, whether people are consciously aware of them or not.
While that doesn't by any stretch of the imagination give everyone's ideas equal merit, the basis for determining the actual merit of any given theory is not the letters behind someone's name, or the areas they've studied. It's how well that theory has been thought through, how well it addresses the subject matter and is able to explain it, whether it stands against cross-examination, and whether observable empirical data supports or contradicts it.
The strength of Evolution as a theory, for example, is not that Darwin was a physician, or that the many thousands of people who have contributed to our understanding of it happen to be well-trained academicians. It's strength comes from those tens of thousands of intelligent individuals who have made countless millions of empirical observations who have vetted and refined the details of that theory, and that all of the evidence continues to reinforce and improve the theory. [And, just so everyone is clear on the use of the word theory, every descriptive set of ideas in science is a 'theory', even those few things sometimes called 'laws', so attacking Evolution based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific method is unsound]. The education all of those individuals have provides excellent tools whereby they can evaluate data, and function properly as a scientist, but it's what they do with that education that gives value, not simply that they happen to have a diploma.
Similarly, while having a formal background in philosophy and scientific method certainly helps for many things, in that a good program will teach and help hone critical thinking, train an individual to examine, break down, and evaluate material, other theories, or arguments, help identify the s
Being as I am a philosopher, I think I'm actually in a position to give a little critique of your response.
The vast majority of philosophers uphold theism. -- Proof by reference to obscure authority is not a sound argumentive technique. If you are going to make such a claim, the burden is upon you to support it. Further, word choices such as 'vast majority' simultaneously attempt to represent claims as being strong while leaving them vague. Philosophical arguments are not well founded or defended using superlatives nor vagueness. You're making a large claim. How, exactly, do you actually plan to support it?
'theism,' incidentally, refers to the belief that there is/are a god or gods, and that they are some way involved with existence. It is not, as a theologial position, restricted to, or inherently supporting of, Christianity or any other specific religion.
The two most widely respected (even among their atheist colleagues) philosophers of religion are Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne, who have spent most of their careers showing that many Christian doctrines can be supposed to be true. -- Again, you make a completely undefended claim, yet attempt to represent it as a widely accepted fact. This is also an unsound argumentive method. If you are going to try to make a claim about the opinion of a large number of people, you must clearly define the members of the group, and then present evidence to support your claim. Further (while not making a critism of either Plantinga or Swinburne), someone making a career out of a debate upon suppositions does not in any way in and of itself have any bearing upon the possible existence of god(s).
Take a look, for example, at Swinburne's The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003). -- Yet again, you make an attempt to invoke a reference to a seperate authority, rather than present an argument of your own. While you've provided a specific reference, there is still an expectation that one will present at least the outline of an argument, rather than expect someone to infer it from an entirely seperate work.
Therefore, one cannot say that religion in general is a "silly thing". -- You attempt to claim your unsound references in some way actually constitute and argument, and form the basis for a conclusion. They do not. Your conclusion in no way follows from them, and in no way actually addresses Grishnakh's statement of personal opinion.
If you held the necessary academic qualifications -- philosophers (formally credentialed or not) refer to this as the Genetic Fallacy, the source of an argument in no way actually affects the validity or soundness of the argument itself.
and were able to frame an argument correctly, -- perhaps this is an unfair aspertion, since you have not demonstrated you yourself would recognize a correctly formed argument if you saw one, not having presented one yourself. (People in glass houses...)
people might care. -- You cared enough to respond to begin with, so it's apparent that other people might care about the topic regardless of your own opinion of a position different than your own.
There are different classes of thought that are sometimes called an opinion that lead to the confusion where some people think they should all be given equal standing.
One kind of opinion is simply a statement or observation, for example, of preference: "My favorite color is blue." versus "My favorite color is green."
This type of opinion is of equal interpretive value, yes.
But, a second common usage of the word opinion is the promotion of a personal theory (about anything).
In this case, the same standards apply as for any theory, and as such these 'opinions' are NOT entitled to the same neutral status of "different but equal" as, like in the above example, the simple expression of one's favorite color.
In the second type of opinion, the realm of theory, some are well founded, based upon fact and analysis, while others are crap, formed, or worse, simply borrowed, with no basis in fact, and no actual thought whatsoever.
The former is an opinion with a sound basis, and strong support. The latter is just so much line-noise.
They may both be opinions, but that's the sole extent of the similarity, and that does not put them on an equal footing.
An unsound opinion, even when held by a majority, is still unsound, and therefore NOT of equal value.
That's simply not the case. Yes. Personnel do degrade. The question as to what is an 'acceptable' level of degradation (decalcification of bone, loss of muscle mass, exposure to radiation, et cetera) is certainly not cut and dried, as you seem to believe. It's simple enough to make such claims when you're simply a participant in an armchair discussion of the issue, but it's an entirely different matter for the folks who'll really be looking at the actuality of it. The reason no one has been on ISS continuously is not that much more information about the problem is not 'useful or important', but that the prolonged effects are significantly, if not severely debilitating.
The costs of lengthy rehabilitation and chronic disability for a score of brave volunteers are minute compared to all the money still poured into STS and ISS operations, which might someday maybe do research on human survival in space. Instead, when the first Mars Expedition happens, we can label it a simultaneous medical experiment on prolonged low-gravity.
When measuring costs, dollar amounts are certainly not the only ones to measure. Realistically, in order for long-distance manned space travel to become viable, methods to reduce (if not eventually hopefully eliminate) those effects will be necessary, at the very least, so that the participants will be able to function during the mission, and to be able to return to receive rehabilitation. (And, however 'labelled', any long-term exposure to weightlessness will of course provide additional data, regardless of whether that is the primary objective.)
There will be abundant volunteers regardless of personal risk- and the data from that trip can be used to plan medical improvements to any later ones.
I strongly suspect your volunteer pool may be significantly reduced if you effectively tell people a trip to Mars is likely to be only one-way. And, while I think even then that yes, you'd have some volunteers, that in no way guarantees they'd necessarily be qualified. Even presuming you have a full compliment of willing and competent volunteers, that still raises the question of what is gained by rushing folks off, if the trip is only one way. Whether you happen to like it or not, that raises all sorts of thorny questions about the nature of long-term objectives, and what they're worth, in terms of money and lives.
What it comes down to is: Do you, or do you not want to see a Mars colony in your lifetime?
Would I like to see that? Certainly. (Given an actual opportunity to be a part of it, I'd strongly consider going, myself.) There's a middle path, however, between the pessimistic and unimaginative position that humanity is doomed to remain on only on only one planet forever, and rushing off willy-nilly just for the sake of doing it.
No, I don't think that by simply waiting and gathering endless reams of data that eventually the risks will simply go away, and no, I do not think that trying to achieve zero risk is realistic. But, on the other side of things I don't think it is unreasonable to try to mitigate the levels of risk, and to bring them down to a reasonable level, either.
If there's an analogy to the 1491 expedition, it would be "Sorry Columbus, we won't fund you a super-boat to go to 'India', we've got the International Boat Station to think of. Those two brave men must be continually supplied with fresh water so we can further study the effects of prolonged sea-sickness, and there's just no money left for a risky 'ocean-crossing' vessel. Let's 'orbit' this place for another 40 years, and recons
Nonsense.
While there is, certainly, a great deal of value from unmanned space flight, and while there should be appropriate consideration as to how the objectives of any given mission can be best achieved, unmanned missions ultimately have their own limitations, as well.
The idea that we should simply stay put, and not actively pursue a manned program with the specific intention of gathering medical information about the effects of a low/zero gravity environment upon the human body, so as to further the longer-term goals of manned long-range exploration, and eventually extraterrestrial colonization at some future date is the modern equivalent of saying "Gee, Ferdinand, we shouldn't be funding those crazy sailing expeditions. We know this Columbus guy's math is whacked out, so nothing can possibly come of it..." or "Man will never fly. And even if we could, we shouldn't bother, because we can walk, ride, or sail anywhere we'd ever want to go, so it would just be a waste of time and resources to try. We'd just be wasting them and never see any return..."
Columbus himself may not have, in the end, brought back a real route to the East Indies, or piles of gold, but that doesn't mean his trips were wasted. The knowledge he brought back of what he did find is what, in turn, led Vespusci and other explorers to take their own more successful journeys based upon his initial expeditions.
Manned exploration is more than simply a method that happens to be (a lot) more expensive than doing some things via unmanned missions. It's really a big part of the overall long-term objective as well.
Okay, since we can't actually use any really useful formatting tags, I'm having to post this as 'code'.
/.'ed them, so I think we should be happy they load at all... :) ]
:D ], but not a bad way to keep price details from being outdated.
;D ] please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe as long as the power provided is within acceptable tolerances, it is better to run slightly hot on a given bus, but be dead spot steady than to run slightly closer to an exact target voltage but have greater overall relative variance.
First, to address the apparently obligatory bitching:
- Yes, there were a ton of ads and cookie crap.
- Yes, the pages loaded incredibly slowly for a while.
[ We
- Yes, there are almost certainly better discussions on building silent boxen.
- Yes, it was a little long.
But, as a general review of four silent power supplies, though, the actual article format really wasn't too bad.
Better more information than less, neh?
And I thought the real-time price checking was an interesting touch. Not necessary, no, and I'm sure it contributed to how slowly pages loaded [ how often do we get to meta-slashdot another site?
When looking at the data (there was actual data buried in at page 12, if you got that far...) what struck me was that the conclusions were flawed.
All four power supplies (much to the apparent disappointment of some folks) did perform well within tolerences, yes. The actual stability analysis, however, I believe is incorrect.
Here's the data provided: (I'd love to be able to use a table tag now... or even a pre tag... sigh.)
IDLE:
manufacturer +12V +5V +3.3V
Thermaltake 11.98 5.11 3.30
Coolmax 12.04 5.03 3.28
Antec 12.06 4.95 3.31
SilverStone 12.04 5.00 3.36
LOAD:
manufacturer +12V +5V +3.3V
Thermaltake 11.94 5.11 3.30
Coolmax 11.92 5.05 3.26
Antec 11.98 4.97 3.33
SilverStone 11.92 5.00 3.34
Now, let's look at the actual variances (which I've drawn from their data, above):
RELATIVE VARIANCE AFTER 30 MIN AT 100% LOAD:
manufacturer +12V +5V +3.3V Absolute Total
Thermaltake -0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04
Coolmax -0.12 +0.02 -0.02 0.16
Antec -0.08 +0.02 +0.02 0.12
SilverStone -0.12 0.00 -0.02 0.14
RANGE OF DEVIATION FROM TARGET VOLTAGES:
manufacturer +12V +5V +3.3V
Thermaltake -0.02/-0.04 +0.11/+0.11 0.00/0.00
Coolmax +0.04/-0.08 +0.03/+0.05 -0.02/-0.04
Antec +0.06/-0.02 -0.05/-0.03 +0.01/+0.03
SilverStone +0.04/-0.08 0.00/0.00 +0.06/+0.04
MAXIMUM DEVIATION FROM TARGET VOLTAGES:
manufacturer +12V +5V +3.3V Absolute Total
Thermaltake -0.04 +0.11 0.00 0.15
Coolmax -0.08 +0.05 -0.04 0.17
Antec +0.06 -0.05 +0.03 0.14
SilverStone -0.08 0.00 +0.06 0.14
It appears from this that the conclusions drawn in the article are based solely upon what I've labeled the Absolute Total Deviation from Target Voltages, and not from an actual assessment of the relative variance in voltage observed during the test.
Someone [presuming you actually know
From the perspective of Absolute Total Relative Variation, it's clear that the Thermaltake (while running slightly hot on the 5V bus) was by far the most stable power supply, varying only by -0.04V on the 12V bus, and remaining rock steady on the 5V and 3.3V buses.
After that, it's a near tie between the Antec and the SilverStone, but it appears that the Antec actually edges out the Silverstone, in terms of overall stability. having a Absolute Total Relative Variation of only 0.12, while the SilverStone has an overal absolute variance of 0.14. (The SilverStone does, however, maintain a zero variance on the 5V bus, which could be argued to be more stable, on a bus by bus comparison, being stable on one bus, versus none for the Antec.)
Finally, the Coolmax is right on the heels of
If you really think so, step up to your rhetoric and go sign up. Perhaps you might end up one of the folks coming back in a body bag.
Let's go over a couple of details you seem to be a little fuzzy about:
Those 25,000 civilians aren't dead for their country they're simply dead, as a result of an invasion that had nothing to do with terrorism. Plainly and simply, the Bush administration fabricated an excuse, and used patently false evidence to convince congress to allow 'Dubya' to be the war-time president he had stated he wanted to be. Iraq had nothing to do with September 11.
Invading a country that had not, and has never attacked the US, for many people quite understandably makes the 'self-defense' argument a bit of a hard sell.
Many senior members of the military and the Intelligence community opposed the invasion of Iraq, because they were aware that Iraq posed no threat, and that it would (as it has) divert the vast majority of our forces away from the real threat, that being Al Qaida. They were also well aware that any invasion of Iraq would meet with the very forms of resitance we now see, and that it would provide a rally-point and a recruiting tool for Anti-American extremism.
Terrorism is a tool used by many extremist groups, not just a very small number of followers of Islam. Examples: Zionists, including current members of the Israeli government, used terrorist tactics against the British because they wanted a Jewish state; terrorist tactics have been used by both IRA and Protestant militias in Northern Ireland; Timothy McVey (not a muslim) was an American who used terrorist tactics against other Americans; various religious factions in India have all used terrorism against one another; Greek and Turkish Cypriats have also used terrorism to promote their causes; as has Eta, the Basque separatist movement; and it was used by the Weather Underground in the US in the '60's.
You can't win a 'war' against terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy in and of itself. It's just rhetorical nonsense to even attempt to claim you can. The Bush and Blair administrations are using such language to hang on to wartime powers they would otherwise not possess, and to attempt to use fear and hate to simultaneously silence criticisms of their own illegal actions on multiple fronts, while continuing to promote their own agendas. (Want wartime powers? Don't have a war? Just make one up.) -- Haven't read 1984? Perhaps you should...
It evidently hasn't occured to you that, like it or not, many of the insurgents in Iraq are trying to protect their country from an illegal foreign invasion. However, Iraq has now also become a focal point for numerous Anti-American extremist groups, and it has become, as was predicted, a battlefield against the US. When many of the combatants are not Iraqi themselves, it's not difficult to see why (whether it's because they're happy the US is there, or simply because they don't much care one way or another) Iraqis who have
Sadly, this is true since Time/Warner purchased them, and it was reputedly one of several things (boardroom power struggles not to be minimized) that eventually drove Ted Turner to leave.
CNN may still be one of the better commercial news sources these days, but it's now just that, a commercial source, so that's not really saying much...
For broadcast news, the BBC, and by extension, the CBC seem to be the only major sources still interested in maintaining any journalistic integrity.
All of that aside, ThinkSecret does have an excellent track record...
They [Macs] aren't any more expensive than PCs (I don't understand who is perpetuating this myth)...
You're correct, in that if comparably equivalent systems are compared, the price difference has always been pretty small, if not actually nonexistent. But, Joe Consumer, if he's not a technically savvy user already familiar with Mac hardware, usually has no clue when it comes to figuring out what he should be comparing. The lowest-end Macs have always had better hardware and specs than the lowest-end PCs, which is the hardware continually used to make the claim when doing such comparisions.
Add to that choices like SCSI (for a long time, much better performance and better expansion capabilities, but also not something the casual consumer understood, other than to see it cost more), and hardware advances like FireWire (yet-another-now-common-technology developed by Apple), again something many folks didn't know about, and very early adoption of USB, and you have a much nicer system, but also a knowledge gap that needed to be overcome.
Of course, it's not just the result of miscomparisons made by the uneducated consumer.
Enter, stage left, the marketing weasels who started advertizing PC screen measurements for the size of the tube instead of the viewable area, and then claimed Mac screens were smaller because Apple didn't misrepresent their useable screen sizes. Add to that the myth that CPU cycles are equivalent for x86 and PPC processors, because the same marketing weasels claim bigger numbers always mean better performance (which is simply not always so across HW platforms -- this is a widespread misconception when comparing any processors of differing architecture, actually, and you still see it when folks try to compare Intel and AMD processors, as well -- CPU cycles simply don't track that way).
Eventually, of course, Apple caved on the monitor dimension front, and started listing tube sizes, too. (At least these days, in a flat-panel market, they're finally the same again...) And, they switched their systems over to use IDE when it actually became somewhat competitive in terms of performance. From the other side, most x86 boards now have USB and FireWire, and that's driven the cost of the technology down to a tiny fraction of the initial pricetag.
What this means is that these days, not only is the consumer at least a bit more savvy about hardware, but that there are more similarities between the hardware platforms, so the base price points are more similar, even in the eyes of folks who still don't really understand what they're comparing.
The past behind us, at the moment there are Minis, G5 towers, and top-notch laptop offerings that are still managing to compete, even with the current doldrums we've been in in terms of new systems. But then, Macs have pretty much always had a significantly longer effective lifespan before obsolescence than hardware on the x86 side of the house, because they haven't had constantly increasing Windows-OS bloat driving new hardware sales. And, to be fair, they haven't had mad numbers of FPS-games (other than, say, Quake, Doom, Half-life, Marathon, Rune, and such) demanding ever higher frame rates from bleeding edge processors and video cards, either.
It's not nonsense at all. You simply still miss the point.
How can you consider yourself free if you can't even walk out the door without worrying about someone taking your life?
How? Because I'm a rational individual who has an active, reasoned, carefully considered view of the world. Because I'm not ruled by childish fears.
Because I understand and acknowledge that the world is an inherently dangerous place, and when I walk out the door I'm not constantly grippped with fear and _don't_ constantly worry about someone taking my life.
Every time I get in my car to drive anywhere, it entails risk. Someone might run into me, and I might not be able to do anything about it, and it might kill me. Every time I get on an airplane, it entails risk. There may be a simple mechanical failure that causes it to crash and kill me. If I go for a walk, or even stay home in bed, there's still a risk that same airplace might just happen to fall out of the sky and kill me. (Notice here that I mention mechanical failure, not terorrists. Mechanical failure is much more likely. And even then, it's still safer than driving my car.) If I try a new food, there's always a small risk I might be deathly allergic to it. If I'm bitten by a misquito, there's a small chance it might carry Blue Nile Virus or Bird Flu, or even Malaria, and that might kill me. If I go to a restaurant, there's a small chance that a food worker has hepatitis. Eventually, something is going to happen to me, and I'm going to die.
And, none of that makes me any less free. I'm just adult enough to acknowledge that that's just the nature of life itself, and that no one can change that, 'the government' no more than anyone else.
As for people agreeing that the government's job to make and enforce laws to protect individual rights, I'd suggest that while that's a noble and laudable sentiment that I wish were true, that it is a bit naive, and a bit of a misunderstanding of how law works in the every day world. Laws don't grant or protect rights. Laws restrict rights. Even the US Constitution, or the French Rights of Man, or the Constitution the EU is still debating, don't grant or protect people's rights. They acknowledge that they are inherent to life. If your premise was true, for example, rather than having all sorts of ballot initiatives in the US attempting to ban gay marriage, or, even worse, idiots who want to amend the Constitution to attempt to deprive people of their rights, US lawmakers would be following the lead of more enlightened countries such as Canada and Spain to pass laws to protect gay rights. Wanting the right to marry someone they love, and have that union legally recognized certainly looks like pursuit of happiness to me.
Lawmakers are sadly, often irrational, and no good laws have ever come as a kneejerk reaction to a significant and tragic event that is then rushed through on a groundswell of passion or fear rather than reason.
If your government is unable to protect your life, your individual right is jeopardized.
That's part of the point all of us have been trying to make, that you haven't yet grasped. The government isn't able to protect your life. And no matter how many liberties you give up, it never will be able to protect it. People (not just terrorists, but anyone) don't need guns, or knives, or explosives to hurt you or to kill you. Someone could stab you to death on a bus with a ball point pen. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to carry pens on buses? Or, with a little training, they could break your neck with their bare hands. Does that mean that in order to use mass transit, we should all be handcuffed? But wait, then they could still strangle you with the cuffs.
Do you understand the point? Everything is about intent and opportunity, and being able to recognize and take advantage of events.
You don't have liberty without security, so what's the point of talking about preserving all your civil liberties when you're not free anyway? In reality compromises must be made to maximise freedom.
That's not insightful. That's just nonsense and doublespeak, and exactly the sort of confusion about "reality" that the current administration wants you to believe. You have it backwards. Such "compromises" as those imposed by PATRIOT, and the powers now desired by the British police really are demands that we give up freedom.
Anyone who tells you that giving up those freedoms will make you any safer is simply lying to you, or is tragically misinformed, or both. As long as terrorists have a will to attack people, and a willingness to die to achieve their objectives, they will sometimes succeed.
The only thing you achieve by giving up freedom is to allow 1) the terrorists to succeed in fundamentally altering the nature of our societies for the worse by giving in to terror, and 2) giving far too much power to a small group of people who now have no accountability to anyone else. Do not forget that it has been demonstrated time and time again that when such powers are granted, they -- are -- invariably -- abused. If you can't come up with examples of your own, try on the Jananese-American Internment during World War II, Senator MacCarthy, Herbert Hoover, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanimo Bay. If you want another, grimer example, look to the Argentinian Disaperado, as the path we're now treading rapidly leads in that direction.
You can't "protect" freedom by giving it up. We have freedoms only as long as we are willing to fight to protect them from the people who try to take them away from us. In this case, these demands are of far greater danger than what they claim to want to protect us against.
"Security" is not -- nor ever has been -- nor ever will be -- some concrete thing you either have or don't have. There is always an element of risk in anything we do, and in all things there is a point where we must simply resort to a certain amount of trust. Freedom does not require a "secured" society, but rather one that understands that freedom requires a certain amount of personal responsibility to be aware of what is going on in the world around us, and an acceptance that there are certain things that are sometimes, whether we like it or not, beyond our own personal control. If we are to be free, we must accept that we are adults, and that we bear that responsibility ourselves. We cannot simply hand over our freedoms to some arbitrary custodial parent or elder sibling to control us 'for our own good', and call that freedom.
To quote Benjamin Franklin, from the Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759:
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."He was right, then, and it is still true now. I would much rather maintain those essential freedoms, accepting that to maintain them does entail a certain but entirely acceptable amount of risk, rather than give them over to a small cadre of individuals who, without oversight, are empowered to remove those rights with impunity, all in the name of some false illusion of "security".
Insightful?
Obviously someone is moderating under the influence of some serious designer drugs while wearing their aluminum foil deflector beanie... [Or perhaps those fumes are really strong...] ;)
Seriously, now. Who actually thinks we need to be worried about the vast political power of PETA?
I think you've sort of addressed your own observation...
Yes indeed, many hardware firewalls (read all that I can think of, too) are embedded linux or bsd systems with a web-based gui. This dedicated 'hardware' reference is of course the conventional sense in which I was referring to a 'hardware' firewall. I was not, in some literal sense, referring to some sort of solid-state 'hard-wired' firewall.
As you yourself observe (emphasis mine):
No one actually uses hardware firewalls because fabricating new chips (thousands or even millions of dollars) each time you want to open a new port is just not practical.
Since in that literal sense that is, of course, true. I'd suggest that you might be one of very few people, if not the only one, who might have construed that I was intending to refer to anything other than a conventional dedicated embedded system (such as a Linksys, D-Link, or some other such).
It's more interesting to go straight to the original article .
Er. Not trying to be a troll here.
Really.
I do have a couple of observations:
- If you're always browsing from behind a hardware firewall that would provide some protection.
- Not using IE certainly helps, but that doesn't eliminate all threats.
- If you don't share disks (amazingly, some folks still use sneakernet), and you're careful about how you manage your e-mail
- And, disabling non-essential services is also a really good practice, so you're right, that will help, too.
That being said, I now have a question:If you aren't then you really should use something like Zone Alarm.
that also goes a long way.
If you have no anti-virus software installed, how can you say with any authority (or confidence, for that matter) that your system isn't completely compromised, and you're simply unaware of it?
The same goes for spyware.
Lots of viruses and spyware don't show symptoms that are immediately obvious.
Perhaps you might be surprised what you find if you do install some.
If your wintel system is completely free of viruses and spyware, then yes, you are one of the luckiest folks on the planet.
You might not want to continue to rely on that, however. For a bit more about the subject you might want to read this .