The points you make are certainly valid, and are in fact one of several (okay, many) things that do need to be addressed. Spilling hot coffee on yourself and winning a lawsuit against McDonalds because you are truly an idiot (the old bag actually settled the lawsuit out of court if I remember correctly) doesn't help our world. It proves that people like this are allowed to breed, and then calls for the Government to step in and create a law of some type that protects idiots, and the companies that idiots do business with.
People pushing the limits of the law just because they can, and especially the pocket law students out there (the guy that went to traffic court a few times and watched enough Law and Order to think he is a good attorney) cause a lot of unnecessary laws to be created. Free speech and search and seizure are very good examples of rights that we have that are constantly under fire because some person out there wants to push the limits and prove that...YEP, I have that right. If only the Founding Fathers would have written a "Common Sense" clause. There was never a law specifying that you could not give an officer of the law the finger. But, trust me, it isn't protected under Free Speech. You'd be surprised to find out how many people argue that case in a courtroom. You wouldn't be so surprised to learn how many lose.
The problem with the Patriot Act and many other laws out there is that it was developed in response to something that should not have occurred in the first place. Before 9/11 and the threat of global terrorism, would anyone in the government been so brazen about the creation of this, or even bother trying to fight to keep it around? Sure, there were spy programs out there (Newsflash: All governments have them and all governments are spying on citizens from their own country and other countries). Had one of those programs come out into the open as this one did, no President or any other elected official would have even dared try to back this program up. In the wake of terrorism, the reaction was to protect the country and the citizens at all costs...even at the costs of personal freedoms. Fortunately, US Citizens like our personal freedoms, and programs like this are challenged. Was the Government wrong for trying to protect the country? No. Did they go about it in the right way? Again, no. There are many alternatives to this than a blanket program of intrusion.
Now, in all fairness, the intrusion we are talking about is not aimed specifically at a single source. It is not going to randomly sneak in on Mr. Smith's conversation about how he likes to sleep with Mr. Pink's wife. The Government really doesn't care about your little life...sorry, you honestly are not that important. It does however pick up on keywords and other trigger events (I'm sure this is not news to anyone), and may then listen in on that communication. So, the intrusion is not going to be targetting the majority of people out there. Does it make it any less threatening? Absolutely not. On the flip side, what do you think the children/spouses of those we lost during 9/11 think about this subject? Do you think that you would be more inclined to push for fewer freedoms in support of keeping citizens alive if you were directly effected by this tragedy?
The real situation is, we want the Patriot Act gone, and the spying of US Citizens gone. What do we do to protect our country and get reliable information when a terrorist group is trying to do bad things. And yes, they are out there planning. What actions can we have our Government take that can keep us safe?
Great, so we have confirmed the first steps to bio-war through mutating germs...or we can hope that people actually use it for good intent. Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
This stuff does honestly scare me. The optimist in me realizes the benefits we can cultivate. The realist in me knows that this could honestly be far worse than a nuclear bomb.
I've been wondering the same thing for a while now. Technically, the distance is traveled, and the time has been spent either way, so it is moving faster than light. Physical movement is what most people think about moving faster than the speed of light though. Now, granted, physical movement is involved in quantum physics, but not in the same manner as someone rolling a ball in a straight line. Of course, a quantum physicist would argue that, yes it could be the same, as it is one of many different variables. Meh, I'd have to say yes, it is the same.
HELMET: So the combination is one, two, three, four, five. That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life. That's the kinda thing an idiot would have on his luggage.
Actually, "Top Secret" just means something that is very important to keep private. So, in this case it was Top Secret. I just isn't Government-type Top Secret. I was thinking the same thing as you though.
I was just looking for porn. I'll give the system back when I am done with it. Bunch of crappy phone numbers. Don't worry, when I give it back there will be something worth keeping safe.
Nerds not having sex...Holy crap! What will happen next?!!
This study is also so bogus; I don't know where to start. Not making myself out to have been a man-whore, but that isn't too far off from my High School years. I graduated with a 4.0 from a good school. I was one of those lucky guys that didn't need to study, took tests well, and memorized almost everything I read. I was Student Body President, and lettered in Football, Track, Basketball and Wrestling.
My extra-curricular activities had no bearing on my intellectual measurements during my teen years. I will say that I tended to date girls who were smart as well, so maybe it was all of those smart conversations we had...maybe not. I am going to go out on a limb and guess the person who wrote this article had their lunch money taken quite a few times.
1 Trillion-Gazlillion people use Linux. Which sucks, since I hate Linux. Vista rules and no other computer OS will come close until MS creates a new one. No PC manufacturer will ever ship a Linux based peice of junk. Go to http://www.vbrad.com/pf.asp?p=articles/art_linux_s ucks.htm for more information.
Correct, and also, it is up to the company's board to decide what they believe will have a financial impact to "maximize" profits. That company may decide (hopefully) that fair business and good PR will win customers. Apple took this stance when they told the recording industry they would not hike the prices of their music downloads. They never stated that they didn't like the idea of more money coming in, but it did rally a lot of customers who bordered the fence to either stay with Apple, or go to Apple. It was a financially driven decision to charge less money in order to make more money, and one that worked.
Also, the poster that stated that there is a legal obligation to maximize profits, this is not entirely true. They are obligated to ensure that they are not misrepresenting their shareholders' needs, but there are limits as to what is expected. Otherwise, WorldCom and Enron would have just been fulfilling their legal obligation to maximize profits (Sarcasm included).
Unless you consider that the Earth is a planet with volcanic activity...True you can find a place that we consider safe from fault lines, but things tend to happen when you go digging and you find the new edge to a tectonic plate in your backyard. On the other hand, I am still one of those few people waiting for California to drop off into the ocean so I get the beachfront. I just won't be fishing (eating a fish that eats a Californian just can't be healthy).
I'm not certain about the population density of those countries, but when I visited them, there are a lot more people in densely populated cites than what the United States has (Just my observation of course). When looking at places like France, there are areas of low population, but not wide open spaces like the US. States like North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Montana, etc have very few people and are larger than most other countries. Those states listed alone make up almost the same area of Western Europe alone, and I doubt they have nearly as many people as the several small European countries. Sure, the US has major cities, like New York, Phoenix, Portland and LA (others too), but overall, there are a few European countries that have nearly the same Population as the United States, and all packed into a country the size of a single State. When they are talking about penetration, they are talking about broadband reaching ALL areas of the country, even the poor frozen guy in Northern Alaska...speaking of which, the study would be very skewed if it included Alaska, a state over twice the size of Texas, and having an extremely low population). Penetration could very well be calculated in the study by size of the country, population, and the number of people with access. This would be a very poor way to determine penetration, but I am betting this is how they did it.
I'm not so sure this survey should even be considered worth reading. Of course other countries like South Korea has more penetration (meaning users have access). The country is roughly the size of Minnesota. We have a total are much larger than other countries. If the report stated that China had better penetration, we would have a statement worth looking at. They are larger, but then again, they have less populated areas (wilderness) than the US does overall. Heavily populated areas with broadband access make it much easier to make this survey skewed.
You could be correct about him being liable "if" he had access to change file permissions. If this is a public folder that he used for storage, and is actually owned by someomne else, he may not have permissions. Although in most cases, if you have the ability to create, you can also assign permissions.
I don't really care for the RIAA and consider them Beady-Eyed little pukes, but I do see flaws in this person's argument that can come out early. I do feel that if anyone is going to take on the RIAA, it will probably be a college student. And the law student that wins against them can probably be guaranteed a nice fat-paying job stealing money from others...ah the irony.:)
I run Vista, Linux and XP at home. I tried Google Desktop search on both my Vista and XP system. It seemed to work just fine on both. I removed it later though, because the product itself was not very useful. I am a little more organized with my software than most (the fact that I use different systems for different reason might tip someone off). Still, I can't imagine someone seriously needing that software. MS developed a version. People can make a choice on which to use. The argument that MS is being anti-competitive is not exactly holding water on this one.
I would like to see a lot of reform in how schools introduce and teach technology. The biggest problem I see currently is the available budget schools get to spend. If the Federal Government is going to require this type of thing, are they going to be willing to create a grant for each and every school to get a computer lab to start off? What about IT staff? Many schools don't even have enough money to keep up with the costs of Xerox paper for their syllabus. Granted, a paperless classroom could be the argument, but you need to get to the point of implementation before you can talk about that.
Currently, I see reform needed providing more money to our schools. Keeping teacher's salaries out of the issue, money spent on technology classrooms, science labs, etc. would be great to see. Don't get me wrong, teachers need to be paid better or have better benefits, but if we continue to (as we do where I am from) increase teacher salaries without increasing the student's benefit from the school itself, we create a widening gap between educated generations. That gap will be working backwards instead of forwards (as it should). I can't wait for my children to explain things to me in very small sentences. At this pace though, I don't see that as happening.
I agree. I also think we should point out the number of people that simply do not understand what they are doing or what is needed to secure a wireless connection. My mom is fairly tech-savvy for an older (I hope like hell she doesn't read this) woman. She understands quite a bit more than the average user. She was new to wireless connections, and decided to give it a try. When she called me to ask if there was anything to do besides plugging the provider's connection to her router, she was surprised when I told her she needed to secure it. She assumed (as someone else had already mentioned in a later post) that security was enabled by default. I walked her through the process without any problems, but it still remains that she did not know that enabling security was required.
I asked her why she didn't figure it was needed and why wouldn't she feel that anyone could connect if the wireless connection. It didn't ask her for a password or some type of authentication, her computer was able to get to the Internet. Wouldn't that mean Joe Anyone could get there through her connection too. Her answer was simple, and yet effective. "Well, when I plugged my computer into my old router, it never asked me for a password either...smartass." And there is the answer. People are used to not having to secure their physical connections. If they do, it is usually much worse a situation for the average user, since their home is probably being burglarized at the same time.
Now, it isn't the same situation for everyone. Some people know fully well that they need to secure their connections, and just don't. Call it lazy or whatever, maybe they just don't care enough or don't think their information is worth stealing. I have even run into one man who opened his connection up so that his neighbors could surf on his dime. He paid for a 12Mb connection and only used the Internet to surf the news. He didn't care that his neighbors were playing World of Warcraft or other online games. As long as his connection to the news was good, so was he.
I suppose the bottom line is that there are reasons for everyone. Increasing some people's knowledge about it can help, others may just not care. Either way, I'll still be able to sit at home and open up my network connections and see unsecured networks. It's on me to decide whether or not to take advantage...and on my neighbors to figure out why they have to rebuild their systems every two weeks (just kidding).
My belief in God (not the Bible) counts as religion. I do not see the falsehood in my views because of religion? I believe in a creator, but discount the ideas that he created us "as is." I believe in evolution. I am a very intelligent person, or so I would like to think. I consider science an essential part of my everyday life. I don't consider God any less. And, in my view of God, science cannot exist without him.
I have spent several years in the military and I have lost some very close friends over religious differences and extreme beliefs. So, I am not about to tell you that I think God is this almighty puppet-master who sticks his fingers in everything and makes everyone feel good. That is just an ignorant view and an egotistical belief that God thinks your view is always correct. I have, however, seen things that defy logic in my time. I have seen miracles and I have seen what I would consider the Hand of God at work. I know that there is a scientific explanation for it somehow. But, I don't think that God just does things with "magic" either. If my belief in the creator means that he created a world within scientific boundaries, I would venture to assume that God's actions are done with a little bit of science behind them. So, while it is true that God may not have manufactured the medicines or trained the doctors, I think it is fair to say that he was the original creator of the ingredients for both. Without him, neither the medicine nor the doctor would exist...then again, neither would the need for the treatment.
To not believe in God as an explaination of how we exist is hard for me to accept. The complication of sticking random atoms together and end up with life in the many forms that it exists is a little too coincidental to me. Life to me is a miracle. Or, as Pablo Picasso explained miracles, "Everything is miraculous. It is a miracle that one does not melt in one's bath." I know Picasso wasn't actally scientist or anything, but there are a few scientists out there that believe in God as well. Albert Einstein said, "To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling... that is the core of the true religious sentiment." He did a few things in science for us...Or, Isaac Newton, "This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." He also made a few scientific discoveries. If you need someone more recent, Steven Hawking said, "As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe." He's kind of smart too. I don't see religion promoting a lack of scientific thought in him...there are plenty of other scientists that do believe in a God. I am going to use this to discount your idea that religions, "they foster lack of thought."
I don't knock people for not believing. I don't even find it stupid. Its a personal choice to believe, as it is a choice to not believe. As long as you aren't going around burning down churches in order to protest religion, I don't really care whether or not you agree.
You are correct in the fact that the previous poster was incorrect (not that I expect many to read Cuban news). I would like to point out something a little more obvious. Castro is a strong ally to Venezuela, an oil-rich country that has similar views of the United States as Castro does. He has reason to make a statement like this, both politically and even possibly financially. Pretty consistent of his normal actions. I don't fault the guy for thinking about his people's food supply, but perhaps he should offer an alternative to what he is saying is a waste of food. Does he feel that we should continue to use the world's oil supply as we currently are? Again, he is an ally with Venezuela.
I don't know. Just something to think about.
Yep, that's pretty much what I do with my current system. I have a smaller WD Raptor drive for my OS and important applications, while my RAID drive handles storage and most other applications. Works well. Keeps my system fast and and makes securing it a lot easier when I know exactly what files belong on C:
To the guy who said to buy flares or chaffs, shoulder fired missiles are usually not deterred by those. Most are guided.
As for the person who thinks that installing them will stop us from shooting down the terrorists who take over planes...wow. If all the extra security stuff we put in place on flights were to fail (new flight crew doors, air marshals, security screening, really angry passengers not willing to go without a fight), we would not rely on ground fired missiles to take down the passenger airliner. We have things called fighter jets that shoot those down. God willing, that would never have to happen.
As for these being installed on airliners, yeah, it is a waste of money. Would the public cry that we did not do enough to protect airlines against this type of threat if it did occur? Yeah. Welcome to the rock, over there is the hard place.
I agree. This study is a farce. I really want someone to explain how removing the opportunity for a U.S. citizen to obtain a job can possibly be seen as not costing Americans a job. Granted, these positions are not always the most sought-after but, if someone needs to feed and house a family, they would not turn down the position. Instead the money is going overseas at a lower cost to companies. A profit margin and, by proxy, better stock presentation are what this is about. I can't think of a single person that honestly read this and was truly convinced. I would ask the SIIA to please think hard before accepting whoever's money and publishing trash like this.
Slashdot Mirror
The points you make are certainly valid, and are in fact one of several (okay, many) things that do need to be addressed. Spilling hot coffee on yourself and winning a lawsuit against McDonalds because you are truly an idiot (the old bag actually settled the lawsuit out of court if I remember correctly) doesn't help our world. It proves that people like this are allowed to breed, and then calls for the Government to step in and create a law of some type that protects idiots, and the companies that idiots do business with.
People pushing the limits of the law just because they can, and especially the pocket law students out there (the guy that went to traffic court a few times and watched enough Law and Order to think he is a good attorney) cause a lot of unnecessary laws to be created. Free speech and search and seizure are very good examples of rights that we have that are constantly under fire because some person out there wants to push the limits and prove that...YEP, I have that right. If only the Founding Fathers would have written a "Common Sense" clause. There was never a law specifying that you could not give an officer of the law the finger. But, trust me, it isn't protected under Free Speech. You'd be surprised to find out how many people argue that case in a courtroom. You wouldn't be so surprised to learn how many lose.
The problem with the Patriot Act and many other laws out there is that it was developed in response to something that should not have occurred in the first place. Before 9/11 and the threat of global terrorism, would anyone in the government been so brazen about the creation of this, or even bother trying to fight to keep it around? Sure, there were spy programs out there (Newsflash: All governments have them and all governments are spying on citizens from their own country and other countries). Had one of those programs come out into the open as this one did, no President or any other elected official would have even dared try to back this program up. In the wake of terrorism, the reaction was to protect the country and the citizens at all costs...even at the costs of personal freedoms. Fortunately, US Citizens like our personal freedoms, and programs like this are challenged. Was the Government wrong for trying to protect the country? No. Did they go about it in the right way? Again, no. There are many alternatives to this than a blanket program of intrusion.
Now, in all fairness, the intrusion we are talking about is not aimed specifically at a single source. It is not going to randomly sneak in on Mr. Smith's conversation about how he likes to sleep with Mr. Pink's wife. The Government really doesn't care about your little life...sorry, you honestly are not that important. It does however pick up on keywords and other trigger events (I'm sure this is not news to anyone), and may then listen in on that communication. So, the intrusion is not going to be targetting the majority of people out there. Does it make it any less threatening? Absolutely not. On the flip side, what do you think the children/spouses of those we lost during 9/11 think about this subject? Do you think that you would be more inclined to push for fewer freedoms in support of keeping citizens alive if you were directly effected by this tragedy?
The real situation is, we want the Patriot Act gone, and the spying of US Citizens gone. What do we do to protect our country and get reliable information when a terrorist group is trying to do bad things. And yes, they are out there planning. What actions can we have our Government take that can keep us safe?
Holy Crap that is a lot of big numbers. I'm still trying to count to 21, but have run out of fingers and toes....OH WAIT...Made it!
Nope, I am just listening in. I have the stream going to my system now. -George W. Bush
Great, so we have confirmed the first steps to bio-war through mutating germs...or we can hope that people actually use it for good intent. Of course, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
This stuff does honestly scare me. The optimist in me realizes the benefits we can cultivate. The realist in me knows that this could honestly be far worse than a nuclear bomb.
Bush = Anal Probe...
I've been wondering the same thing for a while now. Technically, the distance is traveled, and the time has been spent either way, so it is moving faster than light. Physical movement is what most people think about moving faster than the speed of light though. Now, granted, physical movement is involved in quantum physics, but not in the same manner as someone rolling a ball in a straight line. Of course, a quantum physicist would argue that, yes it could be the same, as it is one of many different variables. Meh, I'd have to say yes, it is the same.
It was the secret to Druidia's air supply!!!
ROLAND: The combination is one.
HELMET: One.
SANDURZ: One.
ROLAND: Two.
HELMET: Two.
SANDURZ: Two.
ROLAND: Three.
HELMET: Three.
SANDURZ: Three
ROLAND: Four.
HELMET: Four.
SANDURZ: Four.
ROLAND: Five.
HELMET: Five.
SANDURZ: Five.
HELMET: So the combination is one, two, three, four, five. That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life. That's the kinda thing an idiot would have on his luggage.
Actually, "Top Secret" just means something that is very important to keep private. So, in this case it was Top Secret. I just isn't Government-type Top Secret. I was thinking the same thing as you though.
n e:Top+Secret&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
Here is my handy-dandy link to a definition of Top Secret:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=defi
As you can see, it also means they could have stolen a valuable movie staring Val Kilmer...
I was just looking for porn. I'll give the system back when I am done with it. Bunch of crappy phone numbers. Don't worry, when I give it back there will be something worth keeping safe.
Nerds not having sex...Holy crap! What will happen next?!!
This study is also so bogus; I don't know where to start. Not making myself out to have been a man-whore, but that isn't too far off from my High School years. I graduated with a 4.0 from a good school. I was one of those lucky guys that didn't need to study, took tests well, and memorized almost everything I read. I was Student Body President, and lettered in Football, Track, Basketball and Wrestling.
My extra-curricular activities had no bearing on my intellectual measurements during my teen years. I will say that I tended to date girls who were smart as well, so maybe it was all of those smart conversations we had...maybe not. I am going to go out on a limb and guess the person who wrote this article had their lunch money taken quite a few times.
Oh Yeah, well....
s ucks.htm for more information.
1 Trillion-Gazlillion people use Linux.
Which sucks, since I hate Linux.
Vista rules and no other computer OS will come close until MS creates a new one.
No PC manufacturer will ever ship a Linux based peice of junk.
Go to http://www.vbrad.com/pf.asp?p=articles/art_linux_
There, I think I covered all of your points.
Correct, and also, it is up to the company's board to decide what they believe will have a financial impact to "maximize" profits. That company may decide (hopefully) that fair business and good PR will win customers. Apple took this stance when they told the recording industry they would not hike the prices of their music downloads. They never stated that they didn't like the idea of more money coming in, but it did rally a lot of customers who bordered the fence to either stay with Apple, or go to Apple. It was a financially driven decision to charge less money in order to make more money, and one that worked.
Also, the poster that stated that there is a legal obligation to maximize profits, this is not entirely true. They are obligated to ensure that they are not misrepresenting their shareholders' needs, but there are limits as to what is expected. Otherwise, WorldCom and Enron would have just been fulfilling their legal obligation to maximize profits (Sarcasm included).
And a great way to dispose of those unwanted bodies...err...umm...let me show you this new machine!
Unless you consider that the Earth is a planet with volcanic activity...True you can find a place that we consider safe from fault lines, but things tend to happen when you go digging and you find the new edge to a tectonic plate in your backyard. On the other hand, I am still one of those few people waiting for California to drop off into the ocean so I get the beachfront. I just won't be fishing (eating a fish that eats a Californian just can't be healthy).
I'm not certain about the population density of those countries, but when I visited them, there are a lot more people in densely populated cites than what the United States has (Just my observation of course). When looking at places like France, there are areas of low population, but not wide open spaces like the US. States like North Dakota, South Dakota, Idaho, Montana, etc have very few people and are larger than most other countries. Those states listed alone make up almost the same area of Western Europe alone, and I doubt they have nearly as many people as the several small European countries. Sure, the US has major cities, like New York, Phoenix, Portland and LA (others too), but overall, there are a few European countries that have nearly the same Population as the United States, and all packed into a country the size of a single State. When they are talking about penetration, they are talking about broadband reaching ALL areas of the country, even the poor frozen guy in Northern Alaska...speaking of which, the study would be very skewed if it included Alaska, a state over twice the size of Texas, and having an extremely low population). Penetration could very well be calculated in the study by size of the country, population, and the number of people with access. This would be a very poor way to determine penetration, but I am betting this is how they did it.
I'm not so sure this survey should even be considered worth reading. Of course other countries like South Korea has more penetration (meaning users have access). The country is roughly the size of Minnesota. We have a total are much larger than other countries. If the report stated that China had better penetration, we would have a statement worth looking at. They are larger, but then again, they have less populated areas (wilderness) than the US does overall. Heavily populated areas with broadband access make it much easier to make this survey skewed.
You could be correct about him being liable "if" he had access to change file permissions. If this is a public folder that he used for storage, and is actually owned by someomne else, he may not have permissions. Although in most cases, if you have the ability to create, you can also assign permissions.
:)
I don't really care for the RIAA and consider them Beady-Eyed little pukes, but I do see flaws in this person's argument that can come out early. I do feel that if anyone is going to take on the RIAA, it will probably be a college student. And the law student that wins against them can probably be guaranteed a nice fat-paying job stealing money from others...ah the irony.
I run Vista, Linux and XP at home. I tried Google Desktop search on both my Vista and XP system. It seemed to work just fine on both. I removed it later though, because the product itself was not very useful. I am a little more organized with my software than most (the fact that I use different systems for different reason might tip someone off). Still, I can't imagine someone seriously needing that software. MS developed a version. People can make a choice on which to use. The argument that MS is being anti-competitive is not exactly holding water on this one.
I would like to see a lot of reform in how schools introduce and teach technology. The biggest problem I see currently is the available budget schools get to spend. If the Federal Government is going to require this type of thing, are they going to be willing to create a grant for each and every school to get a computer lab to start off? What about IT staff? Many schools don't even have enough money to keep up with the costs of Xerox paper for their syllabus. Granted, a paperless classroom could be the argument, but you need to get to the point of implementation before you can talk about that.
Currently, I see reform needed providing more money to our schools. Keeping teacher's salaries out of the issue, money spent on technology classrooms, science labs, etc. would be great to see. Don't get me wrong, teachers need to be paid better or have better benefits, but if we continue to (as we do where I am from) increase teacher salaries without increasing the student's benefit from the school itself, we create a widening gap between educated generations. That gap will be working backwards instead of forwards (as it should). I can't wait for my children to explain things to me in very small sentences. At this pace though, I don't see that as happening.
I agree. I also think we should point out the number of people that simply do not understand what they are doing or what is needed to secure a wireless connection. My mom is fairly tech-savvy for an older (I hope like hell she doesn't read this) woman. She understands quite a bit more than the average user. She was new to wireless connections, and decided to give it a try. When she called me to ask if there was anything to do besides plugging the provider's connection to her router, she was surprised when I told her she needed to secure it. She assumed (as someone else had already mentioned in a later post) that security was enabled by default. I walked her through the process without any problems, but it still remains that she did not know that enabling security was required. I asked her why she didn't figure it was needed and why wouldn't she feel that anyone could connect if the wireless connection. It didn't ask her for a password or some type of authentication, her computer was able to get to the Internet. Wouldn't that mean Joe Anyone could get there through her connection too. Her answer was simple, and yet effective. "Well, when I plugged my computer into my old router, it never asked me for a password either...smartass." And there is the answer. People are used to not having to secure their physical connections. If they do, it is usually much worse a situation for the average user, since their home is probably being burglarized at the same time. Now, it isn't the same situation for everyone. Some people know fully well that they need to secure their connections, and just don't. Call it lazy or whatever, maybe they just don't care enough or don't think their information is worth stealing. I have even run into one man who opened his connection up so that his neighbors could surf on his dime. He paid for a 12Mb connection and only used the Internet to surf the news. He didn't care that his neighbors were playing World of Warcraft or other online games. As long as his connection to the news was good, so was he. I suppose the bottom line is that there are reasons for everyone. Increasing some people's knowledge about it can help, others may just not care. Either way, I'll still be able to sit at home and open up my network connections and see unsecured networks. It's on me to decide whether or not to take advantage...and on my neighbors to figure out why they have to rebuild their systems every two weeks (just kidding).
My belief in God (not the Bible) counts as religion. I do not see the falsehood in my views because of religion? I believe in a creator, but discount the ideas that he created us "as is." I believe in evolution. I am a very intelligent person, or so I would like to think. I consider science an essential part of my everyday life. I don't consider God any less. And, in my view of God, science cannot exist without him.
I have spent several years in the military and I have lost some very close friends over religious differences and extreme beliefs. So, I am not about to tell you that I think God is this almighty puppet-master who sticks his fingers in everything and makes everyone feel good. That is just an ignorant view and an egotistical belief that God thinks your view is always correct. I have, however, seen things that defy logic in my time. I have seen miracles and I have seen what I would consider the Hand of God at work. I know that there is a scientific explanation for it somehow. But, I don't think that God just does things with "magic" either. If my belief in the creator means that he created a world within scientific boundaries, I would venture to assume that God's actions are done with a little bit of science behind them. So, while it is true that God may not have manufactured the medicines or trained the doctors, I think it is fair to say that he was the original creator of the ingredients for both. Without him, neither the medicine nor the doctor would exist...then again, neither would the need for the treatment.
To not believe in God as an explaination of how we exist is hard for me to accept. The complication of sticking random atoms together and end up with life in the many forms that it exists is a little too coincidental to me. Life to me is a miracle. Or, as Pablo Picasso explained miracles, "Everything is miraculous. It is a miracle that one does not melt in one's bath." I know Picasso wasn't actally scientist or anything, but there are a few scientists out there that believe in God as well. Albert Einstein said, "To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling... that is the core of the true religious sentiment." He did a few things in science for us...Or, Isaac Newton, "This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." He also made a few scientific discoveries. If you need someone more recent, Steven Hawking said, "As we shall see, the concept of time has no meaning before the beginning of the universe. This was first pointed out by St. Augustine. When asked: What did God do before he created the universe? Augustine didn't reply: He was preparing Hell for people who asked such questions. Instead, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and that time did not exist before the beginning of the universe." He's kind of smart too. I don't see religion promoting a lack of scientific thought in him...there are plenty of other scientists that do believe in a God. I am going to use this to discount your idea that religions, "they foster lack of thought."
I don't knock people for not believing. I don't even find it stupid. Its a personal choice to believe, as it is a choice to not believe. As long as you aren't going around burning down churches in order to protest religion, I don't really care whether or not you agree.
You are correct in the fact that the previous poster was incorrect (not that I expect many to read Cuban news). I would like to point out something a little more obvious. Castro is a strong ally to Venezuela, an oil-rich country that has similar views of the United States as Castro does. He has reason to make a statement like this, both politically and even possibly financially. Pretty consistent of his normal actions. I don't fault the guy for thinking about his people's food supply, but perhaps he should offer an alternative to what he is saying is a waste of food. Does he feel that we should continue to use the world's oil supply as we currently are? Again, he is an ally with Venezuela. I don't know. Just something to think about.
Yep, that's pretty much what I do with my current system. I have a smaller WD Raptor drive for my OS and important applications, while my RAID drive handles storage and most other applications. Works well. Keeps my system fast and and makes securing it a lot easier when I know exactly what files belong on C:
To the guy who said to buy flares or chaffs, shoulder fired missiles are usually not deterred by those. Most are guided. As for the person who thinks that installing them will stop us from shooting down the terrorists who take over planes...wow. If all the extra security stuff we put in place on flights were to fail (new flight crew doors, air marshals, security screening, really angry passengers not willing to go without a fight), we would not rely on ground fired missiles to take down the passenger airliner. We have things called fighter jets that shoot those down. God willing, that would never have to happen. As for these being installed on airliners, yeah, it is a waste of money. Would the public cry that we did not do enough to protect airlines against this type of threat if it did occur? Yeah. Welcome to the rock, over there is the hard place.
I agree. This study is a farce. I really want someone to explain how removing the opportunity for a U.S. citizen to obtain a job can possibly be seen as not costing Americans a job. Granted, these positions are not always the most sought-after but, if someone needs to feed and house a family, they would not turn down the position. Instead the money is going overseas at a lower cost to companies. A profit margin and, by proxy, better stock presentation are what this is about. I can't think of a single person that honestly read this and was truly convinced. I would ask the SIIA to please think hard before accepting whoever's money and publishing trash like this.