Or mail a document to someone at another company... I mean, I agree, it would be great to wipe out Windows and Office universally... but until that happens, we really are more or less stuck with the need to have interoperable macros in a business environment.
So your proof of God's non existence hinges on a false premise that you set up for the purpose of disproving the existence of God, and upon a play on the semantics of the word 'universe'?
Okay. God is outside the Universe, having created it. The definition of Universe is "all that exists". Therefore, God does not exist. Mm. I'm fairly sure that a logical fallacy does not constitute evidence, even amongst philosophers. Look at it this way: for your evidence to be valid, God must have created the universe; it is part of the base assumption in your statement.
God does not exist. There is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
Done.
Right then. This has been an interesting discussion, if a discussion can be defined as "one person stating their one-sided beliefs without considering the possibility that they may be in error". You make a statement of fact out of something that can be at/best/ a theory, and the only thing that this 'proves' is that like so many religious zealots, you have no interest in logical discourse when that discourse challenges your belief system.
My turn, since I successfully met your own challenge if your response is any indication: find me compelling evidence to support your theory that there are no gods/is no God. Suggestion: natural disasters can't be used as they could be argued in either direction.
...your chosen religion of atheism... I feel the need to correct this any time I see it. Atheism is not a religion. Neither are monotheism or polytheism. They are beliefs about how many gods are out there. Multiple religions exist that hold each of those beliefs. I do agree with you, but I used it deliberately for the negative connotations, in particular the most commonly derided aspect of religious faith: continued fervent belief in the absence of any proof. I suspect you can see how that fits.
That's the nature of science. Nothing can be 100% proven -- you can only have a 'best theory' or even an accepted 'law'; but it's valid only insofar as there's not yet sufficient evidence to the contrary.
Yeah, disproven. There is no God....If someone repiles with an argument I haven't adressed yet, I'll destroy it then...
I realize that your chosen religion of atheism gives you great comfort (or at least anger, from the tone of your post); and I can't say that I'm anything more than agnostic myself. But to answer you challenge: under the scientific method, all models that state that God can't exist must be falsifiable in order to be valid. Similarly, you can state that "in all probability God does not exist", but you cannot - if you are of scientific and rational mind - state unequivocally that "...Yeah, disproven. There is no God."
It doesn't matter which way the popular vote goes, the electoral college elects the president... if you really wanted to screw with the election in this country, it would be WAY cheaper just to buy some electoral votes than to try to manipulate tons of ballots which won't have any effect on the actual election outcome. You mean the electoral vote which is decided by each state's popular vote?
Isn't that a more logical (and much safer) solution to the problem? On the surface, yes. But that means it's perfectly plausible to get different travel distances off of each swap, because you're swapping for batteries at different stages in their overall lifespans. OTOH, keeping the same battery for its lifetime would net you a slow, predictable decline in range -- something I suspect most people would prefer, as opposed to a guessing game as to how many miles they will travel after each swap.
Slashdot users are (often) some of the most well-informed and affected members of the community with regards to technology issues
Thanks for the chuckle. You'll want to set your filter to below "+4" sometime; the vast majority of slashdotters are just as uninformed as the rest of the public -- except worse, because we don't/know/ we're just as uninformed.
...sometimes you Windows admins, on the whole, are such unimaginative, uninquisitive weenies. Put it outside of point-and-click and all of a sudden it's not worth investigating or trying to do.:P
On the other hand, having to push a multi-meg file (think enterprise, with thousands of internal authenticated servers at the extreme end) down to many tens of thousands of workstations, and then repeat that process every time a new server is brought online or taken offline, somehow seems efficient to you?
There's a difference between a hack/workaround, and a good solution. What you describe is a hack. A good solution would be to allow a simple preference to permit all internal resources to be allowed; and allow wildcards for others./then/ it becomes practical to maintain.
Personally, I'm not any kind of admin except for my home LAN (linux and windws, and yes I use firefox;)) . But I do know the difference between a hack and a viable solution.
Because this is a reasonable and simple solution that somehow integrates well with the environment, and is easily mantainable with little ongoing effort? What if the user changes it -- now we have to script to detect tampering and restore values. Not to mention that it still doesn't strike you as odd to have to store and maintain redundant records -- hundreds or thousands of server names - on thousands of workstations?
Incompetent "enterprise" hackers who think that they are administrators, and who believe that cobbling together any solution that works are a large part of what gives/competent/ administrators so much headache. And why they get paid so much.
That's great information; but at the same time it's actually a really good example of lack of support contributing to so many corporations/not/ willing to use FF.
After all, it's not really practical for organizations that rely on NTLM for multiple servers to manually configure several hundred or thousand firefox installations to accept those specific servers -- never mind if the list of servers changes. Too, it's even more unlikely that they'll be able to trust the users to properly maintain and configure those settings themselves.
I'm all in favor of not going for 'overkill' -- I recall one poster here ran every single application its own VM, or something equally silly. But GP's precautions are just basic common sense for running a wireless network, given how easy they are to penetrate.
I have never, EVER, met a person who 'plays' this game, I am probably the only one in my circle who has even heard of it, and I only hear about it here on slashdot. That is to say, you have never, EVER, met a person who admits to playing this game.
Slashdot Mirror
Or mail a document to someone at another company... I mean, I agree, it would be great to wipe out Windows and Office universally... but until that happens, we really are more or less stuck with the need to have interoperable macros in a business environment.
...which is great until they want to share a document w/ macros with someone on Windows...
Now there's a graceful exit...
So your proof of God's non existence hinges on a false premise that you set up for the purpose of disproving the existence of God, and upon a play on the semantics of the word 'universe'?
Heh, cool; thanks for posting. (I'm hoping that my attempt at humor was duly noted in the course of making your reply... ;)
Done.
Right then. This has been an interesting discussion, if a discussion can be defined as "one person stating their one-sided beliefs without considering the possibility that they may be in error". You make a statement of fact out of something that can be at /best/ a theory, and the only thing that this 'proves' is that like so many religious zealots, you have no interest in logical discourse when that discourse challenges your belief system.
My turn, since I successfully met your own challenge if your response is any indication: find me compelling evidence to support your theory that there are no gods/is no God. Suggestion: natural disasters can't be used as they could be argued in either direction.
...your chosen religion of atheism... I feel the need to correct this any time I see it. Atheism is not a religion. Neither are monotheism or polytheism. They are beliefs about how many gods are out there. Multiple religions exist that hold each of those beliefs. I do agree with you, but I used it deliberately for the negative connotations, in particular the most commonly derided aspect of religious faith: continued fervent belief in the absence of any proof. I suspect you can see how that fits.Oh, wait...
That's the nature of science. Nothing can be 100% proven -- you can only have a 'best theory' or even an accepted 'law'; but it's valid only insofar as there's not yet sufficient evidence to the contrary.
I realize that your chosen religion of atheism gives you great comfort (or at least anger, from the tone of your post); and I can't say that I'm anything more than agnostic myself. But to answer you challenge: under the scientific method, all models that state that God can't exist must be falsifiable in order to be valid. Similarly, you can state that "in all probability God does not exist", but you cannot - if you are of scientific and rational mind - state unequivocally that "...Yeah, disproven. There is no God."
Maybe they've been laughing at yours but not at... oh, skip it.
Thanks for the chuckle. You'll want to set your filter to below "+4" sometime; the vast majority of slashdotters are just as uninformed as the rest of the public -- except worse, because we don't /know/ we're just as uninformed.
The simulation tests behaviors from how a crowd flees from a burning car
Hmmm... my guess is AWAY from the burning car.
Not even close! The crowd will stand and gawp at the burning car.
Seriously, can't we assume just a *little* bit of intelligence on behalf of the driver? Oh, wait, we're talking about humans aren't we.
Fixed that for ya.
...sometimes you Windows admins, on the whole, are such unimaginative, uninquisitive weenies. Put it outside of point-and-click and all of a sudden it's not worth investigating or trying to do.On the other hand, having to push a multi-meg file (think enterprise, with thousands of internal authenticated servers at the extreme end) down to many tens of thousands of workstations, and then repeat that process every time a new server is brought online or taken offline, somehow seems efficient to you?
There's a difference between a hack/workaround, and a good solution. What you describe is a hack. A good solution would be to allow a simple preference to permit all internal resources to be allowed; and allow wildcards for others. /then/ it becomes practical to maintain.
Personally, I'm not any kind of admin except for my home LAN (linux and windws, and yes I use firefox ;)) . But I do know the difference between a hack and a viable solution.
Because this is a reasonable and simple solution that somehow integrates well with the environment, and is easily mantainable with little ongoing effort? What if the user changes it -- now we have to script to detect tampering and restore values. Not to mention that it still doesn't strike you as odd to have to store and maintain redundant records -- hundreds or thousands of server names - on thousands of workstations?
Incompetent "enterprise" hackers who think that they are administrators, and who believe that cobbling together any solution that works are a large part of what gives /competent/ administrators so much headache. And why they get paid so much.
That's great information; but at the same time it's actually a really good example of lack of support contributing to so many corporations /not/ willing to use FF.
After all, it's not really practical for organizations that rely on NTLM for multiple servers to manually configure several hundred or thousand firefox installations to accept those specific servers -- never mind if the list of servers changes. Too, it's even more unlikely that they'll be able to trust the users to properly maintain and configure those settings themselves.
I'm all in favor of not going for 'overkill' -- I recall one poster here ran every single application its own VM, or something equally silly. But GP's precautions are just basic common sense for running a wireless network, given how easy they are to penetrate.