The best arguments for against darwin don't primarily argue against science, but against scientists. While upholding scientific principals, they basically say that somewhere along the line scientists started testing whether their results were valid based on darwinism instead of considering whether darwinism was valid in light of those experiments. They basically pick out every counter-example to everything scientists use to support Darwin, look at how the counter-examples were explained away, and explain them away in the opposite direction. And when you look at those arguments in their entirety, their alternate is prety feasable, decently supported (especially relative to the small number of people who came up with it), and compatible with itself.
That said, I personally think most of it is junk. We're never going to have empirical proof, and the only way this could ever be resolved would be to find a way to get a bunch of unbiased observers and start the process over putting both explainations up for debate at the same time, which isn't going to happen. Otherwise, nobody's going to be able to reconstruct what was based on what, and it'll probably be a bunch of bickering until the world ends. And I don't see what the point of that is either when there are explanations that reconcile religion and science. If scientists didn't go out of their way to exclude creationists and acknowledged that everyone has some ammount of bias, analyzing things experiment by experiment, they could both wax and wane as evidence was discovered, not as courts were involved. Religion and science would both survive either way.
And now students who take the innitiative to learn about science, religion, or current events are much more likely to learn about it than if there were three sentences in a textbook that everybody ignored.
No, because it's not REASONABLE to expect that a hospital be as secure as fort knox. It's not REASONABLE to expect the hospital to be impervious to internet attacks. But if they were negligent, with unpatched computers lacking firewalls and virus scans, then they are responsible for that, because it is REASONABLE that if they can afford the network they can afford minimal maintenance of the network.
If they knew there were terrorists running rampant in the city, it would be REASONABLE to expect that they have security. Or would you rather go an an airplane that gets hijacked because the nobody working at the airport bothered to do anything to prevent a bunch of men with assault rifles and bombs from walking past where a fence should have been and climbing in when the airline loaded your in-flight meal.
The severity of the flaw is not related to the ease of exploiting it repeatedly. If it takes 3 seconds to crash a computer, then it's almost as easy to crash 100 computers, even if it does take 5 minutes. If they all have the same flaw and it's very hard to exploit, all it takes is one exploit to bring down the network. On the other hand there could be a very severe flaw that allows an attacker to destroy the computer, but it only works on one in ten computers. It's harder to fix, but the whole network didn't go down.
Because they have to get medical files somehow. If they don't have those on hand, which would be very likely, the internet is probably one of the easiest ways to get them. And of course once they have a gateway to access people's medical records via the internet, their whole network is online.
Still a bad analogy...
The malware companies are the financers.
The student is the attacker.
The hospital is a sensitive area.
The patients are the victims.
It's actually more like a bombing than a gun massacre, but anyway...
The companies is responsible for backing these things.
The student is responsible for enacting them.
The hospital is responsible for at least trying to defend itself.
The patients are the ones who get hurt by them.
It's mainly the malware companies and students. If the hospital was vulnerable because of their negligence, they are also partially at fault, but if they made a reasonable effort to secure their network, then it's all the companies and perpetrators.
One foot to move back and fourth and step where the icon is, the other for the three buttons, and the hands free to type on the keys...
I mean, one foot to move back and fourth and step where the pedal is, the other for the three pedals, and the hands free to play on the manuals.
I, for one, welcome our new Organist overlords.
Infected rats tend to be more active and less afraid of novelty, both of which behaviours are likely to place the rat at increased risk of predation by cats. The changes go further than that, however. Rats are inherently, and understandably, afraid of the odour of cats. Even lab rats which have not been exposed to cats for generations will avoid areas marked with cat urine. Toxoplasma infected rats do not, however, share this aversion; in fact, rats tested in pens marked with different types of scent (rat urine, cat urine, rabbit urine and water) actually seemed to be suicidally attracted to the cat-scented areas . The infected rats appeared to be completely healthy in all other ways.
Sounds very dangerous... I mean, humans who aren't afraid of exercise, novelty OR cats... Being energetic is bad, accepting change and creativity is worse, and CATS... That must be horrible having no inherent fear of cats.
I'm inclined to say no, because it makes too much sense and it seems like someone should have thought of it before. But seriously, that sounds like it would require more knowledge of chemistry than I have. It makes sense for nuclear reactions at least, since they're all about converting mass to energy.
Accellerating at 1 g, you hit light speed early on the 355th day.
In these 354.06 days, you will have gone 9.18*10^15 meters.
Accounting for relativity, it will seem faster.
If you actually use gravity, you can theoretically accelerate at infinite g's without being squashed to the back. Unfortunate, I doubt you can find many people who aspire to become hawking radiation, so there might be a few problems with this.
Ask someone from a small village in africa whether people being drunk downtown on friday nights is obvious.
Most people are from small african vilages in terms of computer usage: it works, or it doesen't, and tech support can help, or possibly not.
Whether it's obvious to everyone with three years of experience in the subject is irrelevant, because most people don't know there is a subject. And when you tell them it's a subject, it's a lot easier to have a good study and personal experience than to just have personal experience and have them spend those three years blindly arguing with you.
No, being noticed being good at what you want to do is what guarantees success. What you do isn't as simple as whether you can play guitar. Those artists are good at performing music, because musicianship is the ability to use timbre, volume, pitch, and rhythm to communicate with an audience. If their music is horrible in every aspect except that it conveys the intended meaning well, they are better at making music then someone who can play something technically perfect but without feeling. Every example of someone you feel was successful despite their musical abilities was actually a very good musician because their songs were significantly more than just lines and dots on a page.
They still needed some amount of technical knowledge to do that, and it did take a certain amount of luck, but in the end, they could not have made it if they were not good musicians.
And this applies to whatever people do, excluding gambling and inheriting. Maybe they aren't good at what they say they're good at, but they have to be good at something to be successful.
Except that microsoft then takes standards and either produces a sloppy implementation that they claim is IP or adds their own non-standard stuff, and their monopoly makes these into the defacto standard, which is not well documented and hard for anyone else to extend/adapt. So really it's a choice of whether you want to pay microsoft for an undocumented, sloppy implementation of a defacto standard that wasnat designed by a standards body.
go up and look there... this is discussed there; one of the implied constraints is that the path be linear, and while this may be intended to avoid bouncing. it also rules out your solutian. Except in for a circle of infinite radius.
That doesen't mean you have to have anything to do with the emos on Livejournal, and the friends page is amazingly useful. If I have to put up with the chance that I'll accidentally find an emo once a year in exchange for being able to see in a single glance what's new in friend's blogs, I think that's worth it. And no, an RSS agregator is not a sufficient alternative to the friends page.
It is worded as 'possess' not 'own'. The thief posesses the cd, despite the fact that you own the cd. And even if that wasn't thier intent, it's legalese, and therefore interpereted by the courts as meaning EXACTLY what it says. It might be nonsense, but only because the eula is nonsense, not because it was incorrectly interpereted.
So either I can't take my cds with me when I move to china (country where you reside referring to the country where you resided at the time you accepted the EULA), or I can take them as long as I begin to reside in china (country where you reside at any given time you own the CD's) and then sell them in china before moving back to the us, having not violated the eula because the CD's stayed exactly where they were before I returned.
No, it's not a problem with lasik. RTFA. And ROPFC(other people's comments). It's not a laser problem, it's a fiber optic problem, and LASIK doesen't use fiber optics. Other people commented that too. Take time to read people.
It ends at around the time the citizens are forced to finally tap that fourth and final box essential to upholding liberty... The ammo box.
Inmates are not permitted to possess boxes of ammo. Any person or persons attempting to provide prisoners with either boxes or amunition shall henceforth be arrested and tried for treason. Attempting to provide prisoners with the aforementioned materials shall be defined as follows: the transport of boxes or amunition into a building in which prisoners are present, or approaching to within 500 ft of a prisoner. All containers shall be considered boxes for the purposes of this legislation. Any flamable or explosive materials, including but not limited to clothing, shall be considered amunition. Law enforcement officers shall be required to enact the aforementioned measures by conducting a cell-to-cell search while bearing firearms. All other free citizens shall be required to bring boxes of cereal to the nearest jail in order to provide for the wellbeing of the aforementioned law enforcement officers.
actually I do remember that... the vocal ones bashed france, and everyone else sarcastically immitated bashing france because it was so stupid the whole 'freedom fries' thing and whatever...
Yeah it was excessive from the beginning, but mostly it was treated as a joke, that could have applied to any country with their name in a lot of american foods. Hence, france was an unfortunately good canidate, besides the fact France never wins wars except against itself or when led by someone who is not a Frenchman. So France would have been in good shape led into war by Bush... wait, no, nevermind, sorry, nobody is in good shape led by Bush. jk. Except not kidding about the bush part.
When firefox was first released, it was declared rock-solid. Now it is being used by a wider audience, they are discovering more 'holes'. (Anyone know of the status of Opera on security?)
Nothing should ever be declared "rock-solid" in security. Given enough tyme more than likely someone will break it.
No, the problem is not in calling something in security "rock-solid." The problem is that people have a tendancy to overestimate how solid rock actually is. Given enough people trying to break a rock, several of them will eventually succeed. Depending on the type of rock, it may also have holes in it. Even diamonds can be destroyed if you have other diamonds to spend time grinding away at them with.
If there are 4 people in that household, and each watches 2 hours of tv, they have watched a combined 8 hours of tv. Plus it's an average of all days, weekday+weekend. Therefore, it's very simple HOW that's possible. Why anyone would watch that much is beyond me, but not how.
Cannot log on is more likely on the user/ISP end than google. I have that problem occasionally, but only when there are network or software problems on my end. I have no clue what your problem with forwarding is, but I've never had any problems. And I guarantee that even if my computers were properly patched, I could crash them a lot more easily than I could crash google servers, and therefore it's more likely I'll make a mistake and crash them.
People care about privacy to a point. But windows, doors, and the internet are also decent businesses because they care about usability. Usability and Privacy both have a share of importance.
Slashdot Mirror
The best arguments for against darwin don't primarily argue against science, but against scientists. While upholding scientific principals, they basically say that somewhere along the line scientists started testing whether their results were valid based on darwinism instead of considering whether darwinism was valid in light of those experiments. They basically pick out every counter-example to everything scientists use to support Darwin, look at how the counter-examples were explained away, and explain them away in the opposite direction. And when you look at those arguments in their entirety, their alternate is prety feasable, decently supported (especially relative to the small number of people who came up with it), and compatible with itself.
That said, I personally think most of it is junk. We're never going to have empirical proof, and the only way this could ever be resolved would be to find a way to get a bunch of unbiased observers and start the process over putting both explainations up for debate at the same time, which isn't going to happen. Otherwise, nobody's going to be able to reconstruct what was based on what, and it'll probably be a bunch of bickering until the world ends. And I don't see what the point of that is either when there are explanations that reconcile religion and science. If scientists didn't go out of their way to exclude creationists and acknowledged that everyone has some ammount of bias, analyzing things experiment by experiment, they could both wax and wane as evidence was discovered, not as courts were involved. Religion and science would both survive either way.
And now students who take the innitiative to learn about science, religion, or current events are much more likely to learn about it than if there were three sentences in a textbook that everybody ignored.
No, because it's not REASONABLE to expect that a hospital be as secure as fort knox. It's not REASONABLE to expect the hospital to be impervious to internet attacks. But if they were negligent, with unpatched computers lacking firewalls and virus scans, then they are responsible for that, because it is REASONABLE that if they can afford the network they can afford minimal maintenance of the network.
If they knew there were terrorists running rampant in the city, it would be REASONABLE to expect that they have security. Or would you rather go an an airplane that gets hijacked because the nobody working at the airport bothered to do anything to prevent a bunch of men with assault rifles and bombs from walking past where a fence should have been and climbing in when the airline loaded your in-flight meal.
The severity of the flaw is not related to the ease of exploiting it repeatedly. If it takes 3 seconds to crash a computer, then it's almost as easy to crash 100 computers, even if it does take 5 minutes. If they all have the same flaw and it's very hard to exploit, all it takes is one exploit to bring down the network. On the other hand there could be a very severe flaw that allows an attacker to destroy the computer, but it only works on one in ten computers. It's harder to fix, but the whole network didn't go down.
Because they have to get medical files somehow. If they don't have those on hand, which would be very likely, the internet is probably one of the easiest ways to get them. And of course once they have a gateway to access people's medical records via the internet, their whole network is online.
Still a bad analogy... The malware companies are the financers. The student is the attacker. The hospital is a sensitive area. The patients are the victims. It's actually more like a bombing than a gun massacre, but anyway... The companies is responsible for backing these things. The student is responsible for enacting them. The hospital is responsible for at least trying to defend itself. The patients are the ones who get hurt by them. It's mainly the malware companies and students. If the hospital was vulnerable because of their negligence, they are also partially at fault, but if they made a reasonable effort to secure their network, then it's all the companies and perpetrators.
One foot to move back and fourth and step where the icon is, the other for the three buttons, and the hands free to type on the keys... I mean, one foot to move back and fourth and step where the pedal is, the other for the three pedals, and the hands free to play on the manuals. I, for one, welcome our new Organist overlords.
Infected rats tend to be more active and less afraid of novelty, both of which behaviours are likely to place the rat at increased risk of predation by cats. The changes go further than that, however. Rats are inherently, and understandably, afraid of the odour of cats. Even lab rats which have not been exposed to cats for generations will avoid areas marked with cat urine. Toxoplasma infected rats do not, however, share this aversion; in fact, rats tested in pens marked with different types of scent (rat urine, cat urine, rabbit urine and water) actually seemed to be suicidally attracted to the cat-scented areas . The infected rats appeared to be completely healthy in all other ways. Sounds very dangerous... I mean, humans who aren't afraid of exercise, novelty OR cats... Being energetic is bad, accepting change and creativity is worse, and CATS... That must be horrible having no inherent fear of cats.
I'm inclined to say no, because it makes too much sense and it seems like someone should have thought of it before. But seriously, that sounds like it would require more knowledge of chemistry than I have. It makes sense for nuclear reactions at least, since they're all about converting mass to energy.
Accellerating at 1 g, you hit light speed early on the 355th day.
In these 354.06 days, you will have gone 9.18*10^15 meters.
Accounting for relativity, it will seem faster.
If you actually use gravity, you can theoretically accelerate at infinite g's without being squashed to the back. Unfortunate, I doubt you can find many people who aspire to become hawking radiation, so there might be a few problems with this.
Ask someone from a small village in africa whether people being drunk downtown on friday nights is obvious.
Most people are from small african vilages in terms of computer usage: it works, or it doesen't, and tech support can help, or possibly not.
Whether it's obvious to everyone with three years of experience in the subject is irrelevant, because most people don't know there is a subject. And when you tell them it's a subject, it's a lot easier to have a good study and personal experience than to just have personal experience and have them spend those three years blindly arguing with you.
No, being noticed being good at what you want to do is what guarantees success. What you do isn't as simple as whether you can play guitar. Those artists are good at performing music, because musicianship is the ability to use timbre, volume, pitch, and rhythm to communicate with an audience. If their music is horrible in every aspect except that it conveys the intended meaning well, they are better at making music then someone who can play something technically perfect but without feeling. Every example of someone you feel was successful despite their musical abilities was actually a very good musician because their songs were significantly more than just lines and dots on a page. They still needed some amount of technical knowledge to do that, and it did take a certain amount of luck, but in the end, they could not have made it if they were not good musicians. And this applies to whatever people do, excluding gambling and inheriting. Maybe they aren't good at what they say they're good at, but they have to be good at something to be successful.
yes, for many it's probably just because it's closed, but i tried opera before firefox existed, thought the interface was horid, and uninstalled it.
Except that microsoft then takes standards and either produces a sloppy implementation that they claim is IP or adds their own non-standard stuff, and their monopoly makes these into the defacto standard, which is not well documented and hard for anyone else to extend/adapt. So really it's a choice of whether you want to pay microsoft for an undocumented, sloppy implementation of a defacto standard that wasnat designed by a standards body.
go up and look there... this is discussed there; one of the implied constraints is that the path be linear, and while this may be intended to avoid bouncing. it also rules out your solutian. Except in for a circle of infinite radius.
when someone does that, your computer shouldn't even get around to looking up the DNS entry.
Why leave it to firefox when you can set up a hosts list? And why is the geek perspective so lacking on slashdot?
That doesen't mean you have to have anything to do with the emos on Livejournal, and the friends page is amazingly useful. If I have to put up with the chance that I'll accidentally find an emo once a year in exchange for being able to see in a single glance what's new in friend's blogs, I think that's worth it. And no, an RSS agregator is not a sufficient alternative to the friends page.
It is worded as 'possess' not 'own'. The thief posesses the cd, despite the fact that you own the cd. And even if that wasn't thier intent, it's legalese, and therefore interpereted by the courts as meaning EXACTLY what it says. It might be nonsense, but only because the eula is nonsense, not because it was incorrectly interpereted.
arbitrary example using china.
So either I can't take my cds with me when I move to china (country where you reside referring to the country where you resided at the time you accepted the EULA), or I can take them as long as I begin to reside in china (country where you reside at any given time you own the CD's) and then sell them in china before moving back to the us, having not violated the eula because the CD's stayed exactly where they were before I returned.
Amazing...
No, it's not a problem with lasik. RTFA. And ROPFC(other people's comments). It's not a laser problem, it's a fiber optic problem, and LASIK doesen't use fiber optics. Other people commented that too. Take time to read people.
It ends at around the time the citizens are forced to finally tap that fourth and final box essential to upholding liberty... The ammo box.
Inmates are not permitted to possess boxes of ammo. Any person or persons attempting to provide prisoners with either boxes or amunition shall henceforth be arrested and tried for treason. Attempting to provide prisoners with the aforementioned materials shall be defined as follows: the transport of boxes or amunition into a building in which prisoners are present, or approaching to within 500 ft of a prisoner. All containers shall be considered boxes for the purposes of this legislation. Any flamable or explosive materials, including but not limited to clothing, shall be considered amunition. Law enforcement officers shall be required to enact the aforementioned measures by conducting a cell-to-cell search while bearing firearms. All other free citizens shall be required to bring boxes of cereal to the nearest jail in order to provide for the wellbeing of the aforementioned law enforcement officers.
actually I do remember that... the vocal ones bashed france, and everyone else sarcastically immitated bashing france because it was so stupid the whole 'freedom fries' thing and whatever... Yeah it was excessive from the beginning, but mostly it was treated as a joke, that could have applied to any country with their name in a lot of american foods. Hence, france was an unfortunately good canidate, besides the fact France never wins wars except against itself or when led by someone who is not a Frenchman. So France would have been in good shape led into war by Bush... wait, no, nevermind, sorry, nobody is in good shape led by Bush. jk. Except not kidding about the bush part.
When firefox was first released, it was declared rock-solid. Now it is being used by a wider audience, they are discovering more 'holes'. (Anyone know of the status of Opera on security?)
Nothing should ever be declared "rock-solid" in security. Given enough tyme more than likely someone will break it.
No, the problem is not in calling something in security "rock-solid." The problem is that people have a tendancy to overestimate how solid rock actually is. Given enough people trying to break a rock, several of them will eventually succeed. Depending on the type of rock, it may also have holes in it. Even diamonds can be destroyed if you have other diamonds to spend time grinding away at them with.
If there are 4 people in that household, and each watches 2 hours of tv, they have watched a combined 8 hours of tv. Plus it's an average of all days, weekday+weekend. Therefore, it's very simple HOW that's possible. Why anyone would watch that much is beyond me, but not how.
Cannot log on is more likely on the user/ISP end than google. I have that problem occasionally, but only when there are network or software problems on my end. I have no clue what your problem with forwarding is, but I've never had any problems. And I guarantee that even if my computers were properly patched, I could crash them a lot more easily than I could crash google servers, and therefore it's more likely I'll make a mistake and crash them.
People care about privacy to a point. But windows, doors, and the internet are also decent businesses because they care about usability. Usability and Privacy both have a share of importance.