I agree with that; ID seems to attract people with some level of education and intelligence. As with any other hypothesis, even if looks true to some, it cannot take it as fact until it has been tested an scrutinized, especially since most hypothesis end up being proven false. Most scientists will not take Michael Behe's word that ID is true. Strong, repeatable evidence that survives inspection by many eyes is needed to convice doubters. That's the process that basic concepts such as gravity, evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. went through, so don't expect ID to be granted any favors.
The proof of the existence of god through complexity dates back to Thomas Aquinas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas. And it hasn't gotten much more sophisticated since then.
So, the ID people are going to have to do better than re-hash 800 yr old already discarded arguments to get peoples attention.
Please also note that by definition, ID does not fit the defintion of a scientific hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_hypothesis, because it cannot be tested (nor does it make any predictions).
There are MANY highly intelligent, highly educated people who do support ID.
Who have failed time and time again to provide one single prediction. This being one of the requirements of science.
Seems as though, if these people are as intelligent as you think them to be, that they would answer the one question that would begin to validate their claims.
That said, science teachers are going to hate having my lil girl in the class.
Please, give her many, many, many hard questions for the "teacher" to answer. And then write something up for us. It'll be interesting to know what the teachers reactions are.
Humor aside (though you did give me a good chuckle, Dilbert is good) I can't really share your optimism just yet.
What I've noticed in life is that these... people, seem to be far more organized and motivated than intelligent people. And they just don't stop when beaten (probably because they aren't aware of it).
Plus, they get their word out far more quickly as they don't have to worry about those pesky fact things.
It is nice to know that some people in the US aren't so apathetic that they will pay attention, fight this ID crap, and actually win. Score one for Pennsylvania.
If only the same thing could happen in Kansas (among others).
Though, I expect this whole thing to get a lot worse before it gets better.
The only thing I'm saying (and I've stated this before) is something might look like it is, but really isn't.
But, to answer your question with a question, do you know of all phenomena? Do you know exactly how this all works without any possibility of being wrong? Do we know this device doesn't detect anything else?
There is a reason why it's called a theory.
And even in the article it states (and this is in my original post) that a physicist said "... I am confident that we will see things during this session."
Please note the word "confident". Even he is not saying that they'll find it.
Based on these facts, I'm really at a loss as to why I'm receiving criticism for my skepticism.
Prof Jim Hough, a physicist at Glasgow University, has been on the gravitational wave quest for over 30 years. He said: "Given what we now know about the frequency of events that cause the emission of powerful gravitational waves and the sensitivity of the equipment we now have, I am confident that we will see things during this session."
Don't spout "I'm sure." I don't care if you're sure. Tell me when it actually happens.
I want results, not speculation. What was that about this being science again?
And how many times have we heard this before? Theory X is about to be proven. Then in the weeks, months and years to come, nothing more is heard and the media circus fades out of memory.
And even if this thing detects something, how do we know if it has actually detected what we think it has detected.
I remember hearing a story about some Experimental Physicists a while ago. They were doing some sensitive experiments and kept getting weird results; spent a lot of time trying to figure out what was wrong/checking theory/etc.
What it ended up being, is some Chemists refrigerator three floors up and at the other end of the building. The magnetics were interfering with the Physicists device.
So, who's to say that something similar might happen here. Possibly a passing train? Airplane maybe? If it even detects anything at all.
I'll wait for the real story. But, I'm certainly not going to hold my breath.
Are you sure? Do you have insight into the minds that created it?
Regardless, this type of comment, whether intended serious or not, is inappropriate, period. Making such comments is just plain stupid. It's insulting to even imply these comparisons.
"Not since the code breakers in Britain's Bletchley Park deciphered Germany's Enigma code during World War II has so much brainpower been focused on kicking an enemy's ass."
And how is this comment appropriate?
I've met and talked with math researchers. I keep up with the things crypto. I've worked in industry as a web developer. I must say, there is no possibility that the yahoo people have more brain power than the code breakers.
I've been seeing this type of ludicrous statement more and more over the past years. I think it's just that these people know that they are losing and need to generate an over inflated sense of self to cover there inferiority.
Likening corp. competition to WWII?!?! Seriously...
"This is the first time that we have seen a rootkit as part of the bundle of applications that is sent to your machine. It is a disturbing trend."
One worm does not a trend make.
"The rootkit is designed to not be detected, and that is the scary part."
Isn't this the actual point of any worm/virus/etc. To not be detected so as to be able to do what it's supposed to do. Haven't these things been doing this even before the 90's... really since the beginning.
This is just more typically stuff. User gets something that looks like it came from someone they know and they click on the link like the dumbass user that they are. This despite the fact that they are *always* told to never just click.
They'll never learn and as such, things like this will continue to happen. Stuff like this became not news to me a *long* time ago.
The moral of the story: always patch the vulnerable function or at least patch all paths to vulnerable function.
All paths?!?!
How do we know in the future that this function won't be used again in something/somewhere else? Since we all know how "wonderful" M$ is at documentation, how many here think that there'll be a note in there that specifies something extra that needs to be done before the call to that function. Talk about wasted time/money.
You patch the function that needs to be patched, period. That way the vulnerability just goes away no matter who might call that function in the future. You also won't have to worry about "all the paths" as you kill them all with one stone.
Not patching the function in question is just asking for trouble later on.
From what I read, we are talking about JVM (Java Virtual Machine). So, some java code gets compiled to byte code, which in turn gets run in a VM written and C/C++ (or some such).
And you're going to have to enlighten us as to how compiling one language to machine code is faster than another language to machine code. Because of more information? What info are you talking about?
I find it rather amusing that these "studies" claim the JVM to be more efficient that C/C++ when the language that the JVM is coded in is C/C++ (or a like language).
Bloody rediculous.
The only way that they are going to get favourable numbers is by cooking them... big surprise.
Wow, did you ever type a lot without saying a damn thing. After all that, what was your point?
And did you ever ask yourself if a distributed kernel was part of OBSD's goals? It would only not be feature complete if that were the case. ie Just because you can generalize things, doesn't mean you should nor does it mean you want to. Clearly having a distributed kernel would have serious security implications which I would think that the OBSD team would not want.
And as you say, it's useful on a cluster. Since I'm not aware of OBSD wanting to be a clustering OS, why would they go in a direction that is contrary to there current goals?
But, you should ask Theo if you really want to know. I'm sure you'll get a definit answer.
You speak such strong words, you may incurr the wrath of the Theo.
So, I'll just stand out of the way and ask you to put your money where your mouth is. I expect to see a report of a fork of OpenSSH in the morning featuring jd.
I have friends that are in education and I know a few with PhD's in it as well. I know the theories and how they are told to teach. What happened to this guy is unfortunate, but is solely the fault of his high-school teachers and himself.
What is happening now is that these kids are told that they are awesome in everything (plus total hand holding, etc), and given good grades to reflect that even if they only show a glimmer of hope in that subject. So, what we end up with is a bunch of kids graduating from high-school that are borderline retarded in most subjects, but think that they are the best thing since sliced bread.
Then they hit University (Play times over, it's time for some real work.), and they can't cope.
When I came back to University I forgot everything: and I mean everything. I didn't know how to cross multiply. That's how much I had forgotten. I also had "instructors" that only put the book on the board. Hey buddy, I can read, tell me/explain something that isn't in/beyond the book!
But, what I did, is sit at said University for two months, ~8am to 10-11pm everyday (aside from fri, sat, sun evenings), and worked my ass off. I did every problem and asked when I couldn't figure something out. After that, I had caught up and all was well and good with the world. Though from what my friends tell me, my sanity took a fair good hit during that time;) Right now, I'm in my final undergrad year with plans to go to grad school.
If I can do that, then anyone can get a decent grade in first year classes.
This guy says he's good in math and then gets a D in Discrete?!?! Sorry guy, but you've been lied to. You're retarded when it comes to math. Books more than just problem sets?!?! It's called being able to properly interpret those crazy symbols on the page like a person that actually understands how to read a text book ie not like a novel you mental midget. I could go on.
In fact, I'll will. But, just one last thing. This is my favourite quote, "...like, well, me: people smart enough to do the math...". What grade did you get in Discrete again? One of the easiest classes in all of Math. How about those other Math courses?
IMO, if the US and any other country for that matter, wants more engineers/scientists/etc, don't pull any punches in high-school. Make the kids think on there own and actually push them. Let them fail if they should fail. Then and only then will most high-school grads be able to handle University.
What's going on right now, is doing no-one any favours. It's creating people like this guy. A guy who may have the potential to be good. A guy whose smart enough to realize flaws in the system. But, not smart enough, nor has enough integrity to admit his own failings and limitations.
We are all good at stuff and bad at stuff. It's up to ourselves and only ourselves to find out what we are good at and stick to those things. And stay away from the things we are bad at, no matter how interested we are in them, because we are bad at them. This way, we all contribute in meaningful ways, and are most happy.
Hell, I'll never write a novel: god help you all if I ever get the chance. But man, can I derive the shit out of a function. So, I'll stay in my little abstract world, knowing that I fit here. And leave the other things to those that are good at them.
"""The study was conducted over the first six months of 2005."""
When did the litmus test for long term security become the short term?
""" by claiming """ """Nitot said that Mozilla's reaction""" """according to Nitot.""" """He also argued that... the Microsoft vulnerabilities were more critical,"""
All these quotes are from the article and in a place where they implicitly put into question what Mr. Nitot is trying to say.
But, when Mr. Whitehouse speaks even "IE is closed source, and so it's more difficult to access the code." Which implicitly says that closed source is more secure (security through obscurity - provably false). This "journalist" doesn't call him on it.
And this "journalist" continues to let this guy speak implicitly calling into question the security of and wisdom of using Firefox without making him justify the claims.
So, all in all, we have Mr. Nitot arguing a point and bringing facts to the table that support his claims and Mr. Whitehouse bringing implications and conjecture almost completely unsupported. Also, in the middle is this "journalist" who phrases things in a way that supports Mr. Whitehouse.
What happened to all the real journalists? You know, the ones that get as close to unbiased reporting as possible; the ones that report only facts leaving out editorials marked as fact.
Slashdot Mirror
So, the ID people are going to have to do better than re-hash 800 yr old already discarded arguments to get peoples attention.
Please also note that by definition, ID does not fit the defintion of a scientific hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_hypothesis , because it cannot be tested (nor does it make any predictions).
Anyone remember just two days ago, http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/0 7/1526216&tid=99&tid=14 the Vatican criticised these fundamentalist ideas.
"""
"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim,"
"""
So, us doubters, got more than enough reasons to doubt. Way more than enough.
Seems as though, if these people are as intelligent as you think them to be, that they would answer the one question that would begin to validate their claims.
*evil grin*
Humor aside (though you did give me a good chuckle, Dilbert is good) I can't really share your optimism just yet.
What I've noticed in life is that these... people, seem to be far more organized and motivated than intelligent people. And they just don't stop when beaten (probably because they aren't aware of it).
Plus, they get their word out far more quickly as they don't have to worry about those pesky fact things.
I hope I'm wrong.
It is nice to know that some people in the US aren't so apathetic that they will pay attention, fight this ID crap, and actually win. Score one for Pennsylvania.
If only the same thing could happen in Kansas (among others).
Though, I expect this whole thing to get a lot worse before it gets better.
The only thing I'm saying (and I've stated this before) is something might look like it is, but really isn't.
But, to answer your question with a question, do you know of all phenomena? Do you know exactly how this all works without any possibility of being wrong? Do we know this device doesn't detect anything else?
There is a reason why it's called a theory.
And even in the article it states (and this is in my original post) that a physicist said "... I am confident that we will see things during this session."
Please note the word "confident". Even he is not saying that they'll find it.
Based on these facts, I'm really at a loss as to why I'm receiving criticism for my skepticism.
Who's to say that it only detects gravity waves.
Don't spout "I'm sure." I don't care if you're sure. Tell me when it actually happens.
I want results, not speculation. What was that about this being science again?
And how many times have we heard this before? Theory X is about to be proven. Then in the weeks, months and years to come, nothing more is heard and the media circus fades out of memory.
And even if this thing detects something, how do we know if it has actually detected what we think it has detected.
I remember hearing a story about some Experimental Physicists a while ago. They were doing some sensitive experiments and kept getting weird results; spent a lot of time trying to figure out what was wrong/checking theory/etc.
What it ended up being, is some Chemists refrigerator three floors up and at the other end of the building. The magnetics were interfering with the Physicists device.
So, who's to say that something similar might happen here. Possibly a passing train? Airplane maybe? If it even detects anything at all.
I'll wait for the real story. But, I'm certainly not going to hold my breath.
Are you sure? Do you have insight into the minds that created it?
Regardless, this type of comment, whether intended serious or not, is inappropriate, period. Making such comments is just plain stupid. It's insulting to even imply these comparisons.
There are bounds on what is appropriate you know.
Apparently others agree with me.
And how is this comment appropriate?
I've met and talked with math researchers. I keep up with the things crypto. I've worked in industry as a web developer. I must say, there is no possibility that the yahoo people have more brain power than the code breakers.
I've been seeing this type of ludicrous statement more and more over the past years. I think it's just that these people know that they are losing and need to generate an over inflated sense of self to cover there inferiority.
Likening corp. competition to WWII?!?! Seriously...
One worm does not a trend make.
Isn't this the actual point of any worm/virus/etc. To not be detected so as to be able to do what it's supposed to do. Haven't these things been doing this even before the 90's... really since the beginning.
This is just more typically stuff. User gets something that looks like it came from someone they know and they click on the link like the dumbass user that they are. This despite the fact that they are *always* told to never just click.
They'll never learn and as such, things like this will continue to happen. Stuff like this became not news to me a *long* time ago.
All I have to say is, ad nauseam.
All paths?!?!
How do we know in the future that this function won't be used again in something/somewhere else? Since we all know how "wonderful" M$ is at documentation, how many here think that there'll be a note in there that specifies something extra that needs to be done before the call to that function. Talk about wasted time/money.
You patch the function that needs to be patched, period. That way the vulnerability just goes away no matter who might call that function in the future. You also won't have to worry about "all the paths" as you kill them all with one stone.
Not patching the function in question is just asking for trouble later on.
Sheez. Talk about a neural misfire by this guy.
From what I read, we are talking about JVM (Java Virtual Machine). So, some java code gets compiled to byte code, which in turn gets run in a VM written and C/C++ (or some such).
And you're going to have to enlighten us as to how compiling one language to machine code is faster than another language to machine code. Because of more information? What info are you talking about?
Because from where I sit, that's just crazy talk.
I find it rather amusing that these "studies" claim the JVM to be more efficient that C/C++ when the language that the JVM is coded in is C/C++ (or a like language).
Bloody rediculous.
The only way that they are going to get favourable numbers is by cooking them... big surprise.
but my girlfriend did a whole bunch of cooing
Wait a minute. This guy has a girlfriend?
Wow, did you ever type a lot without saying a damn thing. After all that, what was your point?
And did you ever ask yourself if a distributed kernel was part of OBSD's goals? It would only not be feature complete if that were the case. ie Just because you can generalize things, doesn't mean you should nor does it mean you want to. Clearly having a distributed kernel would have serious security implications which I would think that the OBSD team would not want.
And as you say, it's useful on a cluster. Since I'm not aware of OBSD wanting to be a clustering OS, why would they go in a direction that is contrary to there current goals?
But, you should ask Theo if you really want to know. I'm sure you'll get a definit answer.
You speak such strong words, you may incurr the wrath of the Theo.
So, I'll just stand out of the way and ask you to put your money where your mouth is. I expect to see a report of a fork of OpenSSH in the morning featuring jd.
Then we'll see who's the better.
... the pointy haired boss who's knows jack about security and dictates policy that (s)he know nothing about.
Security through obscurity just doesn't work.
I'll take the quality I know I'll get from the OpenBSD/SSH guys over profiteering gluttons any day.
I have friends that are in education and I know a few with PhD's in it as well. I know the theories and how they are told to teach. What happened to this guy is unfortunate, but is solely the fault of his high-school teachers and himself.
What is happening now is that these kids are told that they are awesome in everything (plus total hand holding, etc), and given good grades to reflect that even if they only show a glimmer of hope in that subject. So, what we end up with is a bunch of kids graduating from high-school that are borderline retarded in most subjects, but think that they are the best thing since sliced bread.
Then they hit University (Play times over, it's time for some real work.), and they can't cope.
When I came back to University I forgot everything: and I mean everything. I didn't know how to cross multiply. That's how much I had forgotten. I also had "instructors" that only put the book on the board. Hey buddy, I can read, tell me/explain something that isn't in/beyond the book!
But, what I did, is sit at said University for two months, ~8am to 10-11pm everyday (aside from fri, sat, sun evenings), and worked my ass off. I did every problem and asked when I couldn't figure something out. After that, I had caught up and all was well and good with the world. Though from what my friends tell me, my sanity took a fair good hit during that time ;) Right now, I'm in my final undergrad year with plans to go to grad school.
If I can do that, then anyone can get a decent grade in first year classes.
This guy says he's good in math and then gets a D in Discrete?!?! Sorry guy, but you've been lied to. You're retarded when it comes to math. Books more than just problem sets?!?! It's called being able to properly interpret those crazy symbols on the page like a person that actually understands how to read a text book ie not like a novel you mental midget. I could go on.
In fact, I'll will. But, just one last thing. This is my favourite quote, "...like, well, me: people smart enough to do the math...". What grade did you get in Discrete again? One of the easiest classes in all of Math. How about those other Math courses?
IMO, if the US and any other country for that matter, wants more engineers/scientists/etc, don't pull any punches in high-school. Make the kids think on there own and actually push them. Let them fail if they should fail. Then and only then will most high-school grads be able to handle University.
What's going on right now, is doing no-one any favours. It's creating people like this guy. A guy who may have the potential to be good. A guy whose smart enough to realize flaws in the system. But, not smart enough, nor has enough integrity to admit his own failings and limitations.
We are all good at stuff and bad at stuff. It's up to ourselves and only ourselves to find out what we are good at and stick to those things. And stay away from the things we are bad at, no matter how interested we are in them, because we are bad at them. This way, we all contribute in meaningful ways, and are most happy.
Hell, I'll never write a novel: god help you all if I ever get the chance. But man, can I derive the shit out of a function. So, I'll stay in my little abstract world, knowing that I fit here. And leave the other things to those that are good at them.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
You haven't ever watched/read the BBC/Independent/etc have you?
"""The study was conducted over the first six months of 2005."""
... the Microsoft vulnerabilities were more critical,"""
When did the litmus test for long term security become the short term?
""" by claiming """
"""Nitot said that Mozilla's reaction"""
"""according to Nitot."""
"""He also argued that
All these quotes are from the article and in a place where they implicitly put into question what Mr. Nitot is trying to say.
But, when Mr. Whitehouse speaks even "IE is closed source, and so it's more difficult to access the code." Which implicitly says that closed source is more secure (security through obscurity - provably false). This "journalist" doesn't call him on it.
And this "journalist" continues to let this guy speak implicitly calling into question the security of and wisdom of using Firefox without making him justify the claims.
So, all in all, we have Mr. Nitot arguing a point and bringing facts to the table that support his claims and Mr. Whitehouse bringing implications and conjecture almost completely unsupported. Also, in the middle is this "journalist" who phrases things in a way that supports Mr. Whitehouse.
What happened to all the real journalists? You know, the ones that get as close to unbiased reporting as possible; the ones that report only facts leaving out editorials marked as fact.
*sigh*
No worries. I do it from time to time too :)
Because I obviously need to hit you with a clue stick: I was joking.
I wasn't aware that books were considered entertainment anymore. Learn something new everyday I guess.