"It would stand on its own, were the media to actually report what the data says"
The media is pretty much int he tank for global climate change, or global warming, or whatever you're calling it now. Virtually every mainstream media outlet has been pouring out stories about devastating climate change for nearly twenty years now, and probably a bit longer.
When I say 'media', I mean NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Orlando Sentinel, Portland Press Herald, Bangor Daily News, Sacramento Bee, Time Magazine, Newsweek, US News & World Report, Scientific American, Discovery Channel, Science Channel, and many many more.
What newspaper is similarly touting the naysayers? The tabloids and contrary print media that report on climate change 'deniers' is outnumbered at least 10 to 1, and probably more.
Most people get all up in arms when Fox News starts reporting on global warming naysayers. One damned network against a half-dozen or more competitors.
It doesn't seem to take much to upset the global warming crowd. ANY opposition is an affront to them, a personal attack to be answered in the most extreme and violent language available. Actual data is immaterial. The naysayers are demonized, discredited as scientifically illiterate imbeciles, and marginalized as either shills of the responsible industries or seeking to profit from their outbursts.
The complaint that the media is somehow NOT reporting on the data is ludicrous and entirely contrived, does not conform to the reality, and is false on its face. Get a real argument next time, ok? What a bunch of crap.
As he's obviously never had to repair a Saab. Probably hasn't worked on any car older than 1996, either.
The 1994-89 Saab 900 requires you to take out about a dozen screws to drop the front shield and SEE the lower radiator hose. With great effort, you can now replace it. Replacing the alternator requires removing the front passenger tire and the inner fender, that thing that keeps crap from blowing into the engine compartment around the wheel. Replacing the serpentine belt requires this also. Let's not talk about the A/C lines. Or the SID unit. Or other whacko electronic stuff. And hers is a convertible, so there is the joy of tonneau cover motors, flap and lock motors, fifth bow, gutter leaks, and multiple trips to the dealer so he can use the TechII tool to adjust it. And the radio code if you disconnect the battery. And the dual positive battery cable that threads along the engine and costs $120+, and just disintegrates after a few years. I could go on for a while here...
My buddy's 2009 GMC truck requires you to remove the left battery AND TRAY to replace the headlamp, and the damned lamps blow quite a bit. It's a diesel. It has TWO batteries. Yes it does. The other one seems to be not in the way of much, so far.
My '95 Explorer isn't too bad to work on, but it's OBD-I. Can't go down to Pep Boys and get the check engine codes pulled. You have to get a test light, a jumper wire, and count flashes. Sweet. And that annoying squeak? Probably the cam sync shaft getting too dry and squealing. You have to remove the intake manifold to replace it. All this for a simple thing they could have move a few inches back and made accessible, eh?
Think computers are difficult? Wait till you put them in cars. My work buddy and his BMW that will not talk Bluetooth with his Android phone except on every third Tuesday that is not a waning moon.
I detest hardware any more also, and OS support is our punishment for just living, but there are worse things to do for a living. Unless you come to realize that your job is not to do easy things, it is to just do things.
Now, explain how much time ti will take and how much it will cost to the driver/user. They want it done NOW, and cheap.
You may be right, but so far it seems not very many see blowing up the terminal as a desireable goal.
We know how they feel about airplanes, though. And it's not just about bombers. Carrying weapons onboard was what made the 9/11 attacks possible.
Now, if they could just stop the people that want to avoid checking baggage and bring oversized stuff onboard to fill the bins. Every flight I've been on for 4 years has had so many morons with oversized carryons that there's no room for mine, which is the right size. Now, I can't even complain, or they just bump me off.
Delaying the innocent is annoying, but not a sign of failure.
Not preventing an known suspect who then does cause harm, that would be a failure.
This is the dilemma we face. If we succeed in keeping bad guys off the planes, we will not know how many gave up at security checkpoints and went home. We'll know if it fails, though.
And Senators could learn a lot by having to deal with what *we* deal with
This last movie broke so many things, they can avoid the 'original' Spock (depending on which timeline you subscribe to) and plow new ground:
- Vulcan is destroyed. They have to fix it, obviously. Time travel to the rescue.
- Kirk knows Spock from the future. He'll be looking for a way to restore Vulcan now.
- Spock (new) obviously will figure out he's in two places at the same time.
They need at least two more movies to fix everything. One to get Kirk and Young Spock in a position where they know both how and why they must restore Vulcan. I don't yet know why, but I'm not the screenwriter either. And one to actually do it. After that, then movies keep coming to let villains and victims try to take revenge, Cmdr. Pike's story, and some excuse to see more slave girls.
Pretty much as pathetique as Star Wars. Why can't we have a Blade Runner sequel, eh? Nobody has any Vaseline for the lenses? Do it in digital, ok? A set of Red cams isn't that damned expensive.
"Except for the fact that the percentage of suicide bombers vs the number of passenger miles flown is so ridiculously small it shouldn't warrant such a heavy handed response. Even if we removed all the security from airports there probably wouldn't be that many more incidents if any"
I disagree with your assessment. Hijackings to Cuba were in the vogue until security made them pretty much pointless. Suicide bombers don't actually want to anywhere but heaven, so any destination for the plane is both irrelevant and moot, though you could make the point that U.S. bound planes would be more popular than others.
Actually, try leaving your front door open at home, and announcing that fact down at the local coffee shop. repeatedly. See how that lack of security works for ya. Haven't seen anyone scratching at your door lately, have you? Must not be any real problem.
And suicide bombers are at least as motivated as your local meth head getting a cuppa at Starbucks.
"I have explained that if you run any sort of Internet-facing network service, you will get attacked and probably with high frequency."
Actually, you might want to be more accurate. They -ARE- being attacked, whether they know it or not. Not knowing it leads easily to not knowing they ahve been compromised. They -ARE- being attacked. Not 'will'.
"When you build everything from source, you can implement protections against buffer overflows and other vulnerabilities that aren't available on a closed-source OS. With a *nix system, the tools I am using are not some black box. I can take them apart, examine them, and really understand how they work before integrating them into my system."
well, not everyone who wants to run an Internet server is a programmer, or has skills in security or OS management. If you follow the lead of many in the community, you will say that if they don't know what they are doing, they shouldn't be doing it. Well, that's close to telling people that it is not safe, so don't. This makes the Internet a different place than the creators intended, but it may in the end be unavoidable.
"I am not saying that one cannot run a very secure Windows system. I am saying it's easier to achieve the same level of security with a *nix system."
Depends on your level of skills. I submit it requires more skills to do so in a Linux environment. Of course, in a windows environment, you can buy a lot of stuff, so it is more expensive. And still not good assurances that you are meeting your goals, despite the price tag.
I'm referring to Apple's control of their market, and the volatility/security there.
There is no equalizing competition for the iPhone. Android phones are the most significant competitors, but that is a fractured and diverse product. I see the iPhone continuing to be a cash cow for Apple for a while yet. Windows Mobile 7 is not going to cause a wholesale sea change.
Ditto for the iPod.
And these two product lines are Apple's money makers because of iTunes, which completes the synergy that makes their market share in this space nearly unassailable. Microsoft isn't challenging this with the Zune, and there is no other music player/music store combo that comes close. Apple can milk this for a while to come.
That's what I refer to when I aay Apple 'owns' their market.
Microsoft has a HUGE market, but I don't consider it secure for them except in the short term, 1-4 years. See the problems they have getting uptake on Windows Vista? And now Windows 7 will only grow by new PC sales. XP is a chain around their ankles. Office 2007 has not yet driven Office 2003 out of the corporate world, but Microsoft has gone to a subscription model there, so corps are largely paying for 2007 and using 2003. Nice work, Microsoft. When a few large licensees learn they can in fact deploy OOO and drop the Microsoft license, then revenue will be volatile, and Microsoft will have to fight for the application space. Contrast this with Apple's application business.
This is an interesting choice. Do you want 27% of the PC market that you can depend on so long as you keep meeting a need that no one else seems able to, or do you want 90% of the Operating System and application markets that you have to fight for every single day against capable competitors, and rely largely on naivete and sloth of the users, who with possibly very little effort could make a change and leave you with a fraction of your market? And your largest customers are actually the most nimble? And your only hope is that they continue to say 'oh well, might as well renew'?
I like Apple's position here. It's not god-worship or being Jobs' buttboy. It's the facts.
Of course, if I could, I would like to be in the position to present open-soruce alternatives and profit from them. If you're gonna be gored, you might as well get some flesh off the bull.
I managed a very small ISP for a while on the 90s, and have my own mail and web servers to this day.
The definition of 'lowest-hanging fruit' for all the attackers out there is much broader than you implied. If you have a host accessible via the Internet, you ARE a target. You are being attacked now, this very minute. That you deflect those attacks ahead of the host at firewall, router, or application level doesn't change that. It just makes your logs bigger or smaller.
Your operating system choice makes no difference. They attack everything. You just use different tools and methods depending on what's available and what works.
"Great, so they want to redesign the Internet because people don't want to learn how to identify a phishing site and can't understand that giving your account numbers to unverifiable strangers is a bad idea?"
Uh, no. With MITM attacks, spoofing raised to a fine art, SSL hijacks of any number of diffeent methods, fake/spoofed/stolen certificates, it can be very, very hard to avoid making a mistake and trusting something you should not.
"No thanks. A fool and his money are soon parted and there's not much you're going to change about that."
Doh.
"Also, I'm sure that "accountability" is a euphamism for "tracked everywhere you go even more than you are now". Seems to me they are trying to increase protection against petty criminals while drastically reducing protection against overzealous governments that want to censor."
Yup. It's a fine line between security and oppression.
If you need 2/3 to pass, then anything over 1/3 opposed defeats the measure.
Well, if 2/3rds is twice 1/3rd (it is...), then if the vote against is twice or more what the vote for is, the measure is defeated.
The vote was 136 for, 70 against. 70 is more than half of 136.
The nays have it.
Had the vote against been 68, that's exactly half of 136 - the yeas have it. Of course, if the total of votes were the same, then from a total of 206 votes, 137 for leaves 69 against. 69 is half of 138. Woops, the nays have it still. But 138 for leaves 68 against. Half of 138 is 69. Not enough no votes. The yeas prevail. This method avoids rounding, and satisfies the 2/3-1/3 formula.
Is this simple enough for ya?
This is only complicated because in this case 137.3 votes carries the measure, but we don't count fractional votes, even in Massachusetts. So it takes the extra.7 of a vote, or 148 whole votes, to approve the measure.
This wouldn't have happened in Maine, where we dislike Augusta sticking its nose into town business. But then we left the Commonwealth in 1820, for several reasons.
"Apple has long been more evil than Microsoft, just less successful at it."
Um, Apple owns its share of the market. OWNS. No one does what Apple does, not do they do something else as well, or as profitably.
Microsoft is faced with competitors on every side. They are in a constant fight for preservation. And then there is their struggle with themselves, to maintain what quality they can in the face of such product diversity, demands of the market, and the other pressures including being an antitrust target every single day.
Apple is very, very successful. Microsoft also. But in different ways. If I had to buy stock in either, it would be in Apple. If I had to predict who will be around in 50 years, it is almost a toss-up to me. That is only because Apple is actually Steve Jobs. His successor will have to have the same depth of vision, same drive, same demands and standards.
And in that light, actually, Microsoft is a toss-up because so far it has transitioned from Gates as CEO. A big step.
But Apple is better at what it does than Microsoft is at what IT does.
They were, of course, mistaken. Except for the Israelites. That's no longer binding on us, and sadly they cannot or do not fulfill so many other requirements of the Mosaic covenents they have neither standing nor command to chastise the rest of us.
You cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse. The individuals deserve that.
"Oh, this one doesn't condemn people for eternity of unspeakable suffering if they hurt his feelings by not believing?"
It's more like "This one condemns people to an eternity of separation from him by not accepting the overwhelming evidence of his existence and love."
But I phrase it that way because I believe. For a non-believer, it will make more sense if I write "by not being open to his existence".
For most non-believers, it seems to make no sense. So stop trying to make sense of God. He is beyond our comprehension, but not beyond our acceptance. Unless, of course, you just won't. Which I do understand. I was that way for a very long time, also.
... and his prophets don't need anyone to defned them either. Especially the dead ones.
Maybe they need the one true God? Theirs seems to be entirely lacking in this area. Not to mention the Prophet, and his inadequacies. Please. He can take care of himself, if needed, eh? Can't? Tough.
So I can get t-boned by a drunk from two more directions? No thanks. Drivers have enough problems dealing with two dimensions. Auto-pilot will take a few more years to perfect, right?
Oh, and have them contact their bank if any of them paid and start the process of following up on where the money went.
I'm assuming they are contacting their local police. And sharing info. If this is what it looks like, it becomes international eventually, and getting back to the perps would be nice. Unrealistic, perhaps, but nice.
"There is also evidence that liquid water may not be as important for life as everybody has assumed, since some microorganisms can make their own water by chewing on various hydrocarbons."
- Um, I have a theory that these organisms evolved from water-loving organisms. It seems Titan is likely to have surface water, and at least some of it is liquid at some time or another. So similar processes could work there. But these bacteria etc. need not have sprung forth without access to, and dependence on, water. Indeed, TFA seems to say they actually make their own, so it must be of some importance.
- Several replies indicate that we have a limited understanding of how life originated on Earth. I recall some experiments quite a few years ago that produced some amino acids in fairly harsh environments. For the Evolutionists out there, over a few million years even chance could bring enough fo these together to make "something wonderful" happen. For us Creationists, I recommend we not try to discern HOW God did it. That is not useful. Of course, while the Evolutionists expect us to explain everything, they cannot yet. Wait, let's not go down there... too many flames... must stop taunting... retract... retract...
- If nothing else, these organisms are interesting from a purely industrial point of view. Can we maybe make somethat eat hydrocarbons and give us water, O2, etc? 'Cleanup bugs' would be cool. Conversion of hydrocarbons into something easier and cleaner to use would be cool. Maybe we could get them to eat coal? That sounds cool.
Slashdot Mirror
"It would stand on its own, were the media to actually report what the data says"
The media is pretty much int he tank for global climate change, or global warming, or whatever you're calling it now. Virtually every mainstream media outlet has been pouring out stories about devastating climate change for nearly twenty years now, and probably a bit longer.
When I say 'media', I mean NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, Orlando Sentinel, Portland Press Herald, Bangor Daily News, Sacramento Bee, Time Magazine, Newsweek, US News & World Report, Scientific American, Discovery Channel, Science Channel, and many many more.
What newspaper is similarly touting the naysayers? The tabloids and contrary print media that report on climate change 'deniers' is outnumbered at least 10 to 1, and probably more.
Most people get all up in arms when Fox News starts reporting on global warming naysayers. One damned network against a half-dozen or more competitors.
It doesn't seem to take much to upset the global warming crowd. ANY opposition is an affront to them, a personal attack to be answered in the most extreme and violent language available. Actual data is immaterial. The naysayers are demonized, discredited as scientifically illiterate imbeciles, and marginalized as either shills of the responsible industries or seeking to profit from their outbursts.
The complaint that the media is somehow NOT reporting on the data is ludicrous and entirely contrived, does not conform to the reality, and is false on its face. Get a real argument next time, ok? What a bunch of crap.
As he's obviously never had to repair a Saab. Probably hasn't worked on any car older than 1996, either.
The 1994-89 Saab 900 requires you to take out about a dozen screws to drop the front shield and SEE the lower radiator hose. With great effort, you can now replace it. Replacing the alternator requires removing the front passenger tire and the inner fender, that thing that keeps crap from blowing into the engine compartment around the wheel. Replacing the serpentine belt requires this also. Let's not talk about the A/C lines. Or the SID unit. Or other whacko electronic stuff. And hers is a convertible, so there is the joy of tonneau cover motors, flap and lock motors, fifth bow, gutter leaks, and multiple trips to the dealer so he can use the TechII tool to adjust it. And the radio code if you disconnect the battery. And the dual positive battery cable that threads along the engine and costs $120+, and just disintegrates after a few years. I could go on for a while here...
My buddy's 2009 GMC truck requires you to remove the left battery AND TRAY to replace the headlamp, and the damned lamps blow quite a bit. It's a diesel. It has TWO batteries. Yes it does. The other one seems to be not in the way of much, so far.
My '95 Explorer isn't too bad to work on, but it's OBD-I. Can't go down to Pep Boys and get the check engine codes pulled. You have to get a test light, a jumper wire, and count flashes. Sweet. And that annoying squeak? Probably the cam sync shaft getting too dry and squealing. You have to remove the intake manifold to replace it. All this for a simple thing they could have move a few inches back and made accessible, eh?
Think computers are difficult? Wait till you put them in cars. My work buddy and his BMW that will not talk Bluetooth with his Android phone except on every third Tuesday that is not a waning moon.
I detest hardware any more also, and OS support is our punishment for just living, but there are worse things to do for a living. Unless you come to realize that your job is not to do easy things, it is to just do things.
Now, explain how much time ti will take and how much it will cost to the driver/user. They want it done NOW, and cheap.
Right.
Agh! Just an excuse to re-do the sets, and make us buy more tickets... I'm ruined, ruined!
You may be right, but so far it seems not very many see blowing up the terminal as a desireable goal.
We know how they feel about airplanes, though. And it's not just about bombers. Carrying weapons onboard was what made the 9/11 attacks possible.
Now, if they could just stop the people that want to avoid checking baggage and bring oversized stuff onboard to fill the bins. Every flight I've been on for 4 years has had so many morons with oversized carryons that there's no room for mine, which is the right size. Now, I can't even complain, or they just bump me off.
Pus.
Delaying the innocent is annoying, but not a sign of failure.
Not preventing an known suspect who then does cause harm, that would be a failure.
This is the dilemma we face. If we succeed in keeping bad guys off the planes, we will not know how many gave up at security checkpoints and went home. We'll know if it fails, though.
And Senators could learn a lot by having to deal with what *we* deal with
This last movie broke so many things, they can avoid the 'original' Spock (depending on which timeline you subscribe to) and plow new ground:
- Vulcan is destroyed. They have to fix it, obviously. Time travel to the rescue.
- Kirk knows Spock from the future. He'll be looking for a way to restore Vulcan now.
- Spock (new) obviously will figure out he's in two places at the same time.
They need at least two more movies to fix everything. One to get Kirk and Young Spock in a position where they know both how and why they must restore Vulcan. I don't yet know why, but I'm not the screenwriter either. And one to actually do it. After that, then movies keep coming to let villains and victims try to take revenge, Cmdr. Pike's story, and some excuse to see more slave girls.
Pretty much as pathetique as Star Wars. Why can't we have a Blade Runner sequel, eh? Nobody has any Vaseline for the lenses? Do it in digital, ok? A set of Red cams isn't that damned expensive.
"Except for the fact that the percentage of suicide bombers vs the number of passenger miles flown is so ridiculously small it shouldn't warrant such a heavy handed response. Even if we removed all the security from airports there probably wouldn't be that many more incidents if any"
I disagree with your assessment. Hijackings to Cuba were in the vogue until security made them pretty much pointless. Suicide bombers don't actually want to anywhere but heaven, so any destination for the plane is both irrelevant and moot, though you could make the point that U.S. bound planes would be more popular than others.
Actually, try leaving your front door open at home, and announcing that fact down at the local coffee shop. repeatedly. See how that lack of security works for ya. Haven't seen anyone scratching at your door lately, have you? Must not be any real problem.
And suicide bombers are at least as motivated as your local meth head getting a cuppa at Starbucks.
"I have explained that if you run any sort of Internet-facing network service, you will get attacked and probably with high frequency."
Actually, you might want to be more accurate. They -ARE- being attacked, whether they know it or not. Not knowing it leads easily to not knowing they ahve been compromised. They -ARE- being attacked. Not 'will'.
"When you build everything from source, you can implement protections against buffer overflows and other vulnerabilities that aren't available on a closed-source OS. With a *nix system, the tools I am using are not some black box. I can take them apart, examine them, and really understand how they work before integrating them into my system."
well, not everyone who wants to run an Internet server is a programmer, or has skills in security or OS management. If you follow the lead of many in the community, you will say that if they don't know what they are doing, they shouldn't be doing it. Well, that's close to telling people that it is not safe, so don't. This makes the Internet a different place than the creators intended, but it may in the end be unavoidable.
"I am not saying that one cannot run a very secure Windows system. I am saying it's easier to achieve the same level of security with a *nix system."
Depends on your level of skills. I submit it requires more skills to do so in a Linux environment. Of course, in a windows environment, you can buy a lot of stuff, so it is more expensive. And still not good assurances that you are meeting your goals, despite the price tag.
I'm referring to Apple's control of their market, and the volatility/security there.
There is no equalizing competition for the iPhone. Android phones are the most significant competitors, but that is a fractured and diverse product. I see the iPhone continuing to be a cash cow for Apple for a while yet. Windows Mobile 7 is not going to cause a wholesale sea change.
Ditto for the iPod.
And these two product lines are Apple's money makers because of iTunes, which completes the synergy that makes their market share in this space nearly unassailable. Microsoft isn't challenging this with the Zune, and there is no other music player/music store combo that comes close. Apple can milk this for a while to come.
That's what I refer to when I aay Apple 'owns' their market.
Microsoft has a HUGE market, but I don't consider it secure for them except in the short term, 1-4 years. See the problems they have getting uptake on Windows Vista? And now Windows 7 will only grow by new PC sales. XP is a chain around their ankles. Office 2007 has not yet driven Office 2003 out of the corporate world, but Microsoft has gone to a subscription model there, so corps are largely paying for 2007 and using 2003. Nice work, Microsoft. When a few large licensees learn they can in fact deploy OOO and drop the Microsoft license, then revenue will be volatile, and Microsoft will have to fight for the application space. Contrast this with Apple's application business.
This is an interesting choice. Do you want 27% of the PC market that you can depend on so long as you keep meeting a need that no one else seems able to, or do you want 90% of the Operating System and application markets that you have to fight for every single day against capable competitors, and rely largely on naivete and sloth of the users, who with possibly very little effort could make a change and leave you with a fraction of your market? And your largest customers are actually the most nimble? And your only hope is that they continue to say 'oh well, might as well renew'?
I like Apple's position here. It's not god-worship or being Jobs' buttboy. It's the facts.
Of course, if I could, I would like to be in the position to present open-soruce alternatives and profit from them. If you're gonna be gored, you might as well get some flesh off the bull.
I managed a very small ISP for a while on the 90s, and have my own mail and web servers to this day.
The definition of 'lowest-hanging fruit' for all the attackers out there is much broader than you implied. If you have a host accessible via the Internet, you ARE a target. You are being attacked now, this very minute. That you deflect those attacks ahead of the host at firewall, router, or application level doesn't change that. It just makes your logs bigger or smaller.
Your operating system choice makes no difference. They attack everything. You just use different tools and methods depending on what's available and what works.
"Great, so they want to redesign the Internet because people don't want to learn how to identify a phishing site and can't understand that giving your account numbers to unverifiable strangers is a bad idea?"
Uh, no. With MITM attacks, spoofing raised to a fine art, SSL hijacks of any number of diffeent methods, fake/spoofed/stolen certificates, it can be very, very hard to avoid making a mistake and trusting something you should not.
"No thanks. A fool and his money are soon parted and there's not much you're going to change about that."
Doh.
"Also, I'm sure that "accountability" is a euphamism for "tracked everywhere you go even more than you are now". Seems to me they are trying to increase protection against petty criminals while drastically reducing protection against overzealous governments that want to censor."
Yup. It's a fine line between security and oppression.
"Well, if 2/3rds is twice 1/3rd (it is...), then if the vote against is twice or more what the vote for is, the measure is defeated."
Make that:
"Well, if 2/3rds is twice 1/3rd (it is...), then if the vote against is half or more what the vote for is, the measure is defeated."
Stupid submit button...
If you need 2/3 to pass, then anything over 1/3 opposed defeats the measure.
Well, if 2/3rds is twice 1/3rd (it is...), then if the vote against is twice or more what the vote for is, the measure is defeated.
The vote was 136 for, 70 against. 70 is more than half of 136.
The nays have it.
Had the vote against been 68, that's exactly half of 136 - the yeas have it. Of course, if the total of votes were the same, then from a total of 206 votes, 137 for leaves 69 against. 69 is half of 138. Woops, the nays have it still. But 138 for leaves 68 against. Half of 138 is 69. Not enough no votes. The yeas prevail. This method avoids rounding, and satisfies the 2/3-1/3 formula.
Is this simple enough for ya?
This is only complicated because in this case 137.3 votes carries the measure, but we don't count fractional votes, even in Massachusetts. So it takes the extra .7 of a vote, or 148 whole votes, to approve the measure.
This wouldn't have happened in Maine, where we dislike Augusta sticking its nose into town business. But then we left the Commonwealth in 1820, for several reasons.
You could say she was 'bonifide'.
But you'd have to get corroboration that she liked it.
People say WE are a dangerous life form. So far, so good. We could be doing a LOT worse.
"Apple has long been more evil than Microsoft, just less successful at it."
Um, Apple owns its share of the market. OWNS. No one does what Apple does, not do they do something else as well, or as profitably.
Microsoft is faced with competitors on every side. They are in a constant fight for preservation. And then there is their struggle with themselves, to maintain what quality they can in the face of such product diversity, demands of the market, and the other pressures including being an antitrust target every single day.
Apple is very, very successful. Microsoft also. But in different ways. If I had to buy stock in either, it would be in Apple. If I had to predict who will be around in 50 years, it is almost a toss-up to me. That is only because Apple is actually Steve Jobs. His successor will have to have the same depth of vision, same drive, same demands and standards.
And in that light, actually, Microsoft is a toss-up because so far it has transitioned from Gates as CEO. A big step.
But Apple is better at what it does than Microsoft is at what IT does.
Like the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't good enough for you?
They were, of course, mistaken. Except for the Israelites. That's no longer binding on us, and sadly they cannot or do not fulfill so many other requirements of the Mosaic covenents they have neither standing nor command to chastise the rest of us.
You cannot judge a philosophy by its abuse. The individuals deserve that.
"Oh, this one doesn't condemn people for eternity of unspeakable suffering if they hurt his feelings by not believing?"
It's more like "This one condemns people to an eternity of separation from him by not accepting the overwhelming evidence of his existence and love."
But I phrase it that way because I believe. For a non-believer, it will make more sense if I write "by not being open to his existence".
For most non-believers, it seems to make no sense. So stop trying to make sense of God. He is beyond our comprehension, but not beyond our acceptance. Unless, of course, you just won't. Which I do understand. I was that way for a very long time, also.
he gives us the liberty to believe or not. He does not depend on us.
... and his prophets don't need anyone to defned them either. Especially the dead ones.
Maybe they need the one true God? Theirs seems to be entirely lacking in this area. Not to mention the Prophet, and his inadequacies. Please. He can take care of himself, if needed, eh? Can't? Tough.
So I can get t-boned by a drunk from two more directions? No thanks. Drivers have enough problems dealing with two dimensions. Auto-pilot will take a few more years to perfect, right?
Oh, and have them contact their bank if any of them paid and start the process of following up on where the money went.
I'm assuming they are contacting their local police. And sharing info. If this is what it looks like, it becomes international eventually, and getting back to the perps would be nice. Unrealistic, perhaps, but nice.
What a scam. sheesh.
...because I started counting how many Constitutional rights this violated, and ran out of fingers in a moment.
And that's just the Federal ones. I dunno much about the Florida state constitution, so I'm going to have to take off my shoes, I bet.
Three points:
"There is also evidence that liquid water may not be as important for life as everybody has assumed, since some microorganisms can make their own water by chewing on various hydrocarbons."
- Um, I have a theory that these organisms evolved from water-loving organisms. It seems Titan is likely to have surface water, and at least some of it is liquid at some time or another. So similar processes could work there. But these bacteria etc. need not have sprung forth without access to, and dependence on, water. Indeed, TFA seems to say they actually make their own, so it must be of some importance.
- Several replies indicate that we have a limited understanding of how life originated on Earth. I recall some experiments quite a few years ago that produced some amino acids in fairly harsh environments. For the Evolutionists out there, over a few million years even chance could bring enough fo these together to make "something wonderful" happen. For us Creationists, I recommend we not try to discern HOW God did it. That is not useful. Of course, while the Evolutionists expect us to explain everything, they cannot yet. Wait, let's not go down there... too many flames... must stop taunting... retract... retract...
- If nothing else, these organisms are interesting from a purely industrial point of view. Can we maybe make somethat eat hydrocarbons and give us water, O2, etc? 'Cleanup bugs' would be cool. Conversion of hydrocarbons into something easier and cleaner to use would be cool. Maybe we could get them to eat coal? That sounds cool.