Not really. When you look at the "facts" that have been foisted onto society such as global warming, evolution, etc it's hard for me to imagine religion requiring any more faith than science. Sure they wrap it up in a nice pretty package for you at school, but if you dig into it with a critical eye you will soon find the whole mess of holes and controversy that they don't bother to teach in school. I might put my faith in Christ, and you might put your faith in man. How do you know who it is that has been deceived? Each requires a certain level of trust. I'm sure I can trust Christ, but I can cite many instances that I have been deceived by men. It's almost a favored human past time.
At one time people believed the earth was flat. They were certain of it. You read it in a book. Ok, fine. Does that make it true? No more so than the Internet. "Oh, but it's a text book!!!" And...? Everyone has an agenda. Even professionals who write text books. Just try to get an unbiased account of anything. Gather information from multiple sources, look for credibility, test with your own reason, and guess what? You're still a blind man trying to find the truth by feeling what's around you.
Even what you see with your own eyes, and hear with your own ears is subject to your own filtering and interpretation. Because you believe something is true does that make it so? If one believes he can walk off a cliff does that mean he can defy gravity? No. It's an absolute truth. It's true whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not. What else in the universe might be absolutely true? That we evolved from apes? A text that has survived over 2000 years of scrutiny would suggest otherwise. Yet a theory that has never really been proven beyond interpretation of data by scientists with an agenda using a process that varies widely depending on a multitude of variables somehow gains traction over a period of less than 200 years? That's faith!!!
It all comes down to what you believe, but don't pretend you have any more factual evidence to support your beliefs because you're either deluded or lying if you do.
Let me guess... you vote democrat because the party is for the common man right? How's that working out for you? Unemployment is at 10%, and they're all the greedy CEOs that deserve to starve right? Oh, you mean the poor people are still the ones getting screwed? You don't say!!! The government is going to take over healthcare so they can make sure everyone is taken care of right? Wait and see how that works out. The only reason they want healthcare is so that the government justify raising our taxes to give us worse care than we get now. Any time the government takes over anything they make it worse. It's all about money and control regardless of which party you are talking about. The politicians look out for those that will help them get re-elected. These days that translates into big corporations, unions, lobbyists, and lawyers. Notice how the common man is missing from that list? That's what needs to change. The only reason anyone would vote for a right wing party that I can see is that it used to mean not giving more control and money to the governement. Now days I'd like to opt for another option, but realistically we end up with a moron who's going to make it worse no matter who we vote for.
Um, I don't know about you, but mine isn't on my right hand, or my forehead. Additionaly, illegals without a SS card buy vehicles in CA all the time. Heck, they don't even have to have a license and they can bash into the back end of your car spend a night in jail, and go do it again to someone else. So, try again.
It doesn't sound like you have a very good understanding of the Bible, or Christianity. The old testiment is included for a reason. It demonstrates God's holiness; His high standard, and mankind's neverending failure to meet that standard. Hence the need for love, forgivenss, as well as a Savior to bridge that gap. Christ came to uphold the law not abolish it. He gives us a way back from sin, not a free license to engage in it. We are called to love the sinner, and hate the sin. The Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin, and that it is actually a consequence of rebelion. That doesn't mean that it can't be forgiven, but it also doesn't make it acceptable. It's pretty clear in both the old testiment as well as the new. Now I know I'll probably get modded down because people can't handle the truth, but that's really what it is. I didn't make the rules I just refuse to turn a blind eye to them. As far as this so called tax is concerned, it's no different for two heterosexuals living together for convenience. It's a break for those who are married, not a tax on gays. If google wants to give that break to gays that's kind of their business. On a personal level I find it misguided, but at the end of the day Google is not a religious organization, and it's their company.
No wonder ICE doesn't have time for dealing with our border issues. They're too busy helping Hollywood. I guess Obama kind of owes them since it was their endorsement that helped put him into office.
"the stock market is the only honest way to determine value"
Not really. In fact, dumping billions of dollars into the country to prop up companies that are too big to fail is somewhat less than honest. We're still broke. And yet we're still spending like there's no tomorrow. That can't go on forever.
Well I'm familiar with the segment too, in fact I watched it at the time it aired. And I watched it again just now. I didn't see anger, it seemed like he was dismissive to me, as if to say "you know that's not the issue, so quit being stupid". That the constitution does not matter was not even close to the thrust of his argument. They're talking about a foriegn enemy combatant being given the same rights as a US Citizen. The constitution does not apply to him (hence why it isn't germain to the argument, or if you prefer does not matter in this particular case), and it should not in my opinion. This asshole should have been shot on sight, and instead we're going to bring him here to make a mockery of our justice system. It's total BS.
Do you honestly believe that trying him as a US Citizen will somehow cause the terrorists to pick up their guitars and start singing kumbiaya? These guys hate us. Not because of how we treat them, but because of what we believe. In fact we spent many years training and helping Osama Bin Ladin and look how thankful he was. It is an idealogical war, and anyone who says it's not is either deluded or lying. Even if we were to leave Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow these guys would continue to attack us until we're all dead, or they are. Given those options I'm going to come down on the side of self preservation every time. Quite frankly I'd rather we fight with them over there than over here. Trying this moron here in civilian court does nothing to help further that cause, and I would argue hurts us and our soldiers in the long run.
No, translation: If the facts disprove their point then editing it to suggest otherwise is dishonest. I guess the fact that those journalists were in an area where there had been a confirmed run in with terrorists earlier that day isn't really relevant. I guess the fact that their cameras looked like weapons wasn't important either. I've seen the unedited video and it does look like they're carying weapons. But that's not nearly as sensational as leaving that out and making like the military is just a bunch of thugs killing innocent civilians for fun and profit.
In that segment, the Judge responded by talking about what the Constitution says, and O'Reilly said jocularly, approximately: "I don't care what the Constitution says. The Constitution is not HERE. I want to hear what YOU have to say about the issue. He was trying to force the judge to stop hiding behind the law.
The whole concern about coal based energy being used is silly. If the solar panels are there already and capable of supplying enough energy to power the whole world I don't see why they would continue to use coal. Coal has a cost associated with it. Once the panels are built there is no fuel cost for solar. Am I missing something here?
I would question the intentions though. The last video left out a few key details, and was edited ala Michael Moore style to make a point rather than present all the facts. Ultimately that hurt our military. You can disagree with fighting, the war, the reasons behind the war, etc. But those in the field are just doing their job, and we shouldn't be hell bent on making that job harder than it already is. Take it up with your congressman, write the president if you feel that strongly, get out in the streets and protest, and execise your rights to be heard. All those are good ways to make your point. Disparaging our military to promote your political agenda is tantamount to treason in my mind.
Well the difference there though is that the smartphone is not part of the school's network. This alleviates the school from liability for the content. If the school provides the computer, some kid pulls up a porn page, and it offends somebody then the offended party could argue that the school made it possible. It's a dumb argument, I know, but it's worked in court many times when talking about employers vs. employees. That's just one example, but there are many more. The bottom line is that the school has very limited control over what happens on some kid's smartphone. On their own network it's a different story.
I agree that the school should be able to block the traffic. I'm all for freedom, but responsibility is good to. Just because the library is a public place doesn't mean you can do whatever you want there. It's not going to be cool if you show up with a few cases of beer, your boom box, and a bunch of friends and expect throw a wild party there. Now with filtering companies I'm not sure. If someone is paying for their services, and they are aware of the methods they use to block traffic I don't have a problem with that. If they are being sneaky about it, and the customers are not aware I don't think that's right.
I think what does matter though is that Spamhaus does not charge people for their service. If you're unhappy with it then don't use it. If the newspaper commits libel or slander it's to increase the sale of their paper. What motivation does Spamhaus have to inappropriately label someone as a spammer? I think e360 actually is spamming people, and maybe Spamhaus made the right call to begin with. Suing them in another country is pretty much a fruitless pursuit. Spamhaus can go on without caring, or paying. The US has no power to enforce the judgement in the UK. Altogether it seems like a inconsequential victory for e360.
True enough, however that's not where they choose to stick their speeding cameras. They'd much rather set the speed limit at 55 on a nice open highway, drop it down to 45 for no other reason than to stick a camera there, plant the speed limit sign next to a large tree, wait a year, and catch the people who missed the sign overgrown by trees. It's total bs and has nothing to do with safety. Cops have been doing crap like this for ages, but with this nifty technology you catch every person speeding and don't even have to pay an officer.
If they'd at least use the money to hire a few more officers and get rid of the graphiti and drug dealing gangbangers I'd call it a net wash. But as it is we get revenue generation for the city and still have to deal with the low lifes the PD is too scared to take care of.
Obama made this point yesterday as well. It's a rare occasion that I find myself agreeing with him, however in this particular instance I think he's dead on. If they're going to spend all this money on PR, then they better have no problem paying to clean up the mess and compensate those affected.
That's an awfully optimistic viewpoint. The threat is actually very real, and depending on what is attacked it could be very very bad. At least as bad as physically bombing a city if not worse. Imagine having power knocked out, after the backups have been disabled. Imagine losing key lines connecting the grid, as in someone pulling a series of towers down at strategic points. You don't put those up overnight. Imagine losing power for 2-3 weeks in LA, California around the beginning of August. No A/C, no refrigeration, no way to charge cell phones, no gas, no water service, hospitals will maybe run for a day or two, but then what happens when folks start dying? Imagine all of those businesses losing productivity for 2-3 weeks. Don't think that might have an economic impact? People would be killing each other, the enemy wouldn't have to. It would be complete chaos. It would be Katrina times 10. Now I'll readily agree that what we are doing to prevent such an attack is really not doing anything to protect us at all. It's largely security theater, and in some cases it's actually making us less secure. Ground surveillance is a great idea, but how are you going to watch every tower associated with the electrical grid? That's just one physical scenario. The cyber aspect opens up all sorts of nifty posibilities. What if someone were to take control of an entire utility and instead of shutting everything down decided to cause an intentional spike that burns stuff up all over the place? How about if they locked everyone out an maxed out all of the generators causing them to run beyond spec and fail. You don't put up towers overnight, but you'd be looking at a few years to replace a generator.
No, I'd say it deserves the attention. I just wish there was a little more intelligence involved in coming up with solutions to the problem instead of the typical knee jerk reactionary crap.
Ya think??? I work for a utility and this amazed me as well. At first we had to share tie line data with neighboring utilities. Then we had to provide EMS data to corporate for decision making. Now due to CIP we have to allow monitoring output through to corporate via SMTP, and SNMP. If it weren't for the feds we could cut all ties to the outside world, and vastly improve our security posture.
Oh yes!!! Please do!!! That's a great idea. That way when the password gets compromised an attacker will have access to everything protected by that password. Frockin' awesome!!/sarcasm
Would it be too much to ask to let those who know security and their systems best to manage them without government interferance? Hmmmm? I know there are people out there who really believe that the government is the solution to every single problem we face. I'd like to refer those people to the gulf of Mexico, immigration reform, federal deficit, medicare, social security, unemployment, and in a few short years health care (mark my words it's going to be bad on a biblical scale). In short, the government is quite adept at taking our money and making it disappear while providing little to no tangible benefit. Please let's not give them any more power than they already have.
What makes you think the government will be any more proficient at stopping the attack? Government networks have historically been more insecure than private sector networks. I happen to work for a utility, and if it came down to it we would have the ability to completely separate ourselves from the internet were it not for federal regulations requiring us to share data with our neighboring utilities. This is not about protecting the infrastructure. It's about controlling private businesses. CIP has done more to degrade our security than an outside force. It's almost as if the government is trying to make us more vulnerable. I wonder what the motivation for that might be?
Slashdot Mirror
Did you have to work hard at becoming a moron, or did it just sort of come naturally for you?
Not really. When you look at the "facts" that have been foisted onto society such as global warming, evolution, etc it's hard for me to imagine religion requiring any more faith than science. Sure they wrap it up in a nice pretty package for you at school, but if you dig into it with a critical eye you will soon find the whole mess of holes and controversy that they don't bother to teach in school. I might put my faith in Christ, and you might put your faith in man. How do you know who it is that has been deceived? Each requires a certain level of trust. I'm sure I can trust Christ, but I can cite many instances that I have been deceived by men. It's almost a favored human past time.
At one time people believed the earth was flat. They were certain of it. You read it in a book. Ok, fine. Does that make it true? No more so than the Internet. "Oh, but it's a text book!!!" And...? Everyone has an agenda. Even professionals who write text books. Just try to get an unbiased account of anything. Gather information from multiple sources, look for credibility, test with your own reason, and guess what? You're still a blind man trying to find the truth by feeling what's around you.
Even what you see with your own eyes, and hear with your own ears is subject to your own filtering and interpretation. Because you believe something is true does that make it so? If one believes he can walk off a cliff does that mean he can defy gravity? No. It's an absolute truth. It's true whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not. What else in the universe might be absolutely true? That we evolved from apes? A text that has survived over 2000 years of scrutiny would suggest otherwise. Yet a theory that has never really been proven beyond interpretation of data by scientists with an agenda using a process that varies widely depending on a multitude of variables somehow gains traction over a period of less than 200 years? That's faith!!!
It all comes down to what you believe, but don't pretend you have any more factual evidence to support your beliefs because you're either deluded or lying if you do.
Let me guess... you vote democrat because the party is for the common man right? How's that working out for you? Unemployment is at 10%, and they're all the greedy CEOs that deserve to starve right? Oh, you mean the poor people are still the ones getting screwed? You don't say!!! The government is going to take over healthcare so they can make sure everyone is taken care of right? Wait and see how that works out. The only reason they want healthcare is so that the government justify raising our taxes to give us worse care than we get now. Any time the government takes over anything they make it worse. It's all about money and control regardless of which party you are talking about. The politicians look out for those that will help them get re-elected. These days that translates into big corporations, unions, lobbyists, and lawyers. Notice how the common man is missing from that list? That's what needs to change. The only reason anyone would vote for a right wing party that I can see is that it used to mean not giving more control and money to the governement. Now days I'd like to opt for another option, but realistically we end up with a moron who's going to make it worse no matter who we vote for.
Well one doesn't tend to go buy a new scanner everytime he upgrades his OS. Especially, when you can manipulate the inf file and the old drivers work.
Um, I don't know about you, but mine isn't on my right hand, or my forehead. Additionaly, illegals without a SS card buy vehicles in CA all the time. Heck, they don't even have to have a license and they can bash into the back end of your car spend a night in jail, and go do it again to someone else. So, try again.
It doesn't sound like you have a very good understanding of the Bible, or Christianity. The old testiment is included for a reason. It demonstrates God's holiness; His high standard, and mankind's neverending failure to meet that standard. Hence the need for love, forgivenss, as well as a Savior to bridge that gap. Christ came to uphold the law not abolish it. He gives us a way back from sin, not a free license to engage in it. We are called to love the sinner, and hate the sin. The Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin, and that it is actually a consequence of rebelion. That doesn't mean that it can't be forgiven, but it also doesn't make it acceptable. It's pretty clear in both the old testiment as well as the new. Now I know I'll probably get modded down because people can't handle the truth, but that's really what it is. I didn't make the rules I just refuse to turn a blind eye to them. As far as this so called tax is concerned, it's no different for two heterosexuals living together for convenience. It's a break for those who are married, not a tax on gays. If google wants to give that break to gays that's kind of their business. On a personal level I find it misguided, but at the end of the day Google is not a religious organization, and it's their company.
No wonder ICE doesn't have time for dealing with our border issues. They're too busy helping Hollywood. I guess Obama kind of owes them since it was their endorsement that helped put him into office.
"the stock market is the only honest way to determine value"
Not really. In fact, dumping billions of dollars into the country to prop up companies that are too big to fail is somewhat less than honest. We're still broke. And yet we're still spending like there's no tomorrow. That can't go on forever.
Well I'm familiar with the segment too, in fact I watched it at the time it aired. And I watched it again just now. I didn't see anger, it seemed like he was dismissive to me, as if to say "you know that's not the issue, so quit being stupid". That the constitution does not matter was not even close to the thrust of his argument. They're talking about a foriegn enemy combatant being given the same rights as a US Citizen. The constitution does not apply to him (hence why it isn't germain to the argument, or if you prefer does not matter in this particular case), and it should not in my opinion. This asshole should have been shot on sight, and instead we're going to bring him here to make a mockery of our justice system. It's total BS.
Do you honestly believe that trying him as a US Citizen will somehow cause the terrorists to pick up their guitars and start singing kumbiaya? These guys hate us. Not because of how we treat them, but because of what we believe. In fact we spent many years training and helping Osama Bin Ladin and look how thankful he was. It is an idealogical war, and anyone who says it's not is either deluded or lying. Even if we were to leave Iraq and Afghanistan tomorrow these guys would continue to attack us until we're all dead, or they are. Given those options I'm going to come down on the side of self preservation every time. Quite frankly I'd rather we fight with them over there than over here. Trying this moron here in civilian court does nothing to help further that cause, and I would argue hurts us and our soldiers in the long run.
No, translation: If the facts disprove their point then editing it to suggest otherwise is dishonest. I guess the fact that those journalists were in an area where there had been a confirmed run in with terrorists earlier that day isn't really relevant. I guess the fact that their cameras looked like weapons wasn't important either. I've seen the unedited video and it does look like they're carying weapons. But that's not nearly as sensational as leaving that out and making like the military is just a bunch of thugs killing innocent civilians for fun and profit.
You might want to rethink your sig.
In that segment, the Judge responded by talking about what the Constitution says, and O'Reilly said jocularly, approximately: "I don't care what the Constitution says. The Constitution is not HERE. I want to hear what YOU have to say about the issue. He was trying to force the judge to stop hiding behind the law.
The whole concern about coal based energy being used is silly. If the solar panels are there already and capable of supplying enough energy to power the whole world I don't see why they would continue to use coal. Coal has a cost associated with it. Once the panels are built there is no fuel cost for solar. Am I missing something here?
I would question the intentions though. The last video left out a few key details, and was edited ala Michael Moore style to make a point rather than present all the facts. Ultimately that hurt our military. You can disagree with fighting, the war, the reasons behind the war, etc. But those in the field are just doing their job, and we shouldn't be hell bent on making that job harder than it already is. Take it up with your congressman, write the president if you feel that strongly, get out in the streets and protest, and execise your rights to be heard. All those are good ways to make your point. Disparaging our military to promote your political agenda is tantamount to treason in my mind.
Well the difference there though is that the smartphone is not part of the school's network. This alleviates the school from liability for the content. If the school provides the computer, some kid pulls up a porn page, and it offends somebody then the offended party could argue that the school made it possible. It's a dumb argument, I know, but it's worked in court many times when talking about employers vs. employees. That's just one example, but there are many more. The bottom line is that the school has very limited control over what happens on some kid's smartphone. On their own network it's a different story.
I agree that the school should be able to block the traffic. I'm all for freedom, but responsibility is good to. Just because the library is a public place doesn't mean you can do whatever you want there. It's not going to be cool if you show up with a few cases of beer, your boom box, and a bunch of friends and expect throw a wild party there. Now with filtering companies I'm not sure. If someone is paying for their services, and they are aware of the methods they use to block traffic I don't have a problem with that. If they are being sneaky about it, and the customers are not aware I don't think that's right.
Hey, free fuel. You might be on to something there. Obable said he want's to try something new. This fits that bill just fine.
I think what does matter though is that Spamhaus does not charge people for their service. If you're unhappy with it then don't use it. If the newspaper commits libel or slander it's to increase the sale of their paper. What motivation does Spamhaus have to inappropriately label someone as a spammer? I think e360 actually is spamming people, and maybe Spamhaus made the right call to begin with. Suing them in another country is pretty much a fruitless pursuit. Spamhaus can go on without caring, or paying. The US has no power to enforce the judgement in the UK. Altogether it seems like a inconsequential victory for e360.
I didn't know the Bonneville Power Authority had gotten into genetics. I need to call my broker.
Ever hear of a crosswalk?? Let's waste everyone's time so you can cross the street wherever you want. That's a great idea.
True enough, however that's not where they choose to stick their speeding cameras. They'd much rather set the speed limit at 55 on a nice open highway, drop it down to 45 for no other reason than to stick a camera there, plant the speed limit sign next to a large tree, wait a year, and catch the people who missed the sign overgrown by trees. It's total bs and has nothing to do with safety. Cops have been doing crap like this for ages, but with this nifty technology you catch every person speeding and don't even have to pay an officer.
If they'd at least use the money to hire a few more officers and get rid of the graphiti and drug dealing gangbangers I'd call it a net wash. But as it is we get revenue generation for the city and still have to deal with the low lifes the PD is too scared to take care of.
Obama made this point yesterday as well. It's a rare occasion that I find myself agreeing with him, however in this particular instance I think he's dead on. If they're going to spend all this money on PR, then they better have no problem paying to clean up the mess and compensate those affected.
The main reason is to provide real time data to neighboring utilities as mandated by the feds.
That's an awfully optimistic viewpoint. The threat is actually very real, and depending on what is attacked it could be very very bad. At least as bad as physically bombing a city if not worse. Imagine having power knocked out, after the backups have been disabled. Imagine losing key lines connecting the grid, as in someone pulling a series of towers down at strategic points. You don't put those up overnight. Imagine losing power for 2-3 weeks in LA, California around the beginning of August. No A/C, no refrigeration, no way to charge cell phones, no gas, no water service, hospitals will maybe run for a day or two, but then what happens when folks start dying? Imagine all of those businesses losing productivity for 2-3 weeks. Don't think that might have an economic impact? People would be killing each other, the enemy wouldn't have to. It would be complete chaos. It would be Katrina times 10. Now I'll readily agree that what we are doing to prevent such an attack is really not doing anything to protect us at all. It's largely security theater, and in some cases it's actually making us less secure. Ground surveillance is a great idea, but how are you going to watch every tower associated with the electrical grid? That's just one physical scenario. The cyber aspect opens up all sorts of nifty posibilities. What if someone were to take control of an entire utility and instead of shutting everything down decided to cause an intentional spike that burns stuff up all over the place? How about if they locked everyone out an maxed out all of the generators causing them to run beyond spec and fail. You don't put up towers overnight, but you'd be looking at a few years to replace a generator.
No, I'd say it deserves the attention. I just wish there was a little more intelligence involved in coming up with solutions to the problem instead of the typical knee jerk reactionary crap.
Ya think??? I work for a utility and this amazed me as well. At first we had to share tie line data with neighboring utilities. Then we had to provide EMS data to corporate for decision making. Now due to CIP we have to allow monitoring output through to corporate via SMTP, and SNMP. If it weren't for the feds we could cut all ties to the outside world, and vastly improve our security posture.
Oh yes!!! Please do!!! That's a great idea. That way when the password gets compromised an attacker will have access to everything protected by that password. Frockin' awesome!! /sarcasm
Would it be too much to ask to let those who know security and their systems best to manage them without government interferance? Hmmmm? I know there are people out there who really believe that the government is the solution to every single problem we face. I'd like to refer those people to the gulf of Mexico, immigration reform, federal deficit, medicare, social security, unemployment, and in a few short years health care (mark my words it's going to be bad on a biblical scale). In short, the government is quite adept at taking our money and making it disappear while providing little to no tangible benefit. Please let's not give them any more power than they already have.
What makes you think the government will be any more proficient at stopping the attack? Government networks have historically been more insecure than private sector networks. I happen to work for a utility, and if it came down to it we would have the ability to completely separate ourselves from the internet were it not for federal regulations requiring us to share data with our neighboring utilities. This is not about protecting the infrastructure. It's about controlling private businesses. CIP has done more to degrade our security than an outside force. It's almost as if the government is trying to make us more vulnerable. I wonder what the motivation for that might be?