As for the parent, you also totally rock. Climate predictions and this "discovery" are not scientific result, but theories that have yet to be verified with significant supporting evidence. I am concerned that the climate scientists haven't demonstrated a peer reviewed model of warming that stands up to even a 5 year span of time. I am concerned that the astrophysicysts haven't properly understood the nature of the pulsar or the body orbiting it, and are assuming far too much to give useful results. Both of them may be good theories from honest scientists, but theories are just the start.
Science is an imprecise art of choosing a winner from competing theories and weighing them based on how well the predictions are useful. If a theory fails to predict the future, it's basically useless.
The problem with climate science is that it has in the past, many times, made predictions about the future regarding global warming trends and rates based on greenhouse gas concentrations, and they've been totally wrong. Despite the greenhouse gas predictions being accurate, the warming numbers have never agreed with models. Therefore we have yet to find a theoretical model that accurately predict the future. Our latest and greatest model is claimed to be wonderful, but until it is proven accurate, it's just a theory competing for attention and validation.
The further problem with climate science is that those weak theories are siezed upon to justify very very expensive policy choices, that are only worth it if the models are accurate. In the mean time, we will have some people who believe the scary predictions and choose to pay ridiculous proces to attempt to solve the supposed problem, and other people who don't believe the scary predictions and continue to consume the cheapest energy they can, spoiling any effort of the first group to accomplish change.
It's a crappy situation, but it won't improve until some climate scientist can create and popularize a theory that accurately predicts future events well enough to be useful as a policy guide, and prove it with years of successful model validation. Today we have mostly climate scientists who update the model every year to postpone the point in their theories where verifiable results are demonstrable.
Looking back 20 years, the sorts of predictions from that time that agree with the last 20 years of history are the theories that show carbon dioxide has only a minor impact on overall climate. No climate model that predicted catastrophic warming has ever been shown to be accurate when put up against the cold hard observational data. I am a scientist, and I do not believe global warming is a catastrophe, a tipping point, or a crisis in need of policy solutions. But I'm open to evidence as it comes in.
In the nuclear model for stellar lifecycle, only large stars can form without heavier elements like this star. It does not allow small stars to form (and be an active/bright/visible star) without an abundance of heavier elements.
In the Electric model for stellar lifecycle, stars such as this an be visible in an area with higher-than-usual charge differential. Smaller lighter stars have a lower escape velocity, so there is a smaller difference between the escape rates of electrons and protons, so there is a corespondingly lower positive charge on the star as a whole. This means they are less likely to cause enough electric current to be bright/visible. This small star is visible, so according to the Electric Sun theory, the ambient galactic environment around that star must have a stronger negative charge than usual.
Just another piece of evidence that the Big Bang and Nuclear Star theories fail to account for real-word observations, and should be considered falsified.
It seems the Creationists are the ones clinging to the Big Bang theory as proof that science agrees with their ancient book of truths. They would be the last to claim it's been disproven.
You, a non-religious pedant who believes that faith in the Big Bang makes you scientifically literate, are no scientist. Scientists are open to new theories and will evaluate any theory against observation. If you still believe in the Big Bang after all the observations that falsify it, then you have some catching up to do if you want to be a good scientist.
I am a man with a scientific mind, and in my investigations I have seen sufficient evidence that the Big Bang is an obsolete theory that fails to fit the observations accurately enough. It is based on assumptions and circular logic, supported by the popular belief (both religious and secular) that we must know how the universe began. Too many things, like this article, show that our models for stellar lifecycles are inaccurate. According to standard stellar theory, this star shouldn't exist. According to the Big Bang theory, this start shouldn't exist. It does. We observe it. Now let's work together to update the theory, and let's start by evaluating our assumptions for anything that we can throw out and reconsider.
My parents took me to see the first shuttle launch in person, which is one of my earliest clear memories. I went with them again to this final launch, and I brought the oldest two of my own children. I am honored to have been witness to the beginning and end of a great era in human spaceflight, and I know I gave my children a very meaningful memory to hold on to.
My personal feelings are mixed. I know that the huge government space program is cost inefficient and wasteful, but it's also so expensive that nobody else is willing to throw that kind of money away. I simultaneously want to see human spaceflight continue in grand style and I don't want taxpayers to have to pay for something that we could do cheaper and better with private spaceflight. I hope the government can find a way to meet its launch needs with things like SpaceX, and I hope launch costs can fall, but I fear the grand adventures of wasteful spending and glory may be over now.
When you don't include IT early enough, their input is disruptive to the plan, even if it's valid input. So they are the bearers of bad news.
Some say the solution is to include IT earler in a project by asking for their input and assistance with the design phase. Bad idea. Nobody should have to go beg another department for help, and what you get by asking is always less than you need.
Q: So how do you solve this problem? A: By including IT in your team organizationally. Some companies do this by making the product team (developers, etc) responsible for most IT functions on their product (e.g. Amazon.com). Some companies integrate IT team members into the virtual product team, sitting next to the developers as they work (e.g. aQuantive, before the MS acquisition).
Either way, you need to make IT literally *BE* part of the team, so there is no "us vs. them" mentality. Now that cloud services can be bought off the shelf, IT needs to be very responsive to remain compatitive. The only way to be responsive enough to an modern agile team is to be integrated into their fast-paced process at an intimate level. Any IT department that tries to stay independent and powerful will fall to the competition, and deserves to IMO.
This leaves me thinking about how I should talk to my kids. Do I want them to value college? And if so, for what purpose? I agree that the cost/benefit of college is terrible, and the truest lessons are learned almost despite college. Yet I still feel compelled to send them there. Why is that?
I want them to learn how to think for themselves, how to take information and turn it into knowledge no matter the subject, how to be introspective and apply critical thinking to their own processes and behaviors. I want them to be eloquent speakers and to be culturally fluent. I also want them to be happy. How do I get there from here?
Please don't malign libertarianism with a connection to anti-intellectualism. Libertarianism is a distrust of ABUSE OF POWER, not of AUTHORITY. When authority is earned on its merits, as it is with the value of classic literature in a free market of ideas,then any power it has is legitimate. But if a college accreditation board decides that all students must learn that classic book to graduate with a meaningful degree, and there is no alternative choice available, then they are abusing their power no matter how honorable their intentions
Damn Straight. You don't get to use the "private entiry" or "choose a different mode of travel" arguments until I can start an airline with different security features.
My airline would require all passengers to carry and assert proficiency with a firearm. If you are proficient but not equipped, a loaded handgun can be provided for an extra fee, but all passengers over the minimum age would be required to carry.
You may not like my airline. You might never fly on my airline. But if I can't run that business and compete fairly, you don't get to tell me that it's a free country.
You are confusing two things here. Windows 7 is a PC OS. The article you linked and your comments are correct about that, it does not support ARM.
The other issue is Windows Phone 7. It is a complete break from previous versions of Windows Mobile. Neither is a desktop OS, and both run on ARM processors. It is not wrong to claim that Windows Phone 7 is completely new, redesigned from the ground up. It is as they claim.
Microsoft is betting on Windows Phone software for one part of its mobile story, and that part runs on ARM. The other side of the coin is the PC Windows side, which is betting on building more full-PC-function and backwards-compatible tablets than iOS and Andriod can. They may lose that bet, but it's not as confusing as you make it out to be.
Did any of you see the demo of "Dance Central" at E3 this year? It was amazing! Dance Dance Revolution has sold millions; the dance and excercise market for video game consoles is not small. No other console can compete with the ability to simultaneously track arms, legs, head, and body for use in a dance or exercise game. I'm convinced that once this is out there and you can try it at your friend's house or the store, you'll see that all other dance and exercise games are obsolete. The full body immersive experience you can get with Kinect is far superior to anything you can get with a dance pad or handheld wands.
From the demos I've seen, I'm convinced that this will sell really well in the dance, exercise, and sports genres. Microsoft also hopes to bring non-gamers into the fold with this release, and I have no idea how well it will do on that front. But the technology is a nice leap forward. I look forward to seeing what MS and other game developers can do with it.
There are safer ways to teach children about guns
on
Accidental Wii Suicide
·
· Score: 1
I'm in a similar situation. My guns are either locked up or on my person at all times, but I take different defense in depth measures to prevent this sort of accident if I screw up and leave a gun within reach of my small children. I don't ban toy guns, but I do make sure they are easily distinguished from the real thing. Kids love toy guns, and I'm not convinced banning them from your home makes much difference either way. What I DO make sure of is that my kids can tell the difference, and know to treat them differently.
From the age of two or so, I have the kids handle the each of my real guns so they know what they feel like, in contrast to the toys. The weight, the material, the smell, all make it easy to tell real from fake. And I drill them that if they see a real gun anywhere, they need to tell us immediately so we can lock it up. I actually talk about the possibility of this scenario, where I forgot that I put it down somewhere, and they need to tell me about it. This can be taught much earlier than safe gun handling and firing, which I don't start until around five or six, and not with handguns at that age.
I then test them on it. I leave the real gun out somewhere, like on the bathroom counter, with fake bullets loaded in the magazine, or with the gun disabled somehow depending on model. So far, each test has resulted in correct behavior, with all of my kids. Let me repeat that I don't rely on this, and I don't expect to leave a gun lying around anytime soon. It is just defense in depth, because I don't want to end up in a story like this one.
In spirit, the parents responsible for this just removed their progeny from the gene pool, thus removing their own. I understand why that sounds like a Darwin award. But the rules are clear. Killing an innocent doesn't count, and it left the offending parents able to reproduce again. No Darwin award for these morons. http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/
Okay, so actually there are several ways. But posting here is a pretty good way to find out. It beats calling CmdrTaco's cell non-stop until he tells you.
When you add a self-signed cert, you usually add it to the root store. And if it's generated as a default self-signed cert, it probably thinks it's good for ALL USAGES. If you accept this cert for your little site-that-can't-afford-Verisign, you are opening yourself up to a world of hurt.
Not only can they man-in-the-middle you to any SSL web site (including your bank), but they can sign code claiming it to be from someone else, they can sign ActiveX controls, they can forge email to you with a forged S/MIME signature, etc. It's a huge risk.
I have and will continue to accept self-signed certs when the situation calls for it, but I also set the "Certificate Purposes" to a stripped down list. In this scenario, Server Authentication is all you need to allow. If the web site owner is not malicious, ask them to issue the self-signed cert with only that one use enabled, and match it to the name of the site/domain, and make it not a CA. Then they can still protect the communication channel, but they can't do anything else to you. Better yet, get them to set up a CA that can issue these certs, and get users to install that CA cert, enabled for only Server Auth.
I'm in WA, and I have Comcast's Motorola DVR boxes with the MS Interface. All the symptoms with the UI that you described are familiar to me with the MS interface. I bet it's just as much the Motorola hardware to blame.
If I had another choice in the market for High-Def DVR, I'd take it. Anything would be better than Comcast. You hear me, nebulous market forces? I said I'd pay for your service if you offered it. Hearken to the pent up demand.
Why don't I have another good option? Why is your pet option not what I need? Well... I can get a good view of any one area of the sky from my roof, but I can't simultaneously from one dish location see all the satellites required for good high-def programming over satellite. I can't get FiOS yet, but it's coming. I can get OTA programming well enough, but neither Tivo nor any PC solution will integrate with digital cable to allow me to tune multiple channels of cable or off-air high-def programming.
Dish Networks offers the closest thing to what I want, but they make you pay through the nose if you have two high def TVs. They optimize multi-TV HD sales packages for one high-def TV and one low-def one, and no other options are affordable. That kind of "we know what you want" mentality is annoying, and I bet it turns off a lot of the geeks on this board. Grrr.
I carry a gun openly in front of my kids. They never see it used as a toy.
I play violent video games, where I blast the hell out of humans and aliens alike. I shield the kids from language, so I don't let them watch when I play Prey or Gears of War. But I don't shield them from graphics or violent content, so they see gore and violence in Halo, Lost Planet, and even Call of Duty.
I do explain the difference between pretend and real, and I let them see that distinction in action. It's not just an abstract concept. The games are fun, and there is no consequence to killing. The gun Daddy carries is real, and there are huge consequenses attached to its use. By letting them see me behaving this way, I think they will learn and retain this lesson easily. Responsibility can be taught by example.
Webb has applied old work on ocean waves to predict what sort of background noise would be made by waves moving over the shallow ocean floor. He found his prediction closely matched the spectrum of the Earth's hum.
Let's all say this together: "It's not a prediction if the measurement has already been done."
Working on your model until it aligns with obsrvations is how we got into the mess we're in with astrophysics (you know, the crappy Big Bang model constantly being changed to correlate with new observations). Why don't you try to get an actual prediction from your model, and then check with the real world? Maybe then you'd have something to talk about.
Ok, so having a model to explain this is good progress, because no good model existed before. Now go ahead and support the new model with evidence. What can it predict that hasn't been measured yet?
Let me try to explain why server-side symlink evaluation is a potential security risk. Most people think it is because the link might point to something the user cannot access. This is not true. ACL checking would still take place on the server, and no security violation would occur. The problem is that something could be made accessible remotely when it was not intended to be accessible remotely. For example something which is world readable, but which is not shared.
Making any arbitrary user with a shared folder able to put a symlink in his directory that allows him to get at non-shared files, is a security risk. The analogy is to a web server checking to make sure a relative path references something within its document root. It's a lot of work to make that check on the server, and it can make the use of a symlink feel broken, making users annoyed. The best behavior, with the least risk of bugs, is to do the symlink evaluation on the client in a remote FS. This is why they extended SMB to support symlinks as well.
Looking at my analogy, note that in general in http a reference to embedded content is evaluated by the client and results in a request to the server for the other file. There have never been any problems with this approach. In some extensions of http servers, such as CGI, people were able to include and access files from outside the server root, violating server security. There have been a lot of problems with this, and they have been fixed by repeated patches to the server-side security code. It's a hard problem to get fixed right, and the best choice is to design such that security is simple and self-enforcing. MS is taking the smart path here.
You make some good arguments. Code signing is not a panacea, but it does add value. saying it sucks because it doesn't solve world hunger is a worthless criticism of a good technology.
I would add that "always trust X" is not appropriate for home users, and it is good that MS makes the unchecked state the default. I don't recall MS telling me to always trust MS, and if they do, I would want to give them feedback about that wording.
The "always truxt X" feature is best used by domain admins who can pre-approve stuff for their users. It's even better if they can resign the code themselves with a cert on the approved list.
You claim that Plasma Cosmology does not predict as well as standard cosmology. This is exactly what Plasma Cosmology promponents say in reverse, and it's meaningless without examples and data. You mentioned three examples.
The evidence that I have seen is that standard cosmology did not accurately predict the microwave background level, but predicted wrong several times and then adjusted to "predict" it after its level was measured. It did not "predict" elemental abundances either, rather someone found a way to work it out so that if you started with something you'd end up where we are now. That doesn't prove the thoeory, it just shows that it can be made to fit. That is only one part of a good theory. Finally, the well-known redshift/distance correlation was measured long before the standard theory was developed, so that again is not something that standard cosmology "predicts."
Both theories have solid ways to explain known observations, and both can point to things that they explain better or more simply than the alternative. I don't think it's fair to discount Plasma Cosmology as a fringe theory based on its merits. It is fringe only because people like you treat it as such instead of honestly trying to evaluate which parts of its theory may be accurate.
(On topic, this comet theory is bunk. I believe in spectroscopy, which proves that comets have lots of ice. Off topic again, I also believe that the big bang is a theory in need of replacement and that the redshift/distance correlation is not just about doppler shift, but that's just me)
Slashdot Mirror
You totally rock.
As for the parent, you also totally rock. Climate predictions and this "discovery" are not scientific result, but theories that have yet to be verified with significant supporting evidence.
I am concerned that the climate scientists haven't demonstrated a peer reviewed model of warming that stands up to even a 5 year span of time.
I am concerned that the astrophysicysts haven't properly understood the nature of the pulsar or the body orbiting it, and are assuming far too much to give useful results.
Both of them may be good theories from honest scientists, but theories are just the start.
Science is an imprecise art of choosing a winner from competing theories and weighing them based on how well the predictions are useful. If a theory fails to predict the future, it's basically useless.
The problem with climate science is that it has in the past, many times, made predictions about the future regarding global warming trends and rates based on greenhouse gas concentrations, and they've been totally wrong. Despite the greenhouse gas predictions being accurate, the warming numbers have never agreed with models. Therefore we have yet to find a theoretical model that accurately predict the future. Our latest and greatest model is claimed to be wonderful, but until it is proven accurate, it's just a theory competing for attention and validation.
The further problem with climate science is that those weak theories are siezed upon to justify very very expensive policy choices, that are only worth it if the models are accurate. In the mean time, we will have some people who believe the scary predictions and choose to pay ridiculous proces to attempt to solve the supposed problem, and other people who don't believe the scary predictions and continue to consume the cheapest energy they can, spoiling any effort of the first group to accomplish change.
It's a crappy situation, but it won't improve until some climate scientist can create and popularize a theory that accurately predicts future events well enough to be useful as a policy guide, and prove it with years of successful model validation. Today we have mostly climate scientists who update the model every year to postpone the point in their theories where verifiable results are demonstrable.
Looking back 20 years, the sorts of predictions from that time that agree with the last 20 years of history are the theories that show carbon dioxide has only a minor impact on overall climate. No climate model that predicted catastrophic warming has ever been shown to be accurate when put up against the cold hard observational data. I am a scientist, and I do not believe global warming is a catastrophe, a tipping point, or a crisis in need of policy solutions. But I'm open to evidence as it comes in.
In the nuclear model for stellar lifecycle, only large stars can form without heavier elements like this star. It does not allow small stars to form (and be an active/bright/visible star) without an abundance of heavier elements.
In the Electric model for stellar lifecycle, stars such as this an be visible in an area with higher-than-usual charge differential. Smaller lighter stars have a lower escape velocity, so there is a smaller difference between the escape rates of electrons and protons, so there is a corespondingly lower positive charge on the star as a whole. This means they are less likely to cause enough electric current to be bright/visible. This small star is visible, so according to the Electric Sun theory, the ambient galactic environment around that star must have a stronger negative charge than usual.
Just another piece of evidence that the Big Bang and Nuclear Star theories fail to account for real-word observations, and should be considered falsified.
--Jaborandy
It seems the Creationists are the ones clinging to the Big Bang theory as proof that science agrees with their ancient book of truths. They would be the last to claim it's been disproven.
You, a non-religious pedant who believes that faith in the Big Bang makes you scientifically literate, are no scientist. Scientists are open to new theories and will evaluate any theory against observation. If you still believe in the Big Bang after all the observations that falsify it, then you have some catching up to do if you want to be a good scientist.
I am a man with a scientific mind, and in my investigations I have seen sufficient evidence that the Big Bang is an obsolete theory that fails to fit the observations accurately enough. It is based on assumptions and circular logic, supported by the popular belief (both religious and secular) that we must know how the universe began. Too many things, like this article, show that our models for stellar lifecycles are inaccurate. According to standard stellar theory, this star shouldn't exist. According to the Big Bang theory, this start shouldn't exist. It does. We observe it. Now let's work together to update the theory, and let's start by evaluating our assumptions for anything that we can throw out and reconsider.
--Jaborandy
My parents took me to see the first shuttle launch in person, which is one of my earliest clear memories. I went with them again to this final launch, and I brought the oldest two of my own children. I am honored to have been witness to the beginning and end of a great era in human spaceflight, and I know I gave my children a very meaningful memory to hold on to.
My personal feelings are mixed. I know that the huge government space program is cost inefficient and wasteful, but it's also so expensive that nobody else is willing to throw that kind of money away. I simultaneously want to see human spaceflight continue in grand style and I don't want taxpayers to have to pay for something that we could do cheaper and better with private spaceflight. I hope the government can find a way to meet its launch needs with things like SpaceX, and I hope launch costs can fall, but I fear the grand adventures of wasteful spending and glory may be over now.
--Jaborandy
When you don't include IT early enough, their input is disruptive to the plan, even if it's valid input. So they are the bearers of bad news.
Some say the solution is to include IT earler in a project by asking for their input and assistance with the design phase. Bad idea. Nobody should have to go beg another department for help, and what you get by asking is always less than you need.
Q: So how do you solve this problem?
A: By including IT in your team organizationally. Some companies do this by making the product team (developers, etc) responsible for most IT functions on their product (e.g. Amazon.com). Some companies integrate IT team members into the virtual product team, sitting next to the developers as they work (e.g. aQuantive, before the MS acquisition).
Either way, you need to make IT literally *BE* part of the team, so there is no "us vs. them" mentality. Now that cloud services can be bought off the shelf, IT needs to be very responsive to remain compatitive. The only way to be responsive enough to an modern agile team is to be integrated into their fast-paced process at an intimate level. Any IT department that tries to stay independent and powerful will fall to the competition, and deserves to IMO.
--Jaborandy
In the end, I was taught how to teach myself.
What college and what major/degree program?
What did it cost (approx)?
Sounds like a great place.
This leaves me thinking about how I should talk to my kids. Do I want them to value college? And if so, for what purpose? I agree that the cost/benefit of college is terrible, and the truest lessons are learned almost despite college. Yet I still feel compelled to send them there. Why is that?
I want them to learn how to think for themselves, how to take information and turn it into knowledge no matter the subject, how to be introspective and apply critical thinking to their own processes and behaviors. I want them to be eloquent speakers and to be culturally fluent. I also want them to be happy. How do I get there from here?
--Jaborandy
The wild poularity of ThinkGeek proves that the self-applied Geek label is meaningless now. Everyone and their brother claims it now.
Please don't malign libertarianism with a connection to anti-intellectualism. Libertarianism is a distrust of ABUSE OF POWER, not of AUTHORITY. When authority is earned on its merits, as it is with the value of classic literature in a free market of ideas,then any power it has is legitimate. But if a college accreditation board decides that all students must learn that classic book to graduate with a meaningful degree, and there is no alternative choice available, then they are abusing their power no matter how honorable their intentions
Damn Straight. You don't get to use the "private entiry" or "choose a different mode of travel" arguments until I can start an airline with different security features.
My airline would require all passengers to carry and assert proficiency with a firearm. If you are proficient but not equipped, a loaded handgun can be provided for an extra fee, but all passengers over the minimum age would be required to carry.
You may not like my airline. You might never fly on my airline. But if I can't run that business and compete fairly, you don't get to tell me that it's a free country.
You are confusing two things here. Windows 7 is a PC OS. The article you linked and your comments are correct about that, it does not support ARM.
The other issue is Windows Phone 7. It is a complete break from previous versions of Windows Mobile. Neither is a desktop OS, and both run on ARM processors. It is not wrong to claim that Windows Phone 7 is completely new, redesigned from the ground up. It is as they claim.
Microsoft is betting on Windows Phone software for one part of its mobile story, and that part runs on ARM. The other side of the coin is the PC Windows side, which is betting on building more full-PC-function and backwards-compatible tablets than iOS and Andriod can. They may lose that bet, but it's not as confusing as you make it out to be.
Did any of you see the demo of "Dance Central" at E3 this year? It was amazing! Dance Dance Revolution has sold millions; the dance and excercise market for video game consoles is not small. No other console can compete with the ability to simultaneously track arms, legs, head, and body for use in a dance or exercise game. I'm convinced that once this is out there and you can try it at your friend's house or the store, you'll see that all other dance and exercise games are obsolete. The full body immersive experience you can get with Kinect is far superior to anything you can get with a dance pad or handheld wands.
From the demos I've seen, I'm convinced that this will sell really well in the dance, exercise, and sports genres. Microsoft also hopes to bring non-gamers into the fold with this release, and I have no idea how well it will do on that front. But the technology is a nice leap forward. I look forward to seeing what MS and other game developers can do with it.
I'm in a similar situation. My guns are either locked up or on my person at all times, but I take different defense in depth measures to prevent this sort of accident if I screw up and leave a gun within reach of my small children. I don't ban toy guns, but I do make sure they are easily distinguished from the real thing. Kids love toy guns, and I'm not convinced banning them from your home makes much difference either way. What I DO make sure of is that my kids can tell the difference, and know to treat them differently.
From the age of two or so, I have the kids handle the each of my real guns so they know what they feel like, in contrast to the toys. The weight, the material, the smell, all make it easy to tell real from fake. And I drill them that if they see a real gun anywhere, they need to tell us immediately so we can lock it up. I actually talk about the possibility of this scenario, where I forgot that I put it down somewhere, and they need to tell me about it. This can be taught much earlier than safe gun handling and firing, which I don't start until around five or six, and not with handguns at that age.
I then test them on it. I leave the real gun out somewhere, like on the bathroom counter, with fake bullets loaded in the magazine, or with the gun disabled somehow depending on model. So far, each test has resulted in correct behavior, with all of my kids. Let me repeat that I don't rely on this, and I don't expect to leave a gun lying around anytime soon. It is just defense in depth, because I don't want to end up in a story like this one.
--Jaborandy
In spirit, the parents responsible for this just removed their progeny from the gene pool, thus removing their own. I understand why that sounds like a Darwin award. But the rules are clear. Killing an innocent doesn't count, and it left the offending parents able to reproduce again. No Darwin award for these morons.
http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/
Only one way to find out.
Okay, so actually there are several ways. But posting here is a pretty good way to find out. It beats calling CmdrTaco's cell non-stop until he tells you.
Then I guess something being "pants" means it's nonexistent... at least to you.
When you add a self-signed cert, you usually add it to the root store. And if it's generated as a default self-signed cert, it probably thinks it's good for ALL USAGES. If you accept this cert for your little site-that-can't-afford-Verisign, you are opening yourself up to a world of hurt.
Not only can they man-in-the-middle you to any SSL web site (including your bank), but they can sign code claiming it to be from someone else, they can sign ActiveX controls, they can forge email to you with a forged S/MIME signature, etc. It's a huge risk.
I have and will continue to accept self-signed certs when the situation calls for it, but I also set the "Certificate Purposes" to a stripped down list. In this scenario, Server Authentication is all you need to allow. If the web site owner is not malicious, ask them to issue the self-signed cert with only that one use enabled, and match it to the name of the site/domain, and make it not a CA. Then they can still protect the communication channel, but they can't do anything else to you. Better yet, get them to set up a CA that can issue these certs, and get users to install that CA cert, enabled for only Server Auth.
--Jaborandy
I'm in WA, and I have Comcast's Motorola DVR boxes with the MS Interface. All the symptoms with the UI that you described are familiar to me with the MS interface. I bet it's just as much the Motorola hardware to blame.
If I had another choice in the market for High-Def DVR, I'd take it. Anything would be better than Comcast. You hear me, nebulous market forces? I said I'd pay for your service if you offered it. Hearken to the pent up demand.
Why don't I have another good option? Why is your pet option not what I need? Well... I can get a good view of any one area of the sky from my roof, but I can't simultaneously from one dish location see all the satellites required for good high-def programming over satellite. I can't get FiOS yet, but it's coming. I can get OTA programming well enough, but neither Tivo nor any PC solution will integrate with digital cable to allow me to tune multiple channels of cable or off-air high-def programming.
Dish Networks offers the closest thing to what I want, but they make you pay through the nose if you have two high def TVs. They optimize multi-TV HD sales packages for one high-def TV and one low-def one, and no other options are affordable. That kind of "we know what you want" mentality is annoying, and I bet it turns off a lot of the geeks on this board. Grrr.
-- Jaborandy
I carry a gun openly in front of my kids. They never see it used as a toy.
I play violent video games, where I blast the hell out of humans and aliens alike. I shield the kids from language, so I don't let them watch when I play Prey or Gears of War. But I don't shield them from graphics or violent content, so they see gore and violence in Halo, Lost Planet, and even Call of Duty.
I do explain the difference between pretend and real, and I let them see that distinction in action. It's not just an abstract concept. The games are fun, and there is no consequence to killing. The gun Daddy carries is real, and there are huge consequenses attached to its use. By letting them see me behaving this way, I think they will learn and retain this lesson easily. Responsibility can be taught by example.
--Jaborandy
Let's all say this together: "It's not a prediction if the measurement has already been done."
Working on your model until it aligns with obsrvations is how we got into the mess we're in with astrophysics (you know, the crappy Big Bang model constantly being changed to correlate with new observations). Why don't you try to get an actual prediction from your model, and then check with the real world? Maybe then you'd have something to talk about.
Ok, so having a model to explain this is good progress, because no good model existed before. Now go ahead and support the new model with evidence. What can it predict that hasn't been measured yet?
--Jaborandy
Nobody understands this.
Let me try to explain why server-side symlink evaluation is a potential security risk.
Most people think it is because the link might point to something the user cannot access. This is not true. ACL checking would still take place on the server, and no security violation would occur. The problem is that something could be made accessible remotely when it was not intended to be accessible remotely. For example something which is world readable, but which is not shared.
Making any arbitrary user with a shared folder able to put a symlink in his directory that allows him to get at non-shared files, is a security risk. The analogy is to a web server checking to make sure a relative path references something within its document root. It's a lot of work to make that check on the server, and it can make the use of a symlink feel broken, making users annoyed. The best behavior, with the least risk of bugs, is to do the symlink evaluation on the client in a remote FS. This is why they extended SMB to support symlinks as well.
Looking at my analogy, note that in general in http a reference to embedded content is evaluated by the client and results in a request to the server for the other file. There have never been any problems with this approach. In some extensions of http servers, such as CGI, people were able to include and access files from outside the server root, violating server security. There have been a lot of problems with this, and they have been fixed by repeated patches to the server-side security code. It's a hard problem to get fixed right, and the best choice is to design such that security is simple and self-enforcing. MS is taking the smart path here.
--Jaborandy
You make some good arguments. Code signing is not a panacea, but it does add value. saying it sucks because it doesn't solve world hunger is a worthless criticism of a good technology.
I would add that "always trust X" is not appropriate for home users, and it is good that MS makes the unchecked state the default. I don't recall MS telling me to always trust MS, and if they do, I would want to give them feedback about that wording.
The "always truxt X" feature is best used by domain admins who can pre-approve stuff for their users. It's even better if they can resign the code themselves with a cert on the approved list.
--Jaborandy
BTX cases are what we buy today. This old ATX design should be shelved.
--Jaborandy
You claim that Plasma Cosmology does not predict as well as standard cosmology. This is exactly what Plasma Cosmology promponents say in reverse, and it's meaningless without examples and data. You mentioned three examples.
The evidence that I have seen is that standard cosmology did not accurately predict the microwave background level, but predicted wrong several times and then adjusted to "predict" it after its level was measured. It did not "predict" elemental abundances either, rather someone found a way to work it out so that if you started with something you'd end up where we are now. That doesn't prove the thoeory, it just shows that it can be made to fit. That is only one part of a good theory. Finally, the well-known redshift/distance correlation was measured long before the standard theory was developed, so that again is not something that standard cosmology "predicts."
Both theories have solid ways to explain known observations, and both can point to things that they explain better or more simply than the alternative. I don't think it's fair to discount Plasma Cosmology as a fringe theory based on its merits. It is fringe only because people like you treat it as such instead of honestly trying to evaluate which parts of its theory may be accurate.
(On topic, this comet theory is bunk. I believe in spectroscopy, which proves that comets have lots of ice. Off topic again, I also believe that the big bang is a theory in need of replacement and that the redshift/distance correlation is not just about doppler shift, but that's just me)