Changing my password every 60 days instead of every 90 days is ethical???
Following the regulations because they are law is ethical business practice. I am not debating the studies for and against the IT security policies outlined in any of these agreements, including the debate over password complexity, length, and maximum age.
1. Accept that regulations like Sarbanes Oxley, HIPAA, PCI, etc exist because too many businesses lost their moral compass, and the government had to step in to protect itself, consumers, and the economy.
2. Comply with the above regulations because it is the ethical thing to do.
Maybe god DID do it, but to simply arrive at such a conclusion without any investigation into the details or any attempt to explain it via understood processes...
This highlights one of the major stinging points that many see in the evolutionist's perspective. That is that an evolutionist chooses to believe that under no circumstances is it possible that the God of the Jewish and Christian faiths could possibly exist and have created life as we know it, but then not all of Darwin's theories have been proven as fact either (ex: macroevolution). The theory of evolution has not been made scientific law, and still has many shortcomings, so why must it be treated as an infallible fact in our schools? I and many others believe that both sides in this discussion have a place, but we owe it to our children to teach them the difference between fact and hypothesis independent of personal bias.
Google does allow you to opt out of their logging. This doesn't fix the privacy issues on the topic, but may keep you out of the record books.
http://www.google.com/history/?hl=en
You have not provided a counter for any of my arguments and instead have quoted something I wrote that really didn't contribute much to the discussion. Bravo.
You have no problem destroying life in the womb then, so what about after it is born? What stops you from killing your baby when it pukes and poops and messes up your life? Seriously where do we draw the line? What justifies you in thinking this is okay? With your perceived attitude towards this I wonder how you have derived your morals.
And you cannot survive if somebody takes the opportunity away from you before you can defend yourself.
It isn't like it matters which fetus grows into a living baby unless you are an idiot and believe in fairytales like souls.
You have just equated religion to a fairytale. That was uncalled for and off topic. Do not bully and insult people who do not hold your brutal feminist opinion. It merely takes away your credibility.
Abortion doctors are some of the real heroes of today, helping young women
Your version of a hero must be extremely warped. Abortion doctors conveniently leave out the part about what the mother is really carrying inside of her. Many women who have had an abortion find themselves living with deep guilt for the rest of their life. Norma Leah McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade) has even recanted her support of abortion.
while being threatened by dangeorous fanatics and societal stigma.
What is dangerous is people like yourself spew out such offensive and cruel arguments in favor of ending the life of unborn infants. These are little human beings with bones, skin, working brains, and a heart beat.
Now you go and shut up
Aren't you just the smart sounding one. Real mature of you to oppress and push around those who do not agree with you. Get a life, seriously. An embryo is not just a blob of goo, it is a growing child. From the moment that new DNA is created that is a new life. If you disagree I ask that you then explain what it is? If it isn't life what is it? When you abort it are you just removing dead tissue? How did it die?
One is my DNA (albeit split in half), the other is not. Sperm don't grow up to be babies, they have one purpose and that is find the egg and be the one to penetrate it. They belong to and are a natural part of me. Once fertilization occurs you have a brand new genetically unique being. How we can say life does not begin until 40 weeks later is astonishing considering the evidence to the contrary. Since this is a unique life, even at 8 cells, because it was created from me and the mother I would feel horrible in having to make the decision to discard any of them. Clearly you have not been faced with this possibility as I have.
You're essentially doing the same thing 'blindly' when you wear a condom or choose not to....
Have you any idea how a condom works? It prevents sperm from exiting the latex fabric, thus preventing fertilization of the egg. Comparing the selection of embryos for either life or death to contraceptives is rediculous. Sperm is my cells, egg is the woman's, and if they meet you have a new human beginning to grow.
It floors me that so many people want to believe that life does not begin until birth. If that were true what is all that crap a woman goes through for 40 weeks prior to that day? Try telling any pregnant woman the baby she is carrying is not alive and see how she responds. Tell her he really didn't just kick her in the bladder again. Watch as she gets her first ultrasound and see that baby moving around. It has a heart beating, and hands and feet. That child is alive and kicking, and it is shameful to think anyone would kill it so they didn't have to be inconvenienced.
While I am not against a women's right to choose to place her unwanted child up for adoption...
Fix't. Now seriously, shut up. While cruel things do happen to people, it should not be our place to decide who lives and who dies. Nothing says the children of rapists and their victims cannot positively contribute to society. They may grow up never knowing who their biological parents are, but death is far worse.
The key difference here is that the toenail clippings and spit are yours, whereas the embryo is a completely new human being separate from you.
From what I have been involved with, the current practice of this type of embryo selection is done when there are only like 8 cells forming the embryo. They pluck one off and test it for the genetic or chromosomal defect you are avoiding. Unfortunately this usually requires several sets which means you are choosing which of your offspring get a chance at life, and which ones die before they are even born.
Say what you will, there is a fundamental difference in philosophy when you have socialized health care.
Socialized health care implies your physicians are employed by the government, which is false. If I have read accurate sources, the Canadian system is much like the American Medicare system in that it utilizes private sector health care providers.
I will admit I do find the Canadian system interesting, but Americans do not like having so much government interference in their daily lives. Frankly they've screwed up too many times to be trusted with some things. Here I am contributing a large wad of cash each paycheck to social security and I have no way of knowing if I will ever get that back in retirement. I fear this mismanagement will carry over into health care. I am sure the providers would enjoy it since they wouldn't have to deal with insurance companies near as often. I wonder where all the employees at the insurance companies will work after they are terminated...
How does this program affect your taxes? Why isn't the Canadian government providing you insurance for your car or home? Do you see any problems with the system?
Insurance is an investment racket designed to artificially drive up inflation and never pay out dividends.
Do you intend to post facts about this statement or just troll around? The fact of the matter is that insurance (medical insurance,specifically) is designed to shield the policyholder from significant financial harm due to unforseen needs. How they do that is determined by their business model. Unlike car insurance, if you don't want health insurance you don't have to buy it. If you do that though, please don't use my tax dollars to fund your negligence (medicaid).
Your comments about dental make me laugh. If we didn't have dental insurance many people would just stop taking care of their teeth. The ones that actually take care of them would pay the appropriate costs. Dentists are businessmen too, and if they don't make a living they have to close shop, so I must disagree with your statement about "saner prices".
For me I want health insurance, even if it is nothing but a shelter to protect my financial stability (like term life). Clearly you have never been faced with anything serious that involved a multi-million dollar healthcare package. Yes, good healthcare costs good money. Equipment, staff, and facilities are not free.
This is why we have high deductible policies and Health Savings Accounts available now. You pay for your own healthcare when you need maintenance, just like you pay for oil changes and brake pads on your car. If you don't take care of yourself, you pay more. If you do you pay less. Of course there are sometimes emergencies that would cost a fortune, which is where the insurance comes in. This is already how we insure our homes and cars. Insurance is protection against unforseen expenses, not a pool of free money. Most of us put in way more than we take out.
Actually it is several of the Muslim factions that are doing most of the killing right now in the middle east. The insurgents don't just duke it out with the US, they kill each other. Your suggestion for getting out of other countries would be nice, except that the US economy completely depends on resources from those countries. If so much oil money is flowing to the Persian gulf, then why 9/11/2001? Perception. Take a look at what is on television and magazines and you will know how the rest of the world perceives the US.
To add to that, perhaps it means that a good percentage of computers in China are already compromised and someone else is making it look like it is a Chinese attack?
Exactly! This is why sensitive data should not be stored locally on laptops, and if it absolutely must be on there it should be highly encrypted. Microsoft doesn't ship an OS at it's highest security, but a competent administrator can finish the job (albeit sometimes with 3rd party tools).
I really don't like when people lump all Christians into one group. If we were all the same there would be no need for multiple denominations.
To a Christian, God is the ultimate authority. The bible is the inspired word of God, and with a biblical world view comes a change in perspective. Science becomes a study of God's creations. The more we learn about it the more we should be amazed and excited! Unfortunately there exists a small percentage of Christians that want to take offense to scientific exploration whenever it catches them off guard and this reflects poorly on the rest of us, because as noted at the top, we are unfortunately all grouped together.
On the other side, there exists a small group of atheists that want to use the education system and litigation to eliminate Christ and God from our way of thinking and living. It isn't enough for them to choose not to accept God, but they need to pass it on through a public school textbook (that my taxes pay for) to my 7 year old. As evolution as a science is still "evolving", it seems reasonable to teach other theorizations as well. For me, I would find it interesting to hear conflicting theories and perspectives in a science class. This works for psychology, and is evident in the conflicts presented by such things as behaviorism versus psychoanalysis. Why can't diversity be present in science education? Shouldn't we encourage different angles and hypothesis? Isn't this the kind of creative thinking that drives new discovery and invention?
Shoving Darwinian theories down our throats and litigating away any conflicting science or theorization is unethical at best.
Luckily the lineman uses insulated gloves and equipment that prevent this from happening. They also know how to test for current on the line before they touch it, so you will probably get a nastygram from the power company telling you to get your uncertified and unauthorized crap off their grid before they sue. Nevermind the local ordinances that govern this. Yeah they can get hurt, and I agree with you, but they are professionals who know better than to assume a line is dead.
LOL. What techniques did they use on you? Thought not. I have as much right as you do to speak on the subject because in America I am granted that right by law (and Slashdot works that way too). Besides, I didn't even talk about interrogation techniques in my post. But I am curious how you get information out of a person who is willing to die without question for their cause. Perhaps with your extensive experience on the matter you can enlighten us? Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion and I thank you for giving it. Of course I don't have to agree.
Should have known... conservative opinion on slashdot == flamebait
There is a really big fundamental problem in all of this though. Guantanamo is kept fairly secretive, so all this crap people are post below my statement just amount to a pile of assumptions. Geneva Conventions? Since when were terrorists abiding by that? When you are all done trying to give rights to a bunch of people who would just as much try to take all westerners out of the picture, go argue for the case of UFOs or something.
And to make this on topic: Hans had a fair trial:-)
The difference is that unlike Reiser, the folks housed at Guantanamo are mostly prisoners of war. Why must people insist on granting them the full rights American citizens are entitled to? Consider the treatment if the situation were the other way around. The prisoner would be beaten, tortured, and have his head ripped off by a small saw while being videotaped. I feel justified in thinking we are treating our Guantanamo inmates just fine.
Frankly any Christian, whether they be Catholic or Protestant, if they have the new testament they should know better. If a Protestant denomination would see it otherwise they are ignoring foundational biblical text. See below:
James 2:17-18 (New International Version)
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
As far as the topic at hand, I find it very sad that people are so desperate to find purpose that they believe the workings of a 1950's science fiction author to be truth. Wanna get them good? Start by boycotting Cruise's films. To give him $$$ most likely means a percentage is going off to the CoS.
"Congress has not specifically outlawed incandescent bulbs, only inefficient ones."
Thankfully I'll still be able to get newer more efficient incandescent bulbs, and LED is slowly becoming reasonable. Fluorescent bulbs shining on an active table saw can give the impression that the blade has stopped, which is really not good for my fingers. Incandescent doesn't do that to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Changing my password every 60 days instead of every 90 days is ethical???
Following the regulations because they are law is ethical business practice. I am not debating the studies for and against the IT security policies outlined in any of these agreements, including the debate over password complexity, length, and maximum age.
1. Accept that regulations like Sarbanes Oxley, HIPAA, PCI, etc exist because too many businesses lost their moral compass, and the government had to step in to protect itself, consumers, and the economy.
2. Comply with the above regulations because it is the ethical thing to do.
And that all works great until your company discovers what you are doing during an audit for Sarbanes Oxley or HIPAA :-)
What version of Firefox are you running? Supposedly the memory leakage was fixed in v3.
Maybe god DID do it, but to simply arrive at such a conclusion without any investigation into the details or any attempt to explain it via understood processes...
This highlights one of the major stinging points that many see in the evolutionist's perspective. That is that an evolutionist chooses to believe that under no circumstances is it possible that the God of the Jewish and Christian faiths could possibly exist and have created life as we know it, but then not all of Darwin's theories have been proven as fact either (ex: macroevolution). The theory of evolution has not been made scientific law, and still has many shortcomings, so why must it be treated as an infallible fact in our schools? I and many others believe that both sides in this discussion have a place, but we owe it to our children to teach them the difference between fact and hypothesis independent of personal bias.
Google does allow you to opt out of their logging. This doesn't fix the privacy issues on the topic, but may keep you out of the record books. http://www.google.com/history/?hl=en
You have not provided a counter for any of my arguments and instead have quoted something I wrote that really didn't contribute much to the discussion. Bravo.
You have no problem destroying life in the womb then, so what about after it is born? What stops you from killing your baby when it pukes and poops and messes up your life? Seriously where do we draw the line? What justifies you in thinking this is okay? With your perceived attitude towards this I wonder how you have derived your morals.
You can't die if you never lived.
And you cannot survive if somebody takes the opportunity away from you before you can defend yourself.
It isn't like it matters which fetus grows into a living baby unless you are an idiot and believe in fairytales like souls.
You have just equated religion to a fairytale. That was uncalled for and off topic. Do not bully and insult people who do not hold your brutal feminist opinion. It merely takes away your credibility.
Abortion doctors are some of the real heroes of today, helping young women
Your version of a hero must be extremely warped. Abortion doctors conveniently leave out the part about what the mother is really carrying inside of her. Many women who have had an abortion find themselves living with deep guilt for the rest of their life. Norma Leah McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe vs. Wade) has even recanted her support of abortion.
while being threatened by dangeorous fanatics and societal stigma.
What is dangerous is people like yourself spew out such offensive and cruel arguments in favor of ending the life of unborn infants. These are little human beings with bones, skin, working brains, and a heart beat.
Now you go and shut up
Aren't you just the smart sounding one. Real mature of you to oppress and push around those who do not agree with you. Get a life, seriously. An embryo is not just a blob of goo, it is a growing child. From the moment that new DNA is created that is a new life. If you disagree I ask that you then explain what it is? If it isn't life what is it? When you abort it are you just removing dead tissue? How did it die?
So, what's the problem with that?
One is my DNA (albeit split in half), the other is not. Sperm don't grow up to be babies, they have one purpose and that is find the egg and be the one to penetrate it. They belong to and are a natural part of me. Once fertilization occurs you have a brand new genetically unique being. How we can say life does not begin until 40 weeks later is astonishing considering the evidence to the contrary. Since this is a unique life, even at 8 cells, because it was created from me and the mother I would feel horrible in having to make the decision to discard any of them. Clearly you have not been faced with this possibility as I have.
You're essentially doing the same thing 'blindly' when you wear a condom or choose not to....
Have you any idea how a condom works? It prevents sperm from exiting the latex fabric, thus preventing fertilization of the egg. Comparing the selection of embryos for either life or death to contraceptives is rediculous. Sperm is my cells, egg is the woman's, and if they meet you have a new human beginning to grow.
It floors me that so many people want to believe that life does not begin until birth. If that were true what is all that crap a woman goes through for 40 weeks prior to that day? Try telling any pregnant woman the baby she is carrying is not alive and see how she responds. Tell her he really didn't just kick her in the bladder again. Watch as she gets her first ultrasound and see that baby moving around. It has a heart beating, and hands and feet. That child is alive and kicking, and it is shameful to think anyone would kill it so they didn't have to be inconvenienced.
While I am not against a women's right to choose to place her unwanted child up for adoption...
Fix't. Now seriously, shut up. While cruel things do happen to people, it should not be our place to decide who lives and who dies. Nothing says the children of rapists and their victims cannot positively contribute to society. They may grow up never knowing who their biological parents are, but death is far worse.
The key difference here is that the toenail clippings and spit are yours, whereas the embryo is a completely new human being separate from you.
From what I have been involved with, the current practice of this type of embryo selection is done when there are only like 8 cells forming the embryo. They pluck one off and test it for the genetic or chromosomal defect you are avoiding. Unfortunately this usually requires several sets which means you are choosing which of your offspring get a chance at life, and which ones die before they are even born.
Socialized health care implies your physicians are employed by the government, which is false. If I have read accurate sources, the Canadian system is much like the American Medicare system in that it utilizes private sector health care providers.
I will admit I do find the Canadian system interesting, but Americans do not like having so much government interference in their daily lives. Frankly they've screwed up too many times to be trusted with some things. Here I am contributing a large wad of cash each paycheck to social security and I have no way of knowing if I will ever get that back in retirement. I fear this mismanagement will carry over into health care. I am sure the providers would enjoy it since they wouldn't have to deal with insurance companies near as often. I wonder where all the employees at the insurance companies will work after they are terminated...
How does this program affect your taxes? Why isn't the Canadian government providing you insurance for your car or home? Do you see any problems with the system?
Do you intend to post facts about this statement or just troll around? The fact of the matter is that insurance (medical insurance,specifically) is designed to shield the policyholder from significant financial harm due to unforseen needs. How they do that is determined by their business model. Unlike car insurance, if you don't want health insurance you don't have to buy it. If you do that though, please don't use my tax dollars to fund your negligence (medicaid).
Your comments about dental make me laugh. If we didn't have dental insurance many people would just stop taking care of their teeth. The ones that actually take care of them would pay the appropriate costs. Dentists are businessmen too, and if they don't make a living they have to close shop, so I must disagree with your statement about "saner prices".
For me I want health insurance, even if it is nothing but a shelter to protect my financial stability (like term life). Clearly you have never been faced with anything serious that involved a multi-million dollar healthcare package. Yes, good healthcare costs good money. Equipment, staff, and facilities are not free.
This is why we have high deductible policies and Health Savings Accounts available now. You pay for your own healthcare when you need maintenance, just like you pay for oil changes and brake pads on your car. If you don't take care of yourself, you pay more. If you do you pay less. Of course there are sometimes emergencies that would cost a fortune, which is where the insurance comes in. This is already how we insure our homes and cars. Insurance is protection against unforseen expenses, not a pool of free money. Most of us put in way more than we take out.
Did anyone else read that Barracuda and Trend products should both be smashed at high speed?
Actually it is several of the Muslim factions that are doing most of the killing right now in the middle east. The insurgents don't just duke it out with the US, they kill each other. Your suggestion for getting out of other countries would be nice, except that the US economy completely depends on resources from those countries. If so much oil money is flowing to the Persian gulf, then why 9/11/2001? Perception. Take a look at what is on television and magazines and you will know how the rest of the world perceives the US.
To add to that, perhaps it means that a good percentage of computers in China are already compromised and someone else is making it look like it is a Chinese attack?
Exactly! This is why sensitive data should not be stored locally on laptops, and if it absolutely must be on there it should be highly encrypted. Microsoft doesn't ship an OS at it's highest security, but a competent administrator can finish the job (albeit sometimes with 3rd party tools).
I really don't like when people lump all Christians into one group. If we were all the same there would be no need for multiple denominations. To a Christian, God is the ultimate authority. The bible is the inspired word of God, and with a biblical world view comes a change in perspective. Science becomes a study of God's creations. The more we learn about it the more we should be amazed and excited! Unfortunately there exists a small percentage of Christians that want to take offense to scientific exploration whenever it catches them off guard and this reflects poorly on the rest of us, because as noted at the top, we are unfortunately all grouped together. On the other side, there exists a small group of atheists that want to use the education system and litigation to eliminate Christ and God from our way of thinking and living. It isn't enough for them to choose not to accept God, but they need to pass it on through a public school textbook (that my taxes pay for) to my 7 year old. As evolution as a science is still "evolving", it seems reasonable to teach other theorizations as well. For me, I would find it interesting to hear conflicting theories and perspectives in a science class. This works for psychology, and is evident in the conflicts presented by such things as behaviorism versus psychoanalysis. Why can't diversity be present in science education? Shouldn't we encourage different angles and hypothesis? Isn't this the kind of creative thinking that drives new discovery and invention? Shoving Darwinian theories down our throats and litigating away any conflicting science or theorization is unethical at best.
Luckily the lineman uses insulated gloves and equipment that prevent this from happening. They also know how to test for current on the line before they touch it, so you will probably get a nastygram from the power company telling you to get your uncertified and unauthorized crap off their grid before they sue. Nevermind the local ordinances that govern this. Yeah they can get hurt, and I agree with you, but they are professionals who know better than to assume a line is dead.
LOL. What techniques did they use on you? Thought not. I have as much right as you do to speak on the subject because in America I am granted that right by law (and Slashdot works that way too). Besides, I didn't even talk about interrogation techniques in my post. But I am curious how you get information out of a person who is willing to die without question for their cause. Perhaps with your extensive experience on the matter you can enlighten us? Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion and I thank you for giving it. Of course I don't have to agree.
Should have known... conservative opinion on slashdot == flamebait There is a really big fundamental problem in all of this though. Guantanamo is kept fairly secretive, so all this crap people are post below my statement just amount to a pile of assumptions. Geneva Conventions? Since when were terrorists abiding by that? When you are all done trying to give rights to a bunch of people who would just as much try to take all westerners out of the picture, go argue for the case of UFOs or something. And to make this on topic: Hans had a fair trial :-)
The difference is that unlike Reiser, the folks housed at Guantanamo are mostly prisoners of war. Why must people insist on granting them the full rights American citizens are entitled to? Consider the treatment if the situation were the other way around. The prisoner would be beaten, tortured, and have his head ripped off by a small saw while being videotaped. I feel justified in thinking we are treating our Guantanamo inmates just fine.
Frankly any Christian, whether they be Catholic or Protestant, if they have the new testament they should know better. If a Protestant denomination would see it otherwise they are ignoring foundational biblical text. See below:
James 2:17-18 (New International Version)
17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.
As far as the topic at hand, I find it very sad that people are so desperate to find purpose that they believe the workings of a 1950's science fiction author to be truth. Wanna get them good? Start by boycotting Cruise's films. To give him $$$ most likely means a percentage is going off to the CoS.
"Congress has not specifically outlawed incandescent bulbs, only inefficient ones."
Thankfully I'll still be able to get newer more efficient incandescent bulbs, and LED is slowly becoming reasonable. Fluorescent bulbs shining on an active table saw can give the impression that the blade has stopped, which is really not good for my fingers. Incandescent doesn't do that to me.