Dak

as has allready pretty-much been said, they're useful terms for talking about evolution. certain things can contribute to macroevolution, but not microevolution, such as sexual isolation. i suppose you could say that the plague contributed hugely to microevolution, but not macroevolution, as it shifted the allele frequency of the delta-9 allele but didn't do anything to encorage speciation? what creationists do, afaict, is assume a majical, undescribed, and completely invisable mechanism that limits how far from some kind of 'default plan' microevolution can take a creature, and also that prevents any of the other non-culmination-of-microevolutions mechanisms that we've actually observed causing speciation, thus allowing them (rather convieniently) to admit that microevolution is true, whilst maintaining that macroevolution is a big fat smelly pack of satanist lies. as long as you bear in mind that theres no evidence for the above mechanism, and that microevolution X lots can = macroevolution, theres nothing 'unscientific' about the terms.

if im understanding correctly, isn't it the 'e' that does that? ie, phon = fon != phone = fone? [edit]no, i get what you mean now. photograph != fotograph. it'd be foetograph. so yeah, ph = f, but phV != fV (V=vowel)[/edit]

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=20620 weird liquid/solid stuff. iirc, you can make something similar out of household items... cornflower and water, maybe? anyhoo, thought it was interesting.

iirc, hyperinflation happened before the nazi's came to power, and was one of the arguments that the nazis used to get elected (look how much they've screwed up our country etc) demo, i think you have an oversimplistic view of communism. russia went from backwards to global power in 15 years, and china is set to overtake the us, all from a communism (later mixed communism/capitalism). so, saying 'communism doesn't work above the family level' is, imo, unsuported.

oh yeah, depending on exactly how 'too unpleasant to discuss' the images are, you might want to drop the urls of the sites being opened to this site: http://www.iwf.org.uk/ if you have the url from which you were infected, pm it to me and i'll pass it on to some researchers. please do not get confused, and send me the urls to the porn.

i am not a hacker of either definition, so i have no idea. i do know, however, that it's quite obvious, if they guess your pw and can access your admin pannel, that they will be able to see your email addy. the next logical step would be to try to access your SFN and/or email account using your athiestcrusades password, in case you are silly enough to use the same pw for both. it'd be a free hack. hence my advice. if your sfn/ac/email passwords are all the same, change them your ac one probably wants to be something like adsdf0978a34hlk098. ie, completely random.

do they appear only when your online, or when your offline too? AVG antispyware is a pretty damn good one... its free for a month (long enough to get rid of the infection, if you scan with it and an anti-virus) browser-hijackers usually show up in HIjackThis, so if you want, if the scans done work you could download it, make a log and post it up. i dont mind looking thru it, and im sure others could spot the problem from a hjt log.

^ again, it's my understanding that competent hackers use compromised machines to relay information to and from their computer and the target computer. if thats the case, then the ip herme has will just be the last computer in the chain -- an innocent person who's machine was hacked. wouldn't putting his ip address up in this thread be tantamount to saying 'hey, heres someone who's computer is probably easy to hack, and if you want to, his ip is blah.blah.blah.blah'?

i doubt it was one of the mods. and don't post the ip up, if it was a competent hack attempt then it was probably just an innocent person who's computer was hacked. make sure your atheistcrusade password is strong, and make sure it's not the same as your sfn or email password, otherwize if they break your forum's password they'll also have your sfn pass, and email addy/password.

tbh, this is sort-of why i dont think the machines have been designed that competently from a security pov... im no security expert, but then, there are a few obvious things which i think certainly should have been done better. the memory card being locked with a little lock that someone can pick: biometric scanners are prohibitorily expensive, but just something like a few screws in addition to the lock would be advisable, imo, and maybe a loud buzzer that sounds when the hatch is opened? a little sticker, like forensics uses, that is inpossible to peel-off and restick, making it obvious if the hatch has been opened since the beginning of voting. but no, you got a piddly little lock, which people can pick. its no mystical art, anyone can learn how to pick locks... and, given that the card is just designed to store non-executable information, shouldn't the machine be set up so that stuff on the card cannot be executed? makes sence to me, and would significanly ameliorate the risk of a virus being installed. and, yes, shouldn't there be a paper-trail so that people can check wether their vote was counted correctly? something like this: -------example papertrail system------------- you get randomly issued a voter card, with a serial number on it. there is no way to trace this serial number to you. you vote, and your card gets marked 'void'. (this is the case, i think). the cards serial could be stored along with who they voted for, and, later, the results of your area get posted on the goveournments website, like this: 1254835: republican 1354873: democrat 2468743: republican results: total votes: 3 republican: 2 democrat: 1 republican majority. now... anyone can go and check that the figures have been added up correctly. people could go check their own vote was registered properly, without anyone else being able to tell what they voted, by checking for their cards serial number. the only way someone could cheat, rather than stealing peoples votes or intentionally miscounting, by adding votes, is by having unused cards assigned to a party. this could be ameliorated by: indepnedant assesment of turnout, to spot any occasions where more people voted than turned out. registering of unused cards on a database as unused, hence people can check that no unused cards were assigned votes... this wouldn't actually be too hard to do reliably, if the cards were handed out sequentially, and the first unused one recorded at the close of voting, eg: area x gets serials 123346 to 123999, which the voting staff publically confirm at the beginning of voting; at close of voting, the first unused card is recorded and announced, say 123599. now, all card numbers from 123599 to 123999 are publically known to be unused. to cheat, you'd require the co-operation of the voting-coordinators, ie its as secure as ballot-box voting. it could actually be taken further, imo, and made more secure than conventional voting. ------------- / example papertrail---------------- like i said, im no security expert, and i'm open to the possibility that my concerns are unjustified/not actually that big a deal, but they certainly seem like the kind of thing that a secure voting system should do. the e-voting-machine-system's security just seems sloppy. i mean, windows? wtf?

actually, i find this far more ironic: try to vary them betwix styles, eg you're, youre, your, your'e, you'r... maybe yor if your inpersonating someone who's crap at spelling. anyway, the advice was for herme, who can spell... and, afaik, i'm not too bad with punctuation?

^ that's enough to fool quite a few people herme, try varying centance-length, vocabulary, level of punctuational proficiency, and centance-structure a bit more. misspelling words might also help differentiate styles, espescially if you can flit from us-en to en-en. identicle styles will give you away. eg, from the first three examples: what’s He’s I’ll you’re You’re You’re don’t He’s doesn’t stuff like that kinda gives the game away. try to vary them betwix styles, eg you're, youre, your, your'e, you'r... maybe yor if your inpersonating someone who's crap at spelling. i didn't bother counting, but the sentance-length looked pretty similar, too. your fundie one, for example, could be rewritten with uber-long sentances: Hello. I just saw this site for the first time, and I must say that your forum saddens me greatly, because it appears that you do not know the love of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and that you would favor the words of men instead of the Word of God, and that is a very tragic thing. My fellow Christians and I share a great concern for your soul, not only in this life, but also in the next... please, do not fall into the temptation of Satan. He has planted false evidence in this world to make people believe the Word of God is false, but the truth is that God is very real, and he loves you very much. Do not fall for the scheme that Satan calls "science". Always put your trust in The Bible and pray for God to lead you through your life. God will always be there for you because he created you, and because he loves you or as a slightly less eloquent fundie, with poor grip on the purpose of punctuation: hello i just found this site and your forum makes me really sad it seems that you do not know the love of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and that you trust the words of men instead of the Word of God and that is a very sad thing me and my fellow Christians have a great concern for your soul not only in this life but also in the next. Please do not fall into the temptation of Satan!!!! He has planted false evidence in this world to make people believe the Word of God is false the truth is that God is very real and he loves you very much. Do not fall for the scheme that Satan calls science!!! Always put your trust in The Bible and pray for God to lead you through your life!!!! God will always be there for you because he created you and because he loves you hail God!!!!! whilst the above -- desciete, and, i suppose, forgery -- are allways usefull skills to have, you could allways just plonk some provokative posts in there, and hope someone answres.

ruminants would be cloven-hoofed animals that have 4 stomachs, iirc. i dont think humans contribute as much with their flatulance as cows do meh. you show lack of vision. hook her up to an excersize bike linked to a generator. then, her energy use would be negative. you could, like, leave light-bulbs on and stuff. ---- i dont really think im all that unnefficient, tbh. i ride a bike or walk, and turn stuff off after me (lightbulbs, tv etc).

its hardly shifting the burden of proof. for the fact that the e-system lacks a paper trail to be significant, it has to be established that the paper trail was significant in the first place (i think it's pretty obvious, but suspect that pangloss has a point up his sleeve). yeah, i guess that, if we're talking vote-machine-level fraud, then the tally printout isn't much use. it makes it a bit harder to fix, but isn't exactly infallable.

the diebold systems print out paper totals of the votes they have registered, which are stored for 22months. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7236791207107726851&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en-CA%20flashvars= ^ 1hr20min documentary on voting machines. it's a bit long, but theres a hack towards the end, where the votes are rigged (both on the paper recipt and on the card) by inserting a malitious card. also... why are the machines that tally the results running windows? windows-bashing aside, surely, for security reasons, if they're going to be all secretive, then the OS should be bespoke? if the OS is known, then can't someone sneak a windows virus on via a malitious card? buisnesses buy bespoke os's for this reason... is an election not inportant enough? one thing i'll say about the electronic voting machines... if the problem is too great, i'd expect, sooner or later, a grey-hat to hack the results in an obvious way. eg, 50,000,000 people voting for someone in a state with a population of 1,000,000, or 0 votes for anyone. or everyone getting 21,188,124 votes.

untill it becomes unavoidably obvious that their fiath was misplaced, which was my point. irreguardless: as you said, there wasn't less phisical wealth after the crash -- if anything, i'd argue that, at the very beginning of the crash, there was more. the industry dropped down, but only in responce to dropped demand. there was enough industry to meet a reasonable demand. there was enough food and infrastructure. but, because of the crash, demand droped even further, more industries closed, food was not distributed etc. this was entirely an artificial result of the crash, and not lack of demand nor americas inability to phisically meet demand. hence my question: when there's a genuine demand for stuff, and that demand can be met, but it isn't because the economies broken, should the state sieze control of industry in order to fix it? i suppose what im saying is that communism cant fix phisical problems -- it cant supply a demand that the country is incapable of supplying -- but it can supply a demand that the country is capable of supplying (albeit possibly with long-term concequences). so can capitalism, usually. which would fix a crash faster: communism, or capitalism given that the capitalism is broken not just willingness, but ability: no money = no ability to trade welth for products. everyone else doesn't have enough money = no ability to trade products for welth. even if the govournment had regulated better, and the banks had not leant so much, and the market had closed early that day, then the industry would still have reduced in size markedly, due to a genuine drop in demand, and had in fact been dropping leading up to the crash. maybe it wouldn't have caused a crash on it's own, but stocks would still have invariably and justifyably fell, and unenployment rose, so i think you'd have at least had a reccession. the crash was not caused entirely by attetude. anyway: which would restore consumer confidence in the economy quicker: carrying on with an obvioulsy non-functioning economy, or temporarily abandoning it and then reintroducing it, possibly gradually, after a period when the industry/infrastructure/etc has demonstraitably been up-and-running?

no they can't. they can be prooven to be human geneticaly, but not human a beinng. there is no genetic, nor scientific, definition of, nor test for, human beingness consider: a severed limb is not a human being; however, there is no genetic test that will distinguish between a recently severed limb (human, but non-human-being) and an arm attached to a human (human, and part of a human being).

for us non-yanks, what's the us media's take on this? i presume they're not focusing on the security problems? Bascule: dont the machines print out paper recipts, creating a paper trail for checking purposes?

actually, i'd consider that a benifit of paper ballots. take the pencil; find the name of the person who you're voting for; put an X next to his name if you can't manage that -- if you can't spell 'x' or something -- then you dont deserve to vote. there have been so many potential exploits reported for the voting machines, im really surprised you're still using them...

i agree, if the margin is going to keep changing. but, it would only change the margin once, after it cleared the users avitar. either that, or the users info should go across the top imo.

ok. imagine i went out and bought lots of luxuris -- spent my entire month's wage the day i got it on fast cars, a new big tv, and beer, in the belief that i would, a week later, win the lottery and I thus have the belief that i am financially stable, despite my wanton spending. i can sustain this for a while, but a week later i have a problem. i dont win the lottery, and suddenly realise that im screwed. i stop believing im financially stable. this problem was caused by my unwarranted belief in financial security to a level where i could splash out. continuing to believe that i was economically secure, and continuing to splash out, will not help the situation. continuing to believe that i've won the lottery will not put food on my plate. and, at this point, acknowledging that im finatially up the creek is not a psycological disorder -- failing to acknowledge it would be. yes, the attetude went a long way to making the problem worse. but, the base problem was there, and was non-psycological. it was an unsustainable prosperity, and a reliance on this unsustainable prosperity caused the crash. lending, iirc, $9billion a year to people to invest in an unsustainable boom was pretty dumb. as was letting this money be invested on margin. and the fact that the banks lent all their money out, and even borrowed money from the insurance companies to speculate with. when the demand for cars, hoovers, washing machines, fridges etc -- things that people dont carry on needing at the same level as they do when they've just been introduced for very long -- dropped, industries closed, unenployment rose, people lost money on the stocks which now, justifyably, were worth less than they were before. this, in and of itself, is a problem. the stock market crashed, which was largely due to an unjustified belief in them before the crash; no amount of positive thinking could disguise the fact that shares in companies HAD dropped in real value after the boom was over. stock prices crashed, peoples wealth dissapeared, which had the knock-on effect of making banks wealth dissapear, which made other peoples wealth dissapear, which caused people to withdraw money from other banks, which made more banks wealth dissapear, which made yet more peoples wealth dissapear, and also took out the insurance companies that the banks couldn't repay, and also made many buisnesses wealth, stored in banks, dissapear; everyone was poorer, which made them spend less on an allready falling industry, which made it fall faster, which made more people unenployed, which made people poorer, which made people spend less, etc etc etc. putting it down to everyone loosing confidence is wrong. their attetude greatly increased the damage, but wasn't the ultimate cause; and, in some cases the attetude was pretty reasonable -- it was the confidence before the crash that was silly, not the loss of confidence after.

yeah: all european cities are european, but they have distinct flavours -- paris and london are both, without doubt, european cities, but paris is definately french, and london english. the homogony is less than is in america (although my experience of american cities is limited), but you can definately tell when you're in an american city, and when you're in a european one. i still dont see how the eu is undemocratic tbh... to do something, a plan has to be made, and the plan has to be authorised. no one section of the eu has both powers. the commision plan; the parliment or, less often, the counsil, authorise plans; then, the plans are effected. a non-elected body that plans, but needs permission to act from a democratic body is, imo, still subject to democracy. all it means is that the head of that democracy doesn't have power to both plan and authorise, and the people who make plans are chosen for their competence in making plans, rather than popularity.

oh, that deficit. duh! i dont believe i didn't twig that was what you were reffering to, sorry hmm... that is rather a problem. how about, then, if not all industries are continued: if we were to switch to communism, carry on with the food and transport industries, and other non-deficit industries such as policing, teaching, and the medical services, and also a sustainable level of manufacturing etc that was much lower than pre-crash. then we could do something like this: people get a food ration so they dont starve, they get payed a wage (but dont need to spend it on basics), then, hopefully, the industries that provide non-essentials could start up again and restart the economy, before switching back from a communism. the reason it appeals to me is that, afaict, when trying to recover from a crash, you have to fix the following: unenployment lack of industry devaluation of currency poverty lack of confidence side effect: poor living standards, including hunger. and its hard to fix them, cos they each cross-perpetuate: it's hard to fix unenployment when theres little industry to enploy, which is hard to rectify when no-one has any money to support industry, which is hard to fix when everyone's unenpoloyed... if you were to switch to a non-money 'do what the govournment tells you to do' way of doing things, then most problems get fixed strait away: unenployment <-- you can give people jobs to do lack of industry <-- people will still be working, hence industry will not be as lacking devaluation of currency <-- no currency = no problem, at least short-term poverty <-- people should be less poor, in real terms. if essentials are still being produced, and are rationed out lack of confidence side effect: poor living standards, including hunger. <-- hunger, at least, would be avoided by taking control of the food and transport industries give that enough time, and confidence in the country should return. im just thinking that this is a much better position from which to reintroduce currency and capitalism than a crash. reintroduce money, and, what with most people still having a job, industry still existing, and so on, they should be able to spend it and restart the economy. yes, industry would still be lower, and unenployment higher, than pre-crash, but the economy crashing tends to take out sustainable industrys (such as food production) with it, even tho the us was perfectly able, resorse wize, to provide food for its people. im suggesting the govournment takes control, the price-system is abandoned, and sustainable industries are sustained to limit the depths of the crash; then, after a period of planning and stabalisation, the price-system could be reintroduced, and capitalism reinstated. makes sence to limit the effects of the crisis.

im still confused after reading that thread, and some articles on the net. can a router, of the kind you'd find in someones home, recieve two requested incomming connections at the same port at exactly the same time? ie, can two servers be sending data to, say, port 10000 of the router, and have the router still successfully send the packets to the correct computer in the intenal network, at exactly the same time? the rest of my post meant: i thought that, for any given port, routers automatically and dynamically mapped ports based on who had requested the data, unless you manually set the port forwarding, in which case it just mapped the port onto whichever computer/port you told it to. ie, if you map port 10000 to 192.168.1.3:10000, then that's it -- all data to router:10000 will now go to 192.168.1.3:10000. however, from what you said, id guess that manually setting port fowarding rules just determines what the router will do with data if it can't figure out that a computer on the network requested it -- usually, it would drop this traffic; if you make a port-forwarding rule, then this traffic would be forwarded according to the forwarding rule you set. but, if the data was requested by another computer on the network, then the port-fowarding rule would not effect it, as it only comes into effect after the router can't figure out what to do with a given packet (hence, forwarding will change 'auto-foward to requester, otherwize drop' to 'auto-foward to requester, otherwize forward to x'). hence, why traffic that is requested, like web pages, need not be manually forwarded, but bit-torrent ('unrequested' incomming traffic) has to be; also hence why you can forward every port, and other computers can still access, say, websites. ? just to clarify, im not arguing that forwarding all ports will block other people from accessing the web -- just saying that i thought it would, and would like to fix my understanding of how routers work

not if you only go into it temporarily. also, economy = allready destroyed at this point. im not talking years. im talking the bearest amount of time neccesary. well, if everyone carried on with the jobs they had previously, then the owner would still be in charge, and responsable for running it during the emergency. i dont see why it couldn't just go back to being owned by whoever owned it beforehand, including shares still being valid.