Wait, there's an article behind that? I thought they just linked to an add site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
Evolution happens by process of Natural Selection. People that refute human evolution often accept intra-species natural selection, but won't accept natural selection changing a species to a point where it cannot reproduce with a former version. Yet, generally speaking evolution and natural selection are synonymous.

So, no, there is no huge difference.

Also,
1) Old campaign "You will be cool and fashionable as an Apple user"
2) New campaign "Only annoying geeks are Apple genius"

oblig http://xkcd.com/1074/

I think the problem here is that everyone is a dissident in some circles. So while I hold opinion A and like to promote it, my (family/boss/co-worker/government) don't know that opinion and will keep treating me normal. If I start publicly promoting opinion A then I would be disowned/fired/disasociated/killed.

So we are all dissidents in that respect when we want to remain anonymous. Early supporters of rights for minorities and females would fall into this category. If you try and define what is legitimate to disagree with anonymously and what isn't, then you have already ruled out dissidents from opposing you without being subject to your prejudice/judgement/punishment.

Touche, user error here, it was default sorted by the other column. Luckily for me, my state is at 1 murder/100k (which means likely .6 gun homicides).

We definitely catalog events better than other countries, at least most of the ones I've visited.

This is misleading. While we are listed at 17th on that list, the number is wrong from the CDC. The 10.27 number is for all gun RELATED deaths. This includes both accidents and suicides. If you look at just the homicides we're more in the ballpark of 4.07. We also have much better records than other countries.

This is just flat wrong. 45 murders happen on average every day in the US. 65% of murders involve a fire arm. Get your facts right.

I'm more worried about accidental shootings from guns than I am from violent crimes. I'd rather be shot than beheaded slowly.

His whole argument is to let the "over there" states get nukes also and we can no longer fight on their turf at risk of being nuked ourselves.

Questioner: Are you in favor of your neighbor eating cake?
Respondent: Yes

Questioner: Are you in favor of buying your neighbor a cake?
Respondent: No

Three are a few reasons we are worried about climate change and sea level rise:
    1. Who moved my cheese!?
    2. Some people actually think we're at the utopia of climate and land mass.
    3. While large affluant coastal cities will need more sophisticated ways to deal with SLR, they will be able to handle this with money (ie: tech know how). The poor coastal cities will require mass migration of humans, and this will likely result in deaths if there is any amount of rapid SLR in those poverty striken highly populous areas (deaths will come from starvation, not the water killing them).
    4. Stability is better for insurance companies, economies, urban planning, etc.
    5. We don't know that the direction we're going will be better or worse for us, but we do know how to cope with what we have.

So, just as we wouldn't want global cooling (ice ages arn't fun) we also don't want global warming. There are figures showing that a slightly warmer earth with slight SLR will give us more arable and habitable land, but I'm sure someone has predicted the opposite. The fact is we know SLR will displace and cause temporary poblems, and if there is a solution that is less costly than the SLR option we should probably take it. But it's hard to quantify the "cost" of most of the solutions proposed and thus hard to make a decision on how that compares to the "cost" of letting CC/SLR continue. Especially as we have vastly different models as to their costs on both ends.

Well damn, stink has sure one-upped the neutrino.

You are correct Slew. It is less "cryptographically secure." And I did break the golden rule of cryptography "Don't roll your own."

Yet, the idea behind what I stated still makes sense. Security through obscurity shouldn't be thrown out just because it's trivial once you know it. Ideally you would just use a traditional salt and store it some place "obscure". (ie: not your db, or store it AES encoded in the DB with the key in the code). You arn't inventing anything new, but you are making them know more than find a tool online that knows how to crack passwords given a salt. They would need to decompile your code for the AES key.

The salt I'm talking about is unique per user. The difference is the salt generating algorithm is in the code and not known.

If they don't know your salt (code based) and you don't allow people to do multiple login attempts on your site, it does effectively stop brute force attacks at your passwords even if your salted hashes get out in the open. Still not the best idea to give out your database.