Not only does this "news" in no way matter for people reading /. it is even wrong on so many levels, that it actually does more harm than good.

I have to correct myself. I can't prove something stating: "All swans are white", but I can prove "There is a black swan." if I happen to catch one. Going back to religion: imho one could only prove the existence but not the non-existence of something supernatural. Concluding: if at all religious people could prove non-believers wrong.

I would agree with many of your points, but: Do not mix up a mathematical proof with a "proof" in general science. ;)
A mathematical proof says something is or is not. There is no doubt (if we accept some axioms). In general "proofs" (better: validation) of theories describing nature can only say, something seems likely or unlikely (and to what extend). To be more specific: One formulates a hypothesis and a null hypothesis (often saying the effect described in the hypothesis is non-existent) and then look at the data and say whether one can show the null hypothesis to be highly unlikely. Your are not saying your hypothesis is right, your just saying the null hypothesis is likely wrong and your hypothesis _could_ explain why.

To support your claim: As we can we only say what likely is wrong, any theory has to be falsifiable. Everything else is not science. I can't say: "My god is out of reach of man and their tools, he can't be perceived or measured, neither it's actions. And science hasn't proven me wrong about it's existence, so it must exist." and expect science to take me serious, as it is impossible to (in)validate this claim with tools of science.

To the general topic: I have no problem of people being religious in general (as long those don't rub it under my nose all the time, play missionary or try to use it for their advantage), but there is a big misunderstanding about science, what it can achieve and how it works. On both ends. How often have I read post saying science is just another kind of religion. No it's not. Maybe some pseudo sciences make non-invalidatable claims, but definitely not natural sciences and mathematics. On the other hand people trying science to disprove religious believe will not succeed, for reasons mentioned above. The only thing you could do imho is to argue, why you consider it not reasonable to have religious believe.

To the OP: Please refer to the provided documentation or use a search engine to find tutorials, if you dare. There is an official API for this. We won't recite manuals here.

To ./ community: Why is a question that can be answered with a "rtfm" landing on the front page?

This whole GUI thing is totally bloated. We shouldn't have gone further after DOS 6.0.

The article is about _businesses_. Their IT staff _will_ care at least it should considering whats on the stakes.
It's not about what Joe Sixpack does on his private machine running a "spatial distributed backup" of windows xp without service packs.

Obvious troll is obvious...

Anyone who likes security holes fixed, when they come up, is concerned.

You may call me unfair from now on.

How is this good news?

Better start a second cold war.

Sorry but a) software errors are _everywhere_ and b) why do you think some sociopath with enough power would _not_ order to kill innocent people? Just take a look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history. Do you really think genocides are _less_ likely if your "soldiers" won't question anything or riot?

I'm sorry but I don't find any hyperbole in his comment.

In WW II many more people died than in WW I, just in case you didn't knew.

Wrong, see other comment.

Yup, like on cluster bombs, prohibited by a convention most countries of the world signed, like the chemical weapons developed and produced in masses and the biological weapons developed and the atomic and hydrogen bombs developed. Sorry what world do you life in?

Can't comment on that but likely wrong, as stated in other reply. But undoubtedly the US are fighting more wars than every other country in this world.

You know if you take the fighting away from the human, you take it away from empathy, reasoning and responsibility. Robots won't resist killing innocent people like women, children and elderly. People will question wars even less, as they and their relatives are not in danger by fighting the war anymore and neither they nor their ancestors and relatives never experienced the ugliness of fighting themselves. Combine this with the many wars the USA is fighting already and you get a quite dark picture of a possibly upcoming society. You saying "stop whining, this is just the way the world goes" underlines your lack of empathy and reasoning.

Your postulation that human nature would always be the same is actually no more than your personal thesis. Show me some evidence, that society is unable to learn to cooperate and empathize. In fact what defines humanity and society _is_ cooperation, trust and empathy. I think what you allude to is that sociopaths with power will behave like sociopaths with power (if not stopped).

Sixty? You are lucky. For me it was around 200 seconds.