Forgot your password?

typodupeerror

Comment: Re:what to do, what to do (Score 1) 553

by James Skarzinskas (#29149387) Attached to: Initial Tests Fail To Find Gravitational Waves

A fluffy metaphor, to be sure, but that's the whole of it. Your basic angle of attack sits on a flawed premise.

There is not, cannot be, any supernatural. That's not a proof you have, it's an assumption that you start with.

And a perfectly valid, logical assumption it is; for to lend credence to, and to posit the supernatural would be to assert a positive claim for which no evidential support can be provided on behalf of the claimant. Failing to accomodate for the insubstantial is not a misguided assumption--it is a rational, sane default.

While I enjoyed your unique perspective on the subject, we're hardly nomadic worshippers roaming the open teal plains of the Windows 95 desktop, paying devout, pious tribute to the seemingly stochastic methods of an almighty oversized mouse cursor. O, the tumbleweed of questionable JPEGs adrift in the sandstorms of this barren, biblical expanse. Truth is, our registers just aren't being rewritten. The inexorable march of scientific advancement has been successfully unraveling alleged "miracles" for nearly as long as they've been purported, with no hallelujah of divine tampering left unrattled to this date. Drawing up images of some cosmic debug session is disingenuous and superfluous, at best.

If you were able to approach this post with a checklist of seemingly random phenomena analogous to the passing whims of a desktop user, totally unapproachable and inexplicable through our established fundamentals, I would quite frankly not be tapping out this reply.

However, the reality is that your post, well not inflammatory, and certainly well composed enough to warrant its superficial, positive moderation, is just another passive aggressive manner for creationists to rudely interject at the dinner table with a new spin on perverting the scientific method. "But, but, but, He's outside science and reason, don't you get it? Assuming He's not is just sooooooo presumptuous of you! And gee-whiz, I thought you guys were the scientists!"

I'm sure you had good intentions, but honestly, that's just not how it works.

Security

AV-Test Deems Windows Security Essentials "Very Good" 318

Posted by timothy
from the if-you're-in-the-right-demographic dept.
CWmike writes "Microsoft's new free security software, Windows Security Essentials, passed a preliminary antivirus exam with flying colors, said independent and trusted firm AV-Test, which tested Essentials, launched yesterday in beta, on Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7. It put it up against nearly 3,200 common viruses, bot Trojans and worms, said Andreas Marx, one of the firm's managers. The malware was culled from the most recent WildList, a list of threats actually actively attacking computers. 'All files were properly detected and treated by the product,' Marx said in an e-mail. 'That's good, as several other [antivirus] scanners are still not able to detect and kill all of these critters yet.' It also tested well on false positives."

Comment: Cheap! (Score 1) 685

by James Skarzinskas (#28422695) Attached to: Blu-ray Adoption Soft, More Still Own HD DVD

And with HD-DVDs failure, retailers dumped their stock cheap. HD-DVD players, HD-DVD discs, all for next to nothing. People picking up that new HDTV, being advised by a sales rep that they'll need an HD source? Probably going to snag that cheap "get rid of all this crap as fast as possible" HD-DVD package. There are many deceptions within these figures, if the figures themselves are not suspect to begin with.

No man is an island, but some of us are long peninsulas.

Working...