Maybe for personal use the desktop is dying, because legions of brainless "consumers" seem content to "consume" on their devices rather than produce. But the computer desktop will live on for a long time in business where it's often the best tool for the job.
And after you set up Ethernet over power lines, you can set up Power over Ethernet equipment thereby eliminating all cables without needing to use WiFi!
True, but I guess my issue is that I log into websites from home, work, multiple mobile devices, friends house.
First of all, you should never log into an important site like a banking site from a machine you don't own and trust.
Secondly: My password keeper runs under X11, so I can tunnel an SSH connection to my desktop and start my password keeper. Oh, what about devices that don't support X? SImple: I don't use them. Even my phone supports X and has an SSH client.
Sure that [sic] are tools like keepass or lastpass or whatever, but then you just need to break 1 password to have access to them all
I use a password keeper that encrypts the password file locally on my desktop. Not only would you need to break my passphrase (which obviously is fairly strong), but you'd also need physical (or at least remote) access to my Linux desktop. That adds a level of difficulty.
I always use randomly-generated passwords for web sites and I make them as long as I can.... 32 characters if the site permits, otherwise whatever the site maximum is.
I used to have a beard and bushy hair and my password was "test123". After I neatened my hair and shaved, I had this overwhelming compulsion to change my password, and now it's UjuW8LxttbsWKqMbDaA4SqSJVST783ty
Is it the server operator? Or is the OS provider liable for producing a defective product? And if the OS is open-source, who do you go after?
I understand where Spamhaus is coming from... I'd also love to penalize idiots who make the Internet a worse place. But I don't think it's a practical option and trying to implement it opens up a huge can of worms.
but anything that speaks against religion is also a violation of seperation of church and state.
How so? From what I understand about the USA, the principle of separation of church and state merely says that the government shall not promote any particular religion nor establish an official state religion. There's nothing that says it's not allowed to speak out against any and all religions. I think a healthy dose of criticism of religion is sorely needed in the United States.
Who said "everything must have a creator"
Umm.... isn't that a basic premise of the Creationists?
So the answer is: "You are not allowed to ask that question."
And so I dismiss Creationists as nutjobs.
It will just take a very long time to test climate scientist predictions. Science's predictions are not always easily testable, but they are always testable and falsifiable in principle.
What Paul supposedly said is not evidence. It's called "deluded rambling", my friend.
given you will be incapable of producing proof that a creator *doesn't* exist, logically you must allow for it to be possible
Oh, sure. The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Teapot Orbiting Mars are all "logically possible". That doesn't mean anyone in his or her right mind will take them seriously for more than a nanosecond.
No scientific explanation of anything thus far has demanded the existence of a creator; therefore, it's up to those who assert such a thing exists to offer proof. It's not up to scientists to offer a disproof.
Creationism does benefit in a way by providing a logical end to the series of questions.
Not at all. Who created the Creator? After all, everything must have a creator.
On the other, you have the undeniable fact that most science is
When I get on a comfortable modern airplane to visit my family across the continent, I'm happy in the knowledge that science and technology will get me there in one piece. Now you strap a couple of two-by-fours to a firecracker and leap off a cliff happy in the knowledge that your god will save your life. Go on, try it.
Science makes falsifiable, testable predictions. After a scientific theory has survived thousands of such falsifiable predictions, I'm willing to trust it with my life by getting into an airplane.
Religion can spout whatever unprovable nonsense it wants with no justification whatsoever. See the difference? That is "essentially different" from the scientific method, contrary to your claim.