Search This Blog

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Hotmail scam is still just a scam. Phishing ploy a rerun from 2008.

Here we go again...Phishing never ends.

The following and any email like it is a fake:

"
Windows Live Hotmail Alert!!!!!!!!

CONFIRM YOUR WINDOWS LIVE ACCOUNT SERVICES. VERIFY YOUR HOTMAIL ACCOUNT NOW TO AVOID IT CLOSED !!!!!!!!!
Dear Account Owner

Due to the congestion in all Hotmail users and removal of all unused Hotmail Accounts, Hotmail would be shutting down all unused accounts. You will have to confirm your E-mail by filling out your Login Info below after clicking the reply botton or your account will be suspended within 24 hours for security reasons.

* Username: ................................
* Password: ................................
* Date of Birth:
............................
* Country Or Territory: .................
Sincerely,
The Windows Live Hotmail Team."


Other similar emails may seek to get your social security number or other personal information. Guys, PayPal and Bank of Whatever or Hotmail or other such companies NEVER try to get you to send them such information via unsecured emails. Never give out such information via email under any circumstances!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is the first sensible article I've seen here in a long, long time...

radar said...

I understand information. If only my commenters could...

Anonymous said...

"I understand information. If only my commenters could..."

That truly deserved a quote for utter hilariousness.

radar said...

I try to be nice for once and look what happens? Now they are attacking me when I am simply warning about a phishing scam! It is to laugh.

Anonymous, just how many millions has SETI spent scanning the skies for just one little scrap of information out of all that noise? Have they ever identified any? No.

How much information is in the human DNA strand? Stanford University's tech site says: "Believe it or not, if you took all of the DNA in all of your cells and laid it out end to end, it would stretch to the moon and back about 130,000 times."

Go ahead and explain it to us, Anonymous.

Chaos Engineer said...

Stanford's a reputable university but I think they're over-hyping this.

Taking DNA from "all of your cells" is a complete waste of time. Every cell in your body has the same DNA (except for minor mutations). So you only need the DNA from one cell.

The DNA from one cell has 3 billion base pairs, and each base pair can be encoded as a 2-bit number. So that's 6 billion bits or 750 megabytes, or 1/6 of the capacity of a DVD.

That's a lot of information but it's not completely unmanageable. The Human Genome Project got the full sequence way back in 2003.

Also, there are different kinds of "information". SETI is searching for intelligently-produced information, which is different from the kind of information in our DNA. Our DNA is just a mixture of parts of our parents' DNA plus some mutations; there wasn't any intelligent picking-and-choosing of genes.

creeper said...

"I understand information." - Radar

Doesn't have quite the same ring as "I am aware of all Internet traditions", but I'll take it.

It'll be a fun quote to bring up when you make it clear that you don't, like when you claim that microevolution represents a loss of information.

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

"I try to be nice for once and look what happens? Now they are attacking me when I am simply warning about a phishing scam! It is to laugh."

I actually said that it is a sensible article...
Gee Radar, even when you get a compliment you can't react normally.

WomanHonorThyself said...

thanks my friend for the heads up!!

radar said...

Microevolution DOES represent a loss of information. If you do not know that you have not studied genetics.

creeper said...

Let's see. Start with a wolf, then gradually domesticate and breed selectively. Eventually get a multitude of different types of dogs - let's say poodle, Dobermann pinscher, golden retriever, chi hua hua just by way of example.

1. How does the wolf have more genetic information than, say, the Dobermann? Or the poodle?

2. How do these breeds collectively (existing in parallel to wolves themselves, mind you) represent less genetic information than just the wolf?

-- creeper

Anonymous said...

Don't you read your own blog Radar? Jon Woolf spoke to this point in the comments section of your last post. I'm sure you were planning on responding to it at some point, but in case you missed it Jon responded to you saying,

"Problem is, where do the choices come from? The DNA contains information. Information does not grow on trees.",

with the following response. Says Jon,

--------------------

"Um, well ... actually, yes it does. Metaphorically speaking. This is difficult to explain, but you're a computer security expert, so I think you have the right mental tools to grok it.

Information depends on context. Consider the string of symbols "11001001". Is that:

* a binary number, equivalent to 201 (decimal)?

* a hexadecimal number, equal to 285,216,769 (decimal)?

* itself a decimal number, eleven million one thousand and one?

* or the title of a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode?

Well?

Right, you don't know. Because all I gave you was the string of numbers, without a context. It could mean any of those things -- or maybe something else entirely. It all depends on the context.

Well, so does the information content of DNA. Take a string of DNA, any string. It codees for a protein, or maybe more than one. If you start reading it _here_, it contains one string of information. Start reading one character over, though, and it will contain a different string. Change one letter in the DNA string, and the meaning of the entire string changes. Drop or add one or more letters, and the meaning changes. The change might be insignificant -- for example, TAA and TAG are both "stop" codons in the DNA code, so changing one to the other doesn't affect the protein that gene creates. Transcription still stops when it hits that codon. But change the leading T in TAA to a C, and it's not a stop codon at all anymore. It's one of several codons for glutamine. So the cell machinery will insert a glutamine at that point and keep transcribing. What you get is a whole new DNA sequence, coding for a whole new protein. It might be a useless protein ... or it might not. Either way, it represents a change in the cell's information content.

So, the answer to your question "where does the information come from?" is "mutations." They provide the raw material for selection to operate on."

--------------------

Seems to me that Jon has certainly "studied genetics", at least a little so, come on Radar, give it a go, you genetics expert, you.

- Canucklehead.

P.S. - My apologies to Jon for potentially dragging him into the comments section of this post. I just get so tired of Radar's evasiveness.

radar said...

That last "answer" was some of the biggest BS ever slung. I did not ask how preexisting DNA is read, nor did I ask about mutations. You can pile on a lot of crap but what you cannot and will not do is begin to explain where DNA originated. Where in the world did you get the idea a pile of mud would suddenly convert itself into a complex blueprint with complex copying/coding mechanisms that the finest minds do not yet completely understand?

Where did the parent's DNA come from? Where did the first DNA come from? You are dodging the question.

Not one of you even tries to answer this question because you do not have the slightest idea. You may think a lot of stupid people read this blog and you can dazzle them with a lot of words but I am calling you out.

How did the incredibly complex blueprint for living things just happen? The fact is, DNA is full of information and information does not just grow on trees, so to speak. SETI has been scanning the skies for years looking for information. That wasteful process has shown us something, though. Information does not occur randomly. Therefore DNA could not have been a random accident. Quit congratulating yourselves for wiggling out of the question.

Chaos Engineer said...

Well, be fair. The question of how DNA was formed involves some unimaginably complicated chemistry, and we have to work it all out from scratch...none of the precursor chemicals would have been preserved in the fossil record, so we can't look there for hints. It's not surprising that we don't know the answer yet.

Scientists don't claim to have all the answers...and even if they did have all the answers, they wouldn't admit it, because then they'd be out of a job!

Anyway, there are other questions that are easy for scientists but hard for Creationists. Like: "How many of the 350,000 known species of beetle were on Noah's Ark, and how many evolved after the Flood? And why do we even need 350,000 species of beetle, anyway?"

Instead of focusing on questions that science can't answer yet, I think it would be better to focus on the questions that science does a good job of answering, and then shoehorn that information into a Creationist model. (For example, the Flood story makes the most sense when we read it as the story of a memorable local flood, which was part of an oral history and had gotten greatly exaggerated before Moses finally wrote it down.)

radar said...

An honest answer! Chaos tells the truth, that science doesn't really know how DNA came to be. Unlike the tossoff answers usually given in the comment threads (like charality has been "solved") this was refreshing.

I submit that worldview pulls you towards a history of multiple floods and cataclysmic activities but if you allow yourself to consider one big flood (which cultures all over the planet have recorded in some form or another) then the rock records begin to make sense.

radar said...

And I will make the wolf dog post probably tonight, creeper. Thanks for the question.

Anonymous said...

Radar,

I really don't understand why you're so 'victorious' about the question 'where did it come from'?
All you do is just regurgitation the age-old creationist adagio of 'god of the gaps'. So what if science doesn't know where the first DNA came from? That doesn't prove the Theory of Evolution wrong. And if you're honest, you don't know either. All you know is what's written in your Holy Book which, objectively speaking, holds no more weight than any other creation myth.

Maybe the first DNA was created by God, maybe it wasn't. It won't change the facts though, no matter how much you'd like it.

And talking about SETI: actually scientists do a lot of reseach much closer to home:

Saturn moon could be hospitable to life

Since the Cassini mission has been extended to 2017 the scientists have some time to reseach this. And who knows what they might find? Maybe you're right and God is the creator of DNA and they will catch Him right there in the act of spellcasting.

How about that?

Bottom line is: even though they don't know everything, scientists do a lot of hard and honest work. Unlike certain creationists who misquote them or twist their work to serve their own purposes, while doing none of the work themselves...

creeper said...

"I did not ask how preexisting DNA is read, nor did I ask about mutations."

No, you said information doesn't grow on trees. Jon responded to that by pointing out that it comes from mutations, though it should be added that it comes from mutations filtered through natural selection, leading to information as to which mutations are useful being retained and becoming part of the organism's genetic makeup. Hence an accumulation of genetic information over time.

"Where in the world did you get the idea a pile of mud would suddenly convert itself into a complex blueprint with complex copying/coding mechanisms that the finest minds do not yet completely understand?"

Ah, I see where you're having a problem with this: "pile of mud" and "suddenly". A pile of mud suddenly turning into a modern human... but wait, that's the story in the Bible. And you're right, it does sound pretty silly... but it's not what the theory of evolution says, so you can direct that complaint at the Bible, not the theory of evolution.

We're talking about something different here, see. Gradual evolution over many, many, many generations, not suddenly. The evidence is strong for evolution having occurred. Witness for example - this has come up on your blog quite a lot in the last few days - the fact that the theory of evolution perfectly matches the location of fossils in the fossil record, for which YEC/global flood thinkers have absolutely no response. You hear incredibly vague mutterings about "specific gravity" or "ability to flee" and such as ways of explaining why fossils are arranged in this way, but none even comes close to matching up with reality and providing a scientific explanation of how such a mechanism "sorted" the fossils as they are currently found.

I take the fact that you attempt to argue against the theory of evolution by focusing on another subject, abiogenesis, as a tacit admission that you can't actually come up with any solid arguments against the theory of evolution itself. Fine by me. So if your beef is with abiogenesis, why not conclude that God did it? The theory of evolution stands regardless, as it matches the evidence and there is no competing theory that does the same.

As for the origin of DNA not being solved yet, did you think that was some kind of secret? You make a fuss about Chaos Engineer "admitting" this, but who ever claimed that this had been 100% solved?

Here's the thing though: if you think you have the answer, and that answer happens to be "God did it", then you don't have any more information at all. And to make it worse, you have less (or no) curiosity. You've given yourself a reason not to investigate further.

But... you don't really have the answer as to how God did it, do you? That answer is "well, God just did it", right?

Right?

You see, Radar, if what you believe is true and God did create everything we see around us, he must have done it somehow. And it's that somehow that concerns scientists. How did this happen in nature?

It's at this point that scientists investigate and, little by little, expand human knowledge about the world around them. Creationists say "God did it", mistake that for an answer, and then try to shoot holes in the theory of evolution.

-- creeper

radar said...

As I have said before, even honest Darwinists admit they depend upon a broken law of (a)biogenesis as their only recourse to the beginning of life.

As to the various problems you have with the source of information? With your complete lack of explanation for the remarkably complex DNA and your disregard for (or ignorance of) the efficiency with which it works? If ignorance is bliss my commenters are usually pretty happy.

I have quoted many brilliant scientists who have admitted the flaws of Darwinism but held(hold) tightly to it because it is not God. I have quoted many brilliant scientists who believe(d)God created because any other answer is nonsensical and indefensible.

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."

"The wonderful arrangement and harmony of the cosmos would only originate in the plan of an almighty omniscient being. This is and remains my greatest comprehension." – Sir Isaac Newton

"Overwhelming evidences of an intelligence and benevolent intention surround us, show us the whole of nature through the work of a free will and teach us that all alive beings depend on an eternal creator-ruler." - Lord Kelvin

radar said...

creeper is in a presupposition prison-"For Darwinists, the matter of the very existence of a Creator God is a conundrum. Naturally, such a person would also find the existence of the Universe and in fact their own existence to be yet another conundrum and then the conundrums multiply exponentially from there." Atheistic scientists have massive difficulties with which to deal, as Douglas Wilson explains beautifully during a dialogue with Christopher Hitchens in the book, "Is Christianity Good for the World?" To quote Wilson:
"we ought not to "resist evidence that may at first sight seem unwelcome or unsettling," but... your assumption of what the Universe actually is does not allow for valid descriptions of that Universe to arise from within it. If one were to spill milk accidentally on the kitchen floor, and someone came in and wanted to know what had happened, the one thing we would be sure of is that such an enquiring mind wouldn't ask the milk. The milk wouldn't know. It's the accident!" Douglas Wilson

But Darwinists hide from truth: "The basic understanding of evolution, considered as a process, did not advance at all under its tutelage. The presumed fundamental explanation of the evolutionary process, "natural selection", went unchanged and unchallenged from one end of the 20th century to the other. Was this because there was nothing more to understand about the nature of the evolutionary process? Hardly! Instead, the focus was not the study of the evolutionary process so much as the care and tending of the modern synthesis. Safeguarding an old concept, protecting "truths too fragile to bear translation" is scientific anathema.
Carl R. Woese and Nigel Goldenfeld - Microbiology And Molecular Biology Reviews, 73(1), March 2009

radar said...

DNA is far more complex than computer language and crams more information into smaller spaces than man has yet learned to do. Yet with a straight face Darwinists expect a rational person to think that it just happened, a lucky accident. Photosynthesis? Fortune. Life itself? Good luck. The Universe itself? Bon chance!

"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur .... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it."
Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977) Evolution of Living Organism Academic Press, New York, N.Y., p. 103

radar said...

So now go ahead and tell all those brilliant minds that are superior to most that they don't understand, either. When all else fails most commenters resort to that.

I understand that Darwinism and Naturalism happily ignore the laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis and pay no attention to those biochemists over there pointing out irreducible complexities or the astronomers pointing out evidence of an earth-centric Universe or physicists discussing fine tuning/anthropic principles of physical laws or any other advances in knowledge because when they are added up Darwinism is more bankrupt than the US government and it isn't close. Meanwhile various molecular structures are studied by microengineers and at least some scientists are engaged in operational sciences.

All the while SETI keeps searching the skies for some sign of intelligence.

creeper said...

"I understand that Darwinism and Naturalism happily ignore the laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis"

How many times do we have to go over this, and how many times do you have to run away from responding to the very clear and obvious responses and questions that I and others have put up? You don't respond to them, then repeat the same moronic charges just a few days later.

1. "Darwinism" (whatever that means this week) does not violate any law of biogenesis, because all that that outdated "law" (not an actual scientific law, by the way) states is that higher life forms (e.g. mice) do not appear fully formed. The theory of evolution is not in violation of that, it is a clear response to it.

It explains how life forms came to be, which was anything but fully formed (which is why it doesn't violate that old law of biogenesis).

2. Thermodynamics... are you still of the opinion that your own birth represents a violation of the second law of thermodynamics? When you figure that one out, let us know, and then we can go on to explain to you why the rest of your opinion on this particular subject is utter hogwash as well.

"and pay no attention to those biochemists over there pointing out irreducible complexities"

So... did they find one yet? Seems like every time they come up with something that they think is a theoretically irreducible complexity, it turns out to be a theoretically reducible complexity.

It's nice in theory and all, but it's not the killer app that you think it is.

"or the astronomers pointing out evidence of an earth-centric Universe"

Say whaa...?

" or physicists discussing fine tuning/anthropic principles of physical laws or any other advances in knowledge because when they are added up Darwinism is more bankrupt than the US government and it isn't close. Meanwhile various molecular structures are studied by microengineers and at least some scientists are engaged in operational sciences. "

This just devolves into utter incoherence. Oh and plenty of scientists are engaged in what you might call "historical sciences" as well. If you don't like that, you should really give up on that other hobby horse of yours, global warming/cooling, vast chunks of which are based on "historical" science.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"DNA is far more complex than computer language and crams more information into smaller spaces than man has yet learned to do. Yet with a straight face Darwinists expect a rational person to think that it just happened, a lucky accident. Photosynthesis? Fortune. Life itself? Good luck. The Universe itself? Bon chance!"

God himself? He just IS!! How many times do we have to explain it??!!

We get it. You're not interested. Or curious. You still think (or like to pretend) that evolution is pure chance and nothing else (not least the principle of natural selection), but all that tells people around you is that you either don't understand the most basic aspects of evolution or will happily misrepresent them.

Maybe at some point you can explain how Christians interpret the ninth commandment and what your views are on that.

-- creeper

creeper said...

"creeper is in a presupposition prison-"For Darwinists, the matter of the very existence of a Creator God is a conundrum. Naturally, such a person would also find the existence of the Universe and in fact their own existence to be yet another conundrum and then the conundrums multiply exponentially from there." Atheistic scientists have massive difficulties with which to deal"

How do you figure that? I look at the theory of evolution and it is supported by evidence. You seem to have a hard time poking actual holes in it, having to resort to strawman arguments almost exclusively, though you may not realize that.

I look at Young Earth Creationism, and it is a shambles that has to resort to false claims, special pleading, claiming the Bible itself is evidence that trumps science (but only in this aspect, you see), evasions, lies, the list goes on.

Why is it like this? Why all these contortions? Is it really because of a deist-theist-atheist argument?

There is an argument to be had along the "does God exist?" line, certainly, and I suspect all of us here have had lengthy bull sessions about that, but that doesn't account for the twisted mess of YEC. That is accounted for by the unwarranted literal reading of Genesis.

Now, when you say that I'm in a prison of presuppositions, you may not have noticed that my presuppositions are slightly different from what you may think.

I don't believe the personified God presented in the Bible exists. There is no evidence for it, and far too much speaks against it. Mankind, lacking many answers in many areas, has spent a lot of time and energy trying to come up with a mythology that explains it all, and bit by bit has constructed a narrative that serves as broad mythological narrative that tries to explain, for example, why there is evil in the world, why childbirth is painful, and so on.

So when you plead that the Bible should be taken as "evidence", I inevitably have to ask you: why this religious text? How do we agree that this one is "evidence" and the next one is not? Jesus was hardly the only purveyor of miracles.

You rightly point out that some questions are unanswered, though you exaggerate the lack of an answer.

My stance is quite simple: if you want to plug in "God did it" as an answer to the questions of the origin of life and/or the origin of the Universe, you won't get an argument from me. Knock yourself out, be happy with it.

All this does is replace one big question mark with another, without any evidence whatsoever. All we know about those questions is that we don't know. And if you think that I am resisting the answer of "God did it" because I don't believe in God, then you are mistaken.

1. As I pointed out in a comment over the last couple of days, if some inexplicable something or other created the Universe, I don't see the character called God that's described in the Bible as being related to that, other than that it happened to originate as a response to some of those same ruminations.

2. I don't think "God did it" is much of an answer in any case. Like the clownish strawman counterpart that you insist on using ("chance did it"), it is a vastly inadequate answer that just doesn't explain anything at all. Fortunately, in the case of the theory of evolution, a description of "chance did it" is a misrepresentation that is almost cartoony in its extremity. In the case of "God did it", however, that is pretty much it. No explanation of how God did it, just a simple pasting in of the gap: we don't know how this happened, therefore God.

So don't pride yourself with endless harping of "we don't know this, we don't know that, therefore God". You may think it's an answer, but it's really only the beginning.

-- creeper