Slashdot Mirror

Some of us have a problem when you post to Slashdot about it. If you could provide actual evidence, which you can't, or even say how it's falsifiable, I think it would go over better.

Of course, I don't care in the least what you or the entirety of Slashdot have "a problem with", as is appropriate, because it simply could not in any way factually matter.

That said, though, again, this is an issue of interpretation. Insofar as a given IC structure does not currently have, within the scope of science, a definitive explanation, it is -evidence-. No amount of equivocation around "of course we will determine the particular route to the transition" or "we've thoroughly politically smeared IC and ID, so don't bother bringing it up" or handwaving reasoning-by-analogy to other biological structures will alter this. If you want to make up you own notion of what "evidence" is, that's fine, but if we go by what evidence actually is, apparently improbable biological transitions are -each-, -individually-, evidence. They are evidence until they -all- are refuted.

I have been accused of setting unreasonable criteria for this, in that it is claimed that the current state of science does not allow for these to be exhaustively analyzed. Well... too bad. Difficulty of analysis does not enable redefinition of words.

And, likewise, that is the route to falsifiability. Explain all the transitions. Specifically.

Even then, you have a major issue in that at some point we have to address the unstated causal factors contained in the placeholder-word for the not actually present causal explanation that is the term "random".

You'd need to show the "random" mutations are "unknown quantum effect random" rather than "designer-directed random"--neither of these, likely, is falsifiable.

However, we can address that when the baseline criteria for falsification is reached. All the proposed IC structures explained. Yes, all of them. Specifically. At a resolution of the specific mutations and specific biochemistry transitions resulting therefrom. At that point, if you can meet the previous criteria, and show that the former is more plausible, in that as the effect of the Big Bang, that is, on the first and only "try" (insofar as we have evidence, feel free to forward a conjectural model and we'll do some epistemological comparisons), we end up with intelligent life rather than a mass of "spacetime goo", thus removing the strong flavor of teleology from empirical existence, I'll be personally satisfied.

In the interim, I'll assume forebearance enough (though, as noted, I don't care if it's not given, and given typical responses, it probably hypocritically won't be) to support my position on this question -indirectly- as, say, is considered perfectly acceptable for most pro-atheism writers today (Dawkins, Harris) etc., to combine broader inferential and worldview arguments into their exegesis along with the narrow, specific biological questions around evolution.

So, in that regard, here is peer-reviewed evidence of firsthand quantified eyewitness (e.g. empirical, the unusual circumstances being something I'm quite willing to argue) of the predictive accuracy of mainstream conceptualizations of a particular notion of that designer.

http://www.thelancet.com/journ....
http://profezie3m.altervista.o...

When and if you respond with an alternate possible interpretation of this evidence (as is the standard response), will it then cease to be evidence for my model, rather than at best (from your perspective) evidence for -both-?

No.

You'll have to address the intellectual dishonesty of your own insistence on "evidence proving" first. They aren't remotely equivalent, in theology or science, and you are asking for it specifically because you're confident your self-contradictory request can be successfully goalpost-shifted to "still not proof I'm willing to accept" to whatever arbitrary degree you wish. But here's something peer-reviewed for you.

No intellectual dishonesty here, friend. That's the beauty of having an open mind: when new evidence is presented, I can use that information to expand my understanding of the universe around me. I am completely open to new ideas and understandings of the universe. However, I take empiricism very seriously. As such, for evidence to be valid, it must be identifiable, classifiable, and most of all, when identical methodologies are applied, repeatable.

From my perspective, those goalposts have never, and will never move.

I will go on to say that "religious" perspectives have often been used to popularize various life patterns or paths. *Sometimes*, they've even been useful, and could (in certain cases, i.e., buddhism) even be reasonably argued to be, a "good thing."(TM) That said, the creation myths of the belief systems generally referred to as "religions" do not jibe with the evidence collected, quite painstakingly, in our objective reality and do nothing to increase our understanding of the universe around us.

Science is a methodology and has exactly zero to do with metaphysical questions of existence and meaning. If you get your meaning from one bunch of stories, who am I to say they are meaningless? They mean something to you. That doesn't mean they have any relevance to me.

I have no issue with alternate belief systems per se, but for me to subscribe to one or more of those, the belief system must be self-consistent and not contradict the evidence we have explaining why the world is the way it is.

You'll have to address the intellectual dishonesty of your own insistence on "evidence proving" first. They aren't remotely equivalent, in theology or science, and you are asking for it specifically because you're confident your self-contradictory request can be successfully goalpost-shifted to "still not proof I'm willing to accept" to whatever arbitrary degree you wish.

But here's something peer-reviewed for you.

So, in summary, you're ignorant of history, religion, -and- ghost stories.

But here is some peer-reviewed grounding for you.

Had they been born in Mumbai, to Hindu parents, they would be Hindus.

And if you were born to Christian parents, you would be Christian? Of course, your notion that people are unconscious and cannot change their belief systems is nonsense, and contradicted by reality a thousand times a day. But, you probably already knew it was nonsense, the whole point was to suggest while the masses of humanity are unconsciously determined by their environment, you are the enviable exception.

Oh, you wanted something other than circular logic? Here's something peer-reviewed by one of the top medical journals in the world:

http://www.thelancet.com/journ....
http://profezie3m.altervista.o...

One reason to believe in God and Jesus rather than Zeus and Odin, is it's the afterlife predictions of the former that people actually experience when they die. Keep telling yourself it's merely "circular" though. I know you'll reject evidence, even peer-reviewed evidence, the instant you hear it, because it's not what you want to hear.

Unfortunately there's no "empty snark" fallacy, or I could use this as a paragon example.

Goalpost-shifting to "proof" when "evidence" is clearly the correct criterion (as it is for all science) aside, I doubt I'd get a Nobel for it.

It seems mere peer-reviewed publication in Europe's most respected medical journal is a more realistic type of response to expect, for that.

Mainly because the "leaves no evidence anywhere" is directly false, and it would be formally epistemologically impossible for you to make such a statement as something you actually know, as it is tantamount to a claim to psychic powers on your part to review all the lives and experiences of everyone else on Earth, and thereby note the absence of validating experience.

You neither could, nor do, know there "is no evidence," nor could you even possibly. At most, you can claim there isn't evidence manifested that you're aware of when using your preferred methodologies.

Something peer-reviewed for you, so you can stop claiming there is "no evidence," particularly since doing so just embarrasses yourself with respect to anyone who knows anything about valid epistemology:

http://www.thelancet.com/journ....

http://profezie3m.altervista.o... (alternate no-registration)

Simple chaotic circuits perhaps?

There's not the slightest evidence to support one religion's claims vs. another's...

No, this is completely false.

Peer-reviewed, supporting in its evidence a rather restricted subset of religion's whose after-death predictions are what is experienced.

Strong relative differences in success at future prediction again subset which are most plausible.

You will claim this is "not evidence". It will remain evidence after you do so.

No.

Recounting events that happened from the perspective of being "outside the body" while comatose is such evidence. Perceiving "from outside oneself" could arguably be a hallucination, recounting actual events requiring visual and auditory perception to know, that occurred while one was in a comatose state, could not.

Here's one source.

I built this in the mid 90's, and at the time the old DOS-based Diehard tests were the best I could find. Certainly the stream should be whitened before used in cryptography, but the data directly from the board passed the Diehard tests without whitening. However, the board XORed 80 bits from the A/D to produce a single output bit (or more - this was software controllable). Since the 8-bit randomness accumulator was rotated 1 bit every sample, each bit was XORed 10 times with each of the A/D outputs. I did some simple correlation analysis on the raw A/D output, and found that the 4th lowest bit had significant, but small correlation - I forget now, but something like less than 1/128th bias to the previous bit. The lowest 3 bits were even more random, and I did not detect correlation other than what I could explain through non-linearity of the ADC. I also looked at the analog signal, and it was a best described as biased random walk, where the signal prefers to return to 0 more the further from 0 it got. It had strong random components at the limit of my scope's frequency: 100MHz.

While it was based on zener avalanche noise, real zeners are designed to minimize this noise. I used the reverse Vbe breakdown of a cheap NPN transistor instead, which was a far superior noise source. I had a couple clever tricks In my design, but frankly saving a transistor or two isn't going to make the world a better place. There's nothing wrong with the designs I find with Google, like this one.

Yawn.

Just to be nice, here's something peer-reviewed for you to look at while I'm yawning.

Basic instruction on how to construct the beginnings of a worthwhile counterargument, rather than pointless empty characterizations, will have to wait. A Philosophy 101 from your local community college might help you in the alternative.

Venice, Italy, is another place where cars simply cannot go. A few weeks ago I spotted the Trekker crew on the stairs of Rialto Bridge, plus another crew filming them. They looked like they were enjoying the trek.
Some photos: http://fotoni.liviux.altervista.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5182

http://informaticall.altervista.org/how-to-be-diet/

"Evolution happens" (e.g. bacteria, -some of- more complex organism evolution) is a provable claim, and noncontroversial even going by what is described by, say, the bible itself regarding hybridization.

"There is evidence of human evolution" is a provable claim, and "evidence" is provably not "proof", and you yourself are denying "evolution" (as you erroneously use the term) is "proven" with your own sentence.

"The sole causal factor leading to human biology is evolution", is not provable, is not even testable, and as such is not science.

Just make up your mind as to what your claim is.

And no, there is a great deal of evidence for Judeo-Christian theism. That you aren't aware of evidence, does not mean there isn't any. To introduce a little philosophy into the discussion, you claiming that, is -impossible- to state validly as an epistemological claim (a claim of possible actual knowledge), always, for every topic. There may or may not be evidence for the Copehangen Interpretation of QM being better than the Everett Interpretation. There may or may not be someone who knows the evidence, indeed the facts, of what happened at 1 AM on the corner of Main and State street, when people heard gunshot fire. You know whether you know something. You can say whether somebody else knows or has evidence of something. You can -never- say that you know nobody has evidence of something, because that states that you have universal psychic powers to scan everyone's brain and note the absence of the evidence in everyone else on Earth's brain. It's Philosophy 101.

For the wider question of "evidence", here's something peer-reviewed to get you started.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

Since I've done it a hundred times, and simply don't feel like doing it again tonight, I won't argue the endless goalpost-shifts on this as to whether it is "proof" or not. Virtually nothing in existence is "proven". You want evidence, you now have evidence. More is available for the price of a google search.

In part, because there's no peer-reviewed studies (written by multiple PhD's and published in a journal of worldwide reknown, incidentally) which quantifies eyewitness reports of them, in the context where we would expect to find them, like this one:

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

You cite a survey of near-death experiences that in no way whatsoever quantifies eyewitness reports of the Biblical god or Jesus.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

"Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter--no errors. "

Ok, so where is this list of approximately 2000/2500?

"The acid test for identifying a prophet of God is recorded by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:21-22. According to this Bible passage (and others), God's prophets, as distinct from Satan's spokesmen, are 100 percent accurate in their predictions. There is no room for error. [..] Given that the Bible proves so reliable a document"

What a joke. The Bible doesn't even get the most basic of cosmology right, that the Earth was created after the heavens. Also, there's a Wikipedia page on prophecies, and you can see plenty of questionable accuracy with the usual variation of apologists who take different tacks to explain them.

At minimum, it's an Appeal to Authority and an Ad Hominem. You are projecting a group of "rational people", lacking any definition, and asserting that a position is correct or incorrect based on whether they correspond to the supposed views your constructed group

It's no different than if I said rational and scientific people don't believe in Zeus or any number of primitive mythologies.

That one can be called a Bare Assertion Fallacy. There is, in fact, nothing about the belief that is in the least ridiculous

I listed several in my post, which you have attempted to address in your reply.

and you tying it's truth-status to its age is called the Genetic Fallacy.

It's not a fallacy to note that many primitive beliefs have been dispelled with our advancements in science and reason.

Many on that list are published theologians as well. So... if you want to see one, try reading one.

Try naming the paper that critically looks at the issue as I asked. It's not my responsibility to uphold your side of the argument.

Allegory, it says it is figuratively unmoving

Ah yes, whenever something is obviously wrong in the Bible it becomes an allegory, a problem in translation, or in some other way re-interpreted to fit the facts.

(you do realize in physics we now know there is no privileged frame of reference frame, correct?)

If that was what the Bible was saying, then there would be no need to make special mention of the Earth, and poor Galileo could have been left alone to do his science in peace. Furthermore, the Earth's rotation means that it cannot be chosen as an inertial frame.

local flood

What kind of warped reading to you have to do to turn a story about wiping out all the earth's animals and mankind into a "local flood" story? More re-interpretation.

And I can't tell, did you address the fact that the Bible has the Earth being created before the heavens as an allegory? That was given in a precise ordering of events. No allegory is going to save you from that bit of mythology.

I suggest less Dawkins parrot-training books

The Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus might be real too, but you don't believe in them.

Correct. In part, because there's no peer-reviewed studies (written by multiple PhD's and published in a journal of worldwide reknown, incidentally) which quantifies eyewitness reports of them, in the context where we would expect to find them, like this one:

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

We also have a much lower demonstrable success rate at predicting future events from Santa and the Tooth Fairy, as presented here:

http://www.reasons.org/articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

I understand that some of these can be argued, such as upon a basis of supposed vagueness or the possibility of intentional fulfillment on the part of historical believers (for such cases where that would be possible). Therefore, feel free to reduce the estimated probability given by a billion times before we start our comparison with Santa's and the Tooth Fairy's published, verifiable future predictions.

Go ahead, list them. I didn't substantiate it with a treatise, but it doesn't violate logical fallacies.

Yes, it clearly does. At minimum, it's an Appeal to Authority and an Ad Hominem. You are projecting a group of "rational people", lacking any definition, and asserting that a position is correct or incorrect based on whether they correspond to the supposed views your constructed group, which, handily, you further imply, all agree with you, with no logical connection demonstrated between the group and the conclusion.

It's the summary of the ridiculous belief in primitive mythology that people hold.

That one can be called a Bare Assertion Fallacy. There is, in fact, nothing about the belief that is in the least ridiculous, and you tying it's truth-status to its age is called the Genetic Fallacy. Try learning a few of them, or at least develop to the level where you can understand the difference between an actual argument and a mere insulting characterization. You rely, apparently, entirely on the latter. It might work briefly for the easily-intimidated, but it won't work on anyone who knows the rules to reason that you do not, as our exemplar of "rationality".

That there is a minority of scientists who manage to compartmentalize there religious beliefs from their scientific and rational scrutiny means little.

No, -you- mean little, compared to Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, Newton, Bayes, Linnaeus, Euler, Babbage, Maxwell, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Planck, and Heisenberg, to name a few from the list. Both in general, and to science specifically.

I'd like to see one such paper from a scientist in that list that justified their belief in a Biblical god

Many on that list are published theologians as well. So... if you want to see one, try reading one.

You can start at the very beginning, where the Earth is created before the heavenly bodies, to an Earth that doesn't move, and on to ridiculous Noah's Ark stories.

Allegory, it says it is figuratively unmoving (you do realize in physics we now know there is no privileged frame of reference frame, correct?), local flood. In order, summarizing.

The Christian faith is nothing but an offshoot of ancient Hebrew mythology.

Once again, Genetic Fallacy with a dash of Ad Hominem. I suggest less Dawkins parrot-training books, and more Philosophy 101 class. It will help you.

"Religion" is a bigger scope than my post. Naturally, you'd want some evidence of its veracity. Well, actually you absolutely do not want to actually receive evidence at the same time you're stating you want evidence, and likely per standard practice whatever evidence you're given you'll simply assert it isn't enough, and conflate "evidence" to mean "proof", such that before you'll make a decision on the topic, you demand a degree of proof so overwhelming it would force your assent, and you'd have no chosen decision in the first place, but...

Here's a peer-reviewed study quantifying eye-witness reports corresponding to theistic prediction, as published in the medical journal The Lancet:

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

More evidence can be googled at will, or you could, you know, directly ask for it from the entity in question.

He're a peer-reviewed medical journal article to help you see the difference per eye-witness reports.

I'll leave the sizable distinction between the success rate at predicting future events between God and Xenu for another day.

You can still apply Occam's Razor. If, instead of supposing there is a supernatural being, you can explain this observation without a supernatural being, Occam's Razor implies that that explanation is more practically useful.

No, you can't, except by fiat. We do not agree that the scope of phenomena to be explained is the same, and there is no reason to a priori accept your scope. Different phenomena, different models, for which Occam's Razor becomes irrelevant and appropriately takes a back seat.

So we'd expect that the apperance of the FSM or Jesus in a near death experience would correlate with the prevalence of those memes in our society.

No, we wouldn't "expect that", except by your sheer conjecture. These experiences are often during EEG flatline, for which any previous "suggestion" is directly inapplicable for explanatory power. Aside from that, you are providing no mechanism by which "previous suggestions" should or could be vividly experienced not as memory, but as present facts, due in particular to brain failure. You are not addressing the non-correlation of experiences to previous worldview across religions. You are not addressing knowledge of the environment presented afterward that should have been unattainable while unconscious. You have a weak association here, nothing more.

Since we're now getting more detailed in this argument, though, I'd want to back these claims, with a peer-reviewed medical journal: Here's a link: http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

Since we can explain your observation without the use of any gods, your observation cannot be used as evidence that there are any gods or that one is more likely to exist than another.

You should probably try applying your analysis to your own psychic claim here, that your observations contain everyone on Earth's observations. Until then, it's epistemologically invalid--your experiences are never synonymous with everyone's experiences.

i. e. http://mmmgroup2.altervista.org/e-trees.html While I guess that these are just "dendritic structures", I wonder if there were later any better close-ups of them done by the orbiting satellites?

Dry Ice, formations made by super heated sand getting frozen.

http://discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/breakghost

i. e. http://mmmgroup2.altervista.org/e-trees.html While I guess that these are just "dendritic structures", I wonder if there were later any better close-ups of them done by the orbiting satellites?

Geez, it's almost like you can invent any damned thing you like when you are unbound by empirical observation!

Who's talking about being "unbounded"? Here's a peer-reviewed medical study in the Lancet, quantifying eye-witness accounts of post-death phenomena directly corresponding to theistic metaphysics.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

No, it matters not in the least that you'll dance and evade that this meets -absolutely- the criterion of "empirical" (that is, derived from sense data), and that you have no such alternative leprechaun study, cleanly differentiating the cases, even leaving completely aside issues of how this is explainable during EEG flatline at all. But why do I need to explain this? You know as clearly in your own brain that the two aren't equivalent -even to you-, which is why you attempt this whole line of rhetorical nonsense. If -you yourself- believed them equivalent, there is no reason simply not to use the standard terminology of "God", confident in an equal degree of automatic derision and incredulity in your "audience". You don't do that, because, as a measure of your lack of intellectual honesty, you need, and assert, that they are the same conceptually, knowing fully well in your own mind they are not as the only reason for even starting your attempted rhetorical "comparison".

Further, would you like to guess what the correct statistical upper-bound of human lifespan would be, over the last 3000 years? Would you consider those billions of empirical, factual datapoints corresponding to the prediction made those thousands of years ago, to be notable in terms of evidence, as -one- of hundreds of prophecies your leprechauns have really no track record of success at all at?

The empirical analysis of the universe is what I offered.

You offered nothing. You mean this, as your "empirical analysis"? " The analysis of the universe is not predicated upon simplistic notions of supernatural intervention, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it is." Seriously? That's your "analysis"? That's just pathetically content-free, as well as presuming your own experience as the definition of "empirical", both of which have a level of validity that would get you laughed out of any Philo 101 class. You can do better.

Why, if it were so, it would be on par with your groundless assertions. Project much, do you?

Nothing groundless here--you have a directly-pertinent peer-reviewed study, you have verifiable prophecy, as a small subset of the evidence that can be brought to bear. Yes, I know you'll deny it's evidence. After you're done attempting to do so, it'll remain exactly what it was--evidence.

Yup, you are apparently too blinkered to even acknowledge the existence, for many, many years, of secular humanists.

You're serious? I meant, a -political and ethical system- based on your worldview, where a -majority- in that society of people hold that view, and act as such within a society defined and directed by that worldview. That's a test-case, not a small percentage of people "hanging out" in a society entirely defined by another one. Care to provide an -actual- test case? We need not even get into me asking, "Okay, provide the steps of your demonstrable 'ethical deduction' to the principles of Secular Humanism, as supported by objective reality, rather than subjective arbitrary claims, and for each, say a mere five actual specific principles, show how that stance is more-supported, objectively, than the precise opposite stance". I know you couldn't even hope to be able to do that, so let's just stick with a basic, analyzable example of a basically-sound society definable by your "deduced ethics" as practiced by a majority of the citizens who declare themselves as such--so I know you can differentiate societies that exist from Dawkins-esque "no religion" fantasies w

Here is the real one:
http://115.com/file/be27pff7

Directly from the author's blog:
http://aluigi.altervista.org/adv/ms12-020_leak.txt

I'm hardly ignorant of the facts. Studies have repeatedly found no evidence of prayer having any effects, presence of ghosts, or anything supernatural at all.

Okay, so ignorance of both the facts and how a valid scientific study would work, then. How could a control group of "people who we know nobody is praying for" be established? However many people are in each group, they are statistical noise compared to the prayers including one or both groups, e.g. prayers for "all the sick people of the world". You do know how a control group works, right?

Since you're going to go ahead and assume nobody should feel they need any evidence for -your- claims, I'll await an actual citation for a "ghost" study, and actually provide evidence of my statements. Here's a peer-reviewed study on NDE's, which, indeed, in direct indication of conscious experiences during EEG flatline, is definitely evidence of something "supernatural". Note: before you try to change the subject to what I haven't said, this is evidence, not a claim to "proof", and as you'd already know as you started down that road, whether it is proof rather than the evidence it is, is irrelevant to anything in this thread.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

There is simply not the slightest thing ridiculous about a "non-testable" God--a god that is just enough to hand you everything the moment you bitchily demand it, for no effort. Even apart from that, even you can't actually think "god + not testable by my methodology whims = ridiculous". As for the -overall- claim it is untestable, it is testable via a long-standing methodology, and has been repeated thousands of times. That test is, as you might guess, to ask the relevant entity hypothesized for evidence. Knowing that whether it corresponds to -your preferred- methodology matters not in the slightest way, have you tested it?

Euro 1c, 2c and 5c are made of copper-covered steel, so a magnet should pick up 5c coins too. http://euromania.altervista.org/composition.htm

As far as I can tell, there are no valid arguments to support the notion of one or more gods.

Well, since I have basis to think it's necessary here, what do you consider "valid" and "supporting"?

Peer-reviewed medical studies?

Prophecy fulfillment? (Yes, I know the standard objections. Drop all the ones remotely possibly "self-fulfilling", reduce the improbability a million-fold after that, it's still extremely improbable.)

Willing martyrdom of contemporaries, that is, those in a position to -know- they are dying for a lie, if they were?

Formal philosophical arguments?

My guess, based on previous experience, is you mean by "valid", "whatever I need it to mean to exclude what I'm presented with", but if not, please give a clearer indicator of your expectations.

Without that, it's difficult to offer you what you say you want that you absolutely don't want. Yes, I do in fact know that from your demand for "proof" in a manner you'd do so for no other form of human endeavor or knowledge, including hundreds of like acceptances outside of religion you do every single day.

But, on with the request. I offered "evidence", per what a non-biased request in any similar domain would be. Is this qualifying for you?

As for evolution, I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. Most theists accept evolution, including myself, except in the narrow sense that you need to equivocate the meaning to, but which happens to also be completely untestable and unscientific, that is, "only evolution occurs". As an advocate of science, of course I reject that usage, as an implied exhaustive explanation of origins, as everyone actually following science (including the principle of falsifiability) must.

I think you'd need to clarify a few terms here, to continue. But, if not, no real need for us to--your outcome of becoming gone and irrelevant, along with all your arguments, is inevitable, as we'd both agree from either of our respective worldviews.

By the look of the Rockwell exploit, it only impacts the PC-based programming suite, rslogix. The worst of it would seem to be that you could aggravate a programmer trying to setup a system and NOT remotely take over and reconfigure a PLC system.

Then again, if your PLC network routes publicly, you deserve to be aggravated.

You obviously don't understand what "evidence" is.

Yes, I do.

the ramblings of people near death is not "evidence". those are called "anecdotes".

Yes, it is. If I have experienced something, my recounting of it in detail is evidence I have experienced it. I do not have to re-create the experience for you, for it to remain evidence. If you saw your girlfriend cheating on you, would your inability to prove that you did to me, mean it is no longer evidence that she did, that you may wish to act upon as evidence? No.

As for "anecdotes", a peer-reviewed study systematically characterizing the experiences (by one of the most prestigious medical journals in Europe, by the way), takes us out of the realm of mere anecdotal information. Here is a link, should you wish to review:

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

When your brain is DYING it's not surprising that there are certain effects that may be similar among people.

It is, however, extraordinary that those similar experiences happen to correspond to a complex, interactive experience that happens to "coincidentally" correspond directly with a particular metaphysical viewpoint, as perceived by those both believing in, and not believing in, that viewpoint.

We don't need some magic sky fairy or land of the dead to explain it.

Try to stick to the subject at hand, and not hand-wave and redirect. It makes you look desperate. I have not claimed we -need- my conclusion, merely that the experience is evidence for my conclusion--as it simply is. A piece of evidence need not lead to only one of several possibilities for it to be evidence of those possibilities, individually. That's just how it is and how evidence works, everywhere. As for "magic sky fairy"... I'm curious, why not simply use the standard terminology here, with the confidence that saying, say, "God" would lead to equal derision in the reader? Well, probably because you want to claim equivalence, while knowing there is not equivalence, which is the very reason you use this phrase instead, in a wholly logically-invalid manner. Yes, your intellectual dishonesty is that deep and automatic, down to the very verbal level, but, to be fair, you are not unique in this.

Prophecy fulfillment is simply ridiculous. Very few of them even make date range estimates, so the probability of something resembling any prophecy on a long enough timeline is nearly guaranteed, more so the more vague the prophecy

No, it is not. Accurate prediction of the maximum lifespan of man out into an unspecified future, which has held accurate, or specific description of a means of capital punishment which did not exist as of the time of writing, is not ridiculous. These are two of hundreds of examples I could forward. Claim it is "ridiculous" again, your claim will still will be exactly as false as it was this time.

As I stipulated, if we eliminate all possible cases of a self-fulfilling prophecy or an "overly vague" prophecy, it will still be greater that improbable to a degree >.5. It will in fact, be -vastly- more improbable, but discussing the individual merits of individual prophecies to consider them in or out of scope, tends to take far longer than an on-line forum facilitates. If you wish to investigate further, please do. That is is -evidence-, my base claim, is demonstrated, merely by the aggregate probabilities being less than even odds. I'll demonstrate the "vastly less" at a more opportune time and context.

"willing martyrdom"?? what is that supposed to mean? The level of delusion of the people around me is evidence of god? really?

Sure, go ahead with the Bare Assertion Fallacy, but once you move beyond that, yes, for someone to be willing to die rather than disclaim the occurrence, or non-occurrence, of events he was witness to, is absolutely evidence.

Dutch cardiologist Dr. Pim van Lommel did a real scientific study of Dutch cardiology surgery patients. Recorded what happened to all the cardiology surgery patients at several Dutch hospital over a certain period of time. Found real scientific evidence confiming the existance of some kind of near-death-experience happening.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Consciousness-Beyond-Life-Pim-Van-Lommel/?isbn=9780061777257

http://youtubedownload.altervista.org/ (Windows-based tool only)

Works great.

Provide download URL, downloads file (you pick quality level, I just leave it at "best quality available")

Then as a separate action, you can convert a file you've downloaded. Convert to MP3, or various video formats (for mobile devices, for example) are available.

Free (not GPL free), works great. What I use for making HLSS clips for my Source games...(then have to convert the MP3 to the proper audio format for Source, but that's Audacity's job)

I'm of course thinking about myman, moon-buggy, bastet, nethack, overkill, etc.

Even better http://honeybeenet.altervista.org/beefree/

Just install BeeFree.
http://honeybeenet.altervista.org/beefree/

Some places I know of has a traffic light countdown timer which is extremely useful. this, this and this are just a few examples.

I'd rather be impressed if someone combined Intelligent TETRIS with Bastet. It would be interesting to see if itetris' smartness could beat Bastet's evilness.

Maybe if there was some sort of intermediate between "youtube favorites" and "web browser history", I would replace my current system.

It's called Youtube Downloader, or ATube Catcher if you are a power user or use other video sites besides youtube.

Apparently this software pegs me as a MS Windows user. Does anyone feel like sharing the equivalent Linux software?

You think that's evil? You haven't seen Bastet

BeeFREE is also useful to fight against tracking companies like Google!!!!
http://honeybeenet.altervista.org/beefree/
http://honeybeenet.phpbb3now.com/viewforum.php?f=14

Bye!!!!!!!!!
Bee!!!!!!!

Hi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wrote one addon for Firefox, beefree, that is useful to help you to keep a bit more of your privacy online!!!!!!!

If you want to look at it, it's here:
http://honeybeenet.altervista.org/beefree/
http://honeybeenet.phpbb3now.com/viewforum.php?f=14

bye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bee!!!!!!!!!

Hi!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm Bee!!!!!!!!!!!
My beefree addons is useful too!!!!!!!!! (not to be confused with Redirect Cleaner...)

If you want to look at it, it's here:
http://honeybeenet.altervista.org/beefree/
http://honeybeenet.phpbb3now.com/viewforum.php?f=14

bye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bee!!!!!!!!!

I think my thoughts actually go back to this:

http://heroquestbaker.altervista.org/indexenglish.htm

I guess they just collaborated many years ago.

It's been 425 years since Bruno argued in De l'Infinito, Universo e Mondi (Italian; use Google translate) that the universe was infinite and contained innumerable stars, with countless planets around them, some containing life.

He was pretty far ahead of his time... far enough ahead that in 1600 the Church had him burned at the stake. Good to see they're getting round to considering his ideas, albeit a little bit belatedly.

It sure looks like the Palm-PC/Palm-sized PC/Pocket PC shell, not the Handheld-PC one.

Here's an example, if you're curious:

http://mylostblog.altervista.org/i/windows-ce-6-mlb.png

...start menu at the bottom in the left corner, and a taskbar. I think this shot is running in an emulator rather than a physical device, though.

Interesting. I really thought Microsoft had killed the Windows-CE-based Handheld PC. I've seen devices described that way since, but they've all been NT-based. It's an ARM, BTW. Does anyone still use MIPS in handhelds?

Ah. There is conflicting information about the CNMbook CPU. Some say ARM, some say MIPS.

My guess would be that they switched in later models. They have Linux and CE.NET versions of the thing, so they may have had an earlier MIPS/Linux one or something. Just a guess, though.

As for MIPS in CE handhelds, that certainly seems to be dead. WM2003 and onwards are only for ARM, though there are also the occasional THUMB-only devices like the Casio IT500 (which yes, used the Win95-alike shell).
I don't honestly know if MIPS is supported for CE.NET itself or not.

http://fph.altervista.org/prog/bastet.html

There was a /. article about it a few years back. It always tries to choose the worst possible block for the next block coming up. Need that long 4 square block? You'll get a evilly oriented z-block....

I think what NetHack really needs is something similar to Bastet.

I've been reading over this over the last days. Right now I'm on a free WiFi on a camping in Italy (yes, I do this even in vacation ^_^).

Here is the current situation. http://labaia.org/ was accessible yesterday night, currently http://thepiratebay.org/ http://labaia.org/ and even 83.140.176.200 try to point to localhost, so adding

echo -e "83.140.176.200 thepiratebay.org\n83.140.176.156 torrents.thepiratebay.org" >> /etc/hosts

to /etc/hosts was of no use. Using OpenDNS did not help. Probably back home, by having complete control over my internet connection, I could get around it somehow, but from here all I could do to make it work was to use a free online proxy (name yours, I used http://www.youtubeproxy.ws/ for the sake of the example). The Italian blogosphere reports that Tor works as well, but this is a much easier and faster solution IMHO, which does not require additional software installation.

As I wrote on the coverage of the event, this will only help strengthen the popularity of the torrent community and stimulate ways to circumvent government censorships. Italian politicians are generally very ignorant about internet-related topics, and this case makes no exception.

I can still remember when colombo-bt, the biggest Italian torrent tracker, was shut down by the police, the replacement page was made with front page....

I've been reading over this over the last days. Right now I'm on a free WiFi on a camping in Italy (yes, I do this even in vacation ^_^).

Here is the current situation. http://labaia.org/ was accessible yesterday night, currently http://thepiratebay.org/ http://labaia.org/ and even 83.140.176.200 try to point to localhost, so adding

echo -e "83.140.176.200 thepiratebay.org\n83.140.176.156 torrents.thepiratebay.org" >> /etc/hosts

to /etc/hosts was of no use. Using OpenDNS did not help. Probably back home, by having complete control over my internet connection, I could get around it somehow, but from here all I could do to make it work was to use a free online proxy (name yours, I used http://www.youtubeproxy.ws/ for the sake of the example). The Italian blogosphere reports that Tor works as well, but this is a much easier and faster solution IMHO, which does not require additional software installation.

As I wrote on the coverage of the event, this will only help strengthen the popularity of the torrent community and stimulate ways to circumvent government censorships. Italian politicians are generally very ignorant about internet-related topics, and this case makes no exception.

I can still remember when colombo-bt, the biggest Italian torrent tracker, was shut down by the police, the replacement page was made with front page....

What say I?

First off, using longer words doesn't improve your argument. It is sometimes effective in obfuscating your lack of understanding, but not here.

Starting with your first link - how is this relevant? There is no mention of God or the great noodly FSM. People came close to death and had something resembling a memory with certain factors in common, which isn't surprising since they had a rather traumatic experience in common.

Now, your next link which proclaims that the bible has predicted things that then came true. There's a number of "probability" next to each of these, but this completely fails as a proper comparison of the Bible's predictive qualities.

1) there's no information present to indicate which arsehole the numbers where pulled out of, or what information could possibly be used to substantiate it.

2) There's no mention of the predictions that, in fact, did NOT come true demonstrably.

3) Lastly, this completely ignores the fact that highly improbable things happen every single day, simply because so much actually happens. A quick google search returns this page, quoted: "To use probability to decide between two alternatives requires a comparison of the probabilities of each alternative. Simply saying that one has low probability without calculating the probability for the other is inadequate. "

Moving on to your last link - some information about who was crucified for their Christian faith. Again, what is the relevance? The number of people that died here apparently is paled by the number of people willingly sacrificed in Central America. Is that to say that now you believe in the animal-headed Aztec gods, rather than your angy white guy in pajamas? Or do you prefer to follow the likes of Jim Jones? Lots of people died there, too. Rather recently, and the deaths are well documented!

Sorry, but once you leave the land of the demonstrable, repeatable Sciences, you enter the domain of that which can never be known, since the number of bullshit answers rises exponentially with the number of people involved in the discussion. You can't even consistently get two Christians to agree on whether there is one god or three! And because we've left behind stuff like actual EVIDENCE, there is no way to demonstrate either way!

However, Christians most definitely hate to discuss the anthropological evidence supporting that their angry guy in pajamas is actually an ideological derivation of the ancient Egyptian god of war. (EG: the burning bush, etc) Nor do they like to discuss the fact that ancient Egyptian culture was markedly different than the slavery depicted as Noah left Egypt. They were good to their women, they had slaves but they weren't generally mistreated, the Egyptian religion is based around Ma'at which is actually very similar to the "heaven/hell" scenario for Christianity. In fact, there's basically no evidence at all to support these ideas. And you can't use the Bible as a historical reference without also mentioning similar works like the Q'uran. The Q'uran has a reference to Noah, for example, but it's rather markedly different than what your Bible teaches.

So why would you trust your Bible over the Q'uran? And would you want to? More food for thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y if you're brave enough to watch it.

Fair enough. Let's start the first round of discussion by you proposing your quantifiables on the Flying Spaghetti Monster's stats regarding him specifically being reported as percieved as a structured sensory phenomenon during EEG flatline, as documented in peer-reviewed studies, like the following: http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm Your broad estimates as to the Flying Spaghetti Monster's success at predicting future events (feel free to use some previous incarnation of said pasta to allow for at least one non-trivial "predicted-1-year-ahead" example on your part, and feel free to reduce the proposed improbability estimated by the following link by a millionfold before we begin): http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml And preferably, a listing of those living first-hand during the formation of the FSM belief, thus having direct testimonial standing, who have been willingly martyred in support of their experience (I'm taking volunteers, BTW): http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?apostles.htm Seems like a decent set of criteria to evaluate the relative plausibility by. What say you?