Sure they do. Look at all the ignorance of Fox News watchers and Rush listeners. They've certainly been harmed by what they've heard. It's cost them IQ points.
When I log into my bank account, my username and password are not in the URL and certainly not passed unencrypted over the wire. They are happily stored in the LastSession.plist file though.
Feel free to supply a suitably masked copy of the lines from your own LastSession.plist that you believe is doing that.
Try to veer away from the crapware model. Make a good app and put a price tag on it. Or make it a free app, with an in-app purchase for some desirable feature(s).
I can confirm that turning off permissions dynamically in this way requires quite a bit more care than it might appear at first - apps did crash when apparently denied features quite reasonably, even when you might think they'd have to cater for that situation anyway. I'd deny network privileges to an app, and see it crash, even though it would work without problems when the privilege was given but the network was unavailable for technical reasons.
And yet iOS allows you to deny permissions to apps without them crashing. That's the benefit of apps seeking permissions at run time, and having removal of those permissions at any time a standard user feature, such that app developers know they may not have permission granted for such requests.
A teapot is a human-made artifact - unless we sent it to mars there's no reason to believe it got there.
Who says it's a man-made artefact? Just because the ones you've seen up to now have been. What you're saying here is you can't imagine a teapot there with any other origin than humans. So why can you imagine a god with other than human origins? Are you suggesting that a god is a more likely phenomenon than a tea-pot?
Atheism too is a religion - the absolute belief that there is no god despite absolutely zero supporting evidence, and is indoctinated by parents and society.
Not as far as I've seen. Most atheists I've come across have parents that were religious. And most societies are more encouraging of religious views than atheist ones. Atheism comes more often from people laying aside their upbringing and thinking rationally.
What IS becoming more common is parents and society presenting a position of agnosticism. The "let people decide for themselves", "don't offend", "indecisive" position.
I'm glad you now accept that it's rational for laymen to accept the consensus position of domain experts. I'm glad you've decided to leave your denial it behind you.
I've never needed any blind faith to be an atheist.
Russell's tea-pot says it all. If someone wants to claim they are agnostic about the existence of a tea-pot in orbit around Mars, then that's not being open minded. That's being irrational.
With God, it's more indecisive than irrational, as it's just a case of not being able to decide between a story indoctrinated by parents, and taking a position based on rationality.
The point was that your proclamations were absurd as, if we were to accept them, you'd be forced to that conclusion.
My assertion was and is that the layman is wise to accept the consensus of scientific opinion. By claiming that that means you'd be forced to the conclusion that homeopathy is effective, then you accept that you were claiming that that is the scientific consensus.
You believed it was best to blindly believe the opposite of some unnamed magician.
This is begging the question: It only holds water so long as you assume from the outset that there is no God. If there is, it would stand to reason that there might be immitator religions which are false, and a true main religion.
That only applies if you don't consider time. You are a Christian, and so most of those other religions are not imitations, they originated before yours did. If there is an original and imitations, then yours is clearly an imitation.
The Christian religion came after the Jewish religion, from which it absorbed some beliefs and rejected others. What's that saying? That from the Christian point of view, Judaism was right, or it was wrong?
But it wasn't just the Jewish religion that Christianity absorbed. It also absorbed elements of paganish, such as yuletide, which was rebranded as Christmas.
If there's one true religion, and the others are imitators, Christianity is certainly an imitator.
Science may not be able to prove nor disprove a god. But science and history between them can certainly explain why people believe the various religions - and it has nothing to do with whether there's a god or not.
Occam was theist. As the best possible implementor of correct application of Occam's Razor, theism was his conclusion.
And it might have been mine, given the knowledge of the 14th century. I very well might have believed that heaven was up there in the clouds and hell down below the earth. But thankfully science and philosophy has come a long way since the middle ages.
Occam's Razor has survived because of it's value as a principle in it's own right. Not because William of Occam was infallible. His personal belief in God and thus unwillingness to apply his own principle to religion is neither here nor there.
So how and why do you choose, with no supporting evidence, to believe in some things and not to believe in others?
Pretty obviously because that's what his parents, or someone else he looked up to, trained him to believe, at an impressionable time of his life.
His community at that time made his particular ridiculous belief set one which could be held without him feeling ridiculous. Whereas there are no such mutually supportive communities for most of the ridiculous belief sets you mention.
(For the record, I'm agnostic - I believe that the existance or nonexistance of a god is unknowable (unless one chooses to show itself) and therefore, ultimately I shouldn't waste my time worrying about it).
Yep. It's also more fun exploring a 2 dimensional map. Once an area has been explored, it's been explored, and the map screen can show that. The various methods games have used to represent multiple levels within a basically 2D map display are rarely pleasant.
Though Duke Nukem 3D did a pretty good job of a basically 2D map game with occasional pseudo 3D elements for variety.
2 out of 135 space shuttle launches were catastrophic failures. What are you going to do when a shuttle full of nuclear waste explodes in the high atmosphere?
Your question makes your assertion incorrect: a typical "green" person doesn't think in terms of "best alternative", but simply opposes whatever is being done since it will inevitably have some consequences.
You don't know any typical greens. Their debates on the balance of environmental harm of one alternative or another are far more sophisticated than yours. I know, I've attended some.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure they do. Look at all the ignorance of Fox News watchers and Rush listeners. They've certainly been harmed by what they've heard. It's cost them IQ points.
lobal warming deniers pose a threat to the entire earth? really?? Because Last I checked the earth has been cooling for the past 15 years
But not for the last 14 years or 16 years. Which is all the evidence that is needed of stupid cherry picking deniers.
1998 was a El Nino high. Deniers only ever start from that year with their ignorant claims of cooling.
It might be if you're American. The rest of the world don't hold to your extremist views on this.
The LastSession.plist file stores way, way more data than just URL's.
Yeah, it stores window sizes and stuff like whether toolbars and tabs are hidden. Big deal.
http://www.appleexaminer.com/MacsAndOS/Analysis/HowTo/SafariBrowserAnalysis/files/multiple-lastsession.png
When I log into my bank account, my username and password are not in the URL and certainly not passed unencrypted over the wire. They are happily stored in the LastSession.plist file though.
Feel free to supply a suitably masked copy of the lines from your own LastSession.plist that you believe is doing that.
So, as far as I can tell, Safari doesn't actually block 3rd party cookies despite saying it does
Any evidence for you claim?
Right, and the multi-user element of OSX will prevent other users from reading this file.
Try to veer away from the crapware model. Make a good app and put a price tag on it. Or make it a free app, with an in-app purchase for some desirable feature(s).
I like that you complained about the swearing. After all you couldn't argue with the fact that you are a Google apologist and an idiot.
Shut the fuck up, Google apologist. Your stupid question was answered.
The statement to which your question came was "It is also very odd considering how many more security issues and malware Android has compared to iOS."
You've had your answer. Android has two orders of magnitude more malware, and that comes because there are far more security vulnerabilities.
Marketing ploy? You are a fucking idiot.
I can confirm that turning off permissions dynamically in this way requires quite a bit more care than it might appear at first - apps did crash when apparently denied features quite reasonably, even when you might think they'd have to cater for that situation anyway. I'd deny network privileges to an app, and see it crash, even though it would work without problems when the privilege was given but the network was unavailable for technical reasons.
And yet iOS allows you to deny permissions to apps without them crashing. That's the benefit of apps seeking permissions at run time, and having removal of those permissions at any time a standard user feature, such that app developers know they may not have permission granted for such requests.
A teapot is a human-made artifact - unless we sent it to mars there's no reason to believe it got there.
Who says it's a man-made artefact? Just because the ones you've seen up to now have been. What you're saying here is you can't imagine a teapot there with any other origin than humans. So why can you imagine a god with other than human origins? Are you suggesting that a god is a more likely phenomenon than a tea-pot?
Atheism too is a religion - the absolute belief that there is no god despite absolutely zero supporting evidence, and is indoctinated by parents and society.
Not as far as I've seen. Most atheists I've come across have parents that were religious. And most societies are more encouraging of religious views than atheist ones. Atheism comes more often from people laying aside their upbringing and thinking rationally.
What IS becoming more common is parents and society presenting a position of agnosticism. The "let people decide for themselves", "don't offend", "indecisive" position.
I'm glad you now accept that it's rational for laymen to accept the consensus position of domain experts. I'm glad you've decided to leave your denial it behind you.
I've never needed any blind faith to be an atheist.
Russell's tea-pot says it all. If someone wants to claim they are agnostic about the existence of a tea-pot in orbit around Mars, then that's not being open minded. That's being irrational.
With God, it's more indecisive than irrational, as it's just a case of not being able to decide between a story indoctrinated by parents, and taking a position based on rationality.
The point was that your proclamations were absurd as, if we were to accept them, you'd be forced to that conclusion.
My assertion was and is that the layman is wise to accept the consensus of scientific opinion. By claiming that that means you'd be forced to the conclusion that homeopathy is effective, then you accept that you were claiming that that is the scientific consensus.
You believed it was best to blindly believe the opposite of some unnamed magician.
You've claimed there's a scientific consensus that it's effective beyond placebo.
This is begging the question: It only holds water so long as you assume from the outset that there is no God. If there is, it would stand to reason that there might be immitator religions which are false, and a true main religion.
That only applies if you don't consider time. You are a Christian, and so most of those other religions are not imitations, they originated before yours did. If there is an original and imitations, then yours is clearly an imitation.
The Christian religion came after the Jewish religion, from which it absorbed some beliefs and rejected others. What's that saying? That from the Christian point of view, Judaism was right, or it was wrong?
But it wasn't just the Jewish religion that Christianity absorbed. It also absorbed elements of paganish, such as yuletide, which was rebranded as Christmas.
If there's one true religion, and the others are imitators, Christianity is certainly an imitator.
Science may not be able to prove nor disprove a god. But science and history between them can certainly explain why people believe the various religions - and it has nothing to do with whether there's a god or not.
Occam was theist. As the best possible implementor of correct application of Occam's Razor, theism was his conclusion.
And it might have been mine, given the knowledge of the 14th century. I very well might have believed that heaven was up there in the clouds and hell down below the earth. But thankfully science and philosophy has come a long way since the middle ages.
Occam's Razor has survived because of it's value as a principle in it's own right. Not because William of Occam was infallible. His personal belief in God and thus unwillingness to apply his own principle to religion is neither here nor there.
So how and why do you choose, with no supporting evidence, to believe in some things and not to believe in others?
Pretty obviously because that's what his parents, or someone else he looked up to, trained him to believe, at an impressionable time of his life.
His community at that time made his particular ridiculous belief set one which could be held without him feeling ridiculous. Whereas there are no such mutually supportive communities for most of the ridiculous belief sets you mention.
(For the record, I'm agnostic - I believe that the existance or nonexistance of a god is unknowable (unless one chooses to show itself) and therefore, ultimately I shouldn't waste my time worrying about it).
That just means you're indecisive.
An atheist asserts that the universe and self replicating life came into existence purely via natural means.
Please quote a real person, rather than attribute a quote you invented to an entire category of people. Otherwise this is just a straw man.
It certainly wasn't claimed by either the person you are replying to, nor the article linked, nor AFAIK Bertrand Russell.
At least he's unlikely to be simple minded enough to believe in homeopathy, as you do.
Yep. It's also more fun exploring a 2 dimensional map. Once an area has been explored, it's been explored, and the map screen can show that. The various methods games have used to represent multiple levels within a basically 2D map display are rarely pleasant.
Though Duke Nukem 3D did a pretty good job of a basically 2D map game with occasional pseudo 3D elements for variety.
2 out of 135 space shuttle launches were catastrophic failures. What are you going to do when a shuttle full of nuclear waste explodes in the high atmosphere?
There was one case where someone used tricks and lies to "expose" the fact that he had flaming water in his faucet, which has been debunked.
You continue to sound like tobbacco cancer and AGW deniers.
There are hundreds of genuine cases of flammable water as a result of fracking. And lots of cases of illness.
Your question makes your assertion incorrect: a typical "green" person doesn't think in terms of "best alternative", but simply opposes whatever is being done since it will inevitably have some consequences.
You don't know any typical greens. Their debates on the balance of environmental harm of one alternative or another are far more sophisticated than yours. I know, I've attended some.