If that's true, why did more than half of the defendants witnesses in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case either withdraw before the trial, or did not testify? We're talking some of the biggest names in ID here - William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Dick Carpenter... several other, all of whom were scheduled to testify, none of whom did.
I postulate that the reason they did not give evidence is that they knew full well that the theories which they are pushing to the public are not scientific. They are perpetuating an intentional deceit, and realized that lying under oath would land them in a world of trouble, while telling the truth would be a death-blow for their movement.
Instead, what trips up most people is that ID proponents are scientists arguing philosophical positions based on their scientific knowledge.
No, they're fools who insist that their personal philosophy be taught in science class. If they truly were scientists waxing philosophical, they'd insist that science teachers NOT teach ID, and that it be taught in philosophy class instead. How many of these so-called scientists have done that?
I have no problem (or at least much less of one) with creationists, because they don't pretend that their theories are scientific. I have a major problem with ID-ers, because their claim to legitimacy is the idea that ID is a valid field of science.
And on that note, let's not forget that all of science is based on a philosophical fallacy
My eyes are rolling so fast that I can't see the screen.
Sure, in the technical sense of the term, ANY kind of knowledge is a fallacy. However, that's an absurd position to take - anyone who truly believed it would be incapable of performing even the most rudimentary tasks.
I should also note that this is exactly why all explanations in science are labeled as theories. It helps remind us that nothing is written in stone, nothing is holy, nothing is exempt from being questioned. In practical terms, though, when a theory is supported by decades of research by hundreds of thousands of individuals in multiple unrelated fields, it's fairly safe to say that it's earned acceptance.
If ID is a hoax, then all of science even moreso.
Let me guess... the bible told you that?
ID is a hoax because it's proponents pretend that it's science. Their personal beliefs about creation are immaterial - they know full well that their theories are not scientific, and presenting them as such is a hoax or a fraud. Just like it doesn't matter whether a miracle healer truly believes that God really CAN heal people through him - if he's using tricks and scams to spice up the show, and lying about the effectiveness of his "powers", then he's nothing but a common scam-artist.
Oh, let me guess your next response.... "if miracle healers are scam artists, then science is even more so!".
It says "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Well, no, you'd have to take out the phrase "best explained", since ID basically hinges on the idea that design is the ONLY possible explanation for certain phenomena. That's their entire case - "such and such is too complex to have evolved, ergo DESIGNER!".
In other words, the current state of biological complexity could not have [come] about without some direction from an outside force beyond randomness and evolutionary pressure
That's a bit watered-down. ID-ers argue that everything from the Bacterial Flagellum to the eyeball is irreducibly complex. That implies, at the very least, that the bacterial flagellum was designed in it's current form, and that the half-dozen various major types of eyeballs were all designed in their current form. The implication is that this "designer" creates things the way he wants them, and that any major changes in species cannot happen without outside interference.
At the very least they are saying that speciation doesn't happen without interference, which is essentially the same thing as saying that "god" creates species. I may have been a bit extreme with my earlier summation, but it's fairly close to what their actual argument is. And I was certainly a lot closer than "edsousas" claim that ID "only defends that randomness was not a factor in the beginning of universe and life on Earth".
Taken farther, one can say, "sequences of variations cause macro evolution", and then say "there was a designer causing that sequence of variations" without a contradiction, because the two statements do not occupy the same intellectual space.
Sure. Let me reword my earlier statement then:
No, ID says "life was designed and constantly redesigned until it was finally designed in its current form".
Better?:)
It's semantics. Whether this "designer" created earlier versions or not is irrelevant, as long as you keep claiming that he's still designing. If I say that engineers at IBM designed the P3, that doesn't mean they didn't also design the P4 "in it's current form". It just means they made an earlier version before they made the new one. I'm still not allowing for the possibility of the P3 evolving into the P4 through natural selection.
And yes, I know that analogy probably sucks, but it's the best I can do at the moment...
You may have noticed that nobody modded you "funny". That would seem to indicate that the problem lies with your sense of humour, rather than my cranial-rectal insertion techniques. Your failure is certainly not my fault.
Some points on the rest:
1. For a long time I also didn't run an AV, and had no viruses. Until one day I did. Then I started running AV. When you finally get one, feel free to picture me standing over you, belting out a Nelson-esque "HA - HA!".
2. If you turn a number of features off, it's not at all surprising that the system load will decrease. The point being made was that:
a. You could remove some functions without compromising effectiveness.
b. Other AV suites would not allow you to remove these functions
ergo
c. This AV suite is better.
I hope that cleared things up for you. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. I even give tips on cranial-rectal removal techniques, so I'll be more than happy to help if you're ever "stuck".
so "intelligent design" is to the right what "global climate change" is to the left. one can be openly challenged in the light of day and the other is sacred, because the "scientific consensus" is in. i'm more concerned about the cause that crushes honest questioning and decent.
Science is neither right nor left. Intelligent design is, by it's very design (pardon the pun) aimed at people who are very religious; people who also happen to lean right on the political spectrum.
The science behind global warming is pretty simple - increased CO2 levels cause increased heat absorption. That's a fact. Where you stand on the political spectrum won't change it, any more than your political position will change the force of gravity. Whether human CO2 emissions are drastically affecting the earths climate is a different question, and one which has not been settled with any degree of certainty.
There is no question that we are having SOME effect. The real question is how much, and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing.
So to correct your earlier statement, it would be safe to say that the Cult of Al Gore is to the left what ID is to the right; global warming as a scientific field of study, though, has nothing in common with either. The fact that some political groups have hijacked the name, doesn't invalidate the science.
Oh, I know, I'm quite familiar with project alpha. I just think that the flaws which Randi exposed are most likely present BECAUSE these scientists were expecting a certain result. They had set out to prove the existence of telepathy - not to figure out whether or not it exists. If they hadn't already had the preconceived notion that telepathy is a real phenomenon, they would have been much more careful about how they designed their experiments.
You can't claim that. You can argue that science didn't prove "Intelligent design" as the start of our universe. But evolution wasn't proved either.
Neither was the theory of gravity, not the theory of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation, nor the Magnetic Field Theory. I think you better tie yourself down to something and stop using your computer before it unexpectedly blows up and you go flying off into space.
So, for me, intelligent design is no more hoax than darwinism.
Well, that's fine. I'm not sure what Darwinism is, so I'll take your word on it.
And BTW, the intelligent design only defends that randomness was not a factor in the beginning of universe and life on Earth.
No, ID says "life was designed in it's current form". It makes no allowance for anything except what they call "micro-evolution". If you don't understand that, then you haven't actually read any ID "literature".
I never said it was a good hoax, I said it was the biggest hoax. No hoax is ever "good" in the sense that it's constructed well enough to fool people who know how to think critically. Most of them play to the lowest common denominator, or play to emotions and feelings which are innate to mankind. What sets apart hoaxes is how well they exploit our weaknesses. And ID is amongst the best in that sense. The basic marketing behind it is the concept of fairness and equality. We're told we need to teach ID because "evolution is just a theory", and because we need to expose our children to the debate so they can make up their own minds about what to believe. Of course, that argument carries no water with those who understand the difference between a scientific theory and an untested (and untestable) belief, but the marketing tactic is ingenious because it appeals to everyone's desire for fairness and open-mindedness.
Of course, now that ID has taken a beating in the courts, they've moved on to an even better version, which is "teach the flaws of evolution". That particular ploy has the advantage of casting doubt on evolutionary theory using creationist dogma, without once mentioning the words "creation" or "designer".
You gotta give it to 'em - they're not a stupid bunch. They're devious as fuck, totally closed-minded, and ignorant of the basic concept of logic, but they're not stupid by any means.
The most important thing was that it reveals that while many scientists in this area just didn't properly account for outright fraud; I would guess it is because most experiments do not have to worry about participants purposefully trying to mess with the results.
Not really - the big problem with "researchers" in those fields is that they go in expecting to see certain results. Even if we could expect 100% of participants to be totally honest (a silly expectation), the bias of the scientists themselves can easily (and often does) influence the results of the experiment.
The biggest point that Randi makes is that proper scientific controls and double-blind experiments are ESSENTIAL in determining the validity of a theory. There are countless examples of scientists (even well-established ones) conducting experiments which seemed to yield a certain result, only to be completely demolished once the experiment was repeated with proper controls. Perhaps the most famous was Jacques Benveniste's study of "homeopathy", which yielded positive results and was published in Nature - but under the condition that he repeat the experiment and allow a select team to observe and guide his experiment. Now, since the experiment already included control-samples of plain water, the only change that the team made was to re-label the test-tubes using a random code in order to remove any selection-bias on the part of the people performing the experiment. That simple procedure was all that was needed to show that Benveniste's earlier results were invalid - the new experiment showed the homeopathic "cure" being tested to have no effect whatsoever.
We see the same thing with all the other hoaxes - whether intentional or unintentional. The theory is initially accepted by those who WANT to believe it, only to be later disproven by properly controlled analysis or experimentation. As an example, the piltdown man "fossil" was only accepted by a small number of scientists - those who had pre-existing biases (about the supremacy of caucasians) which made them less critical of that fossil than they would be of others.
That's why the scientific process is so important - it forces all theories to undergo examination by other qualified individuals, and ensures that all supporting experiments are fully documented so that they can be repeated by anyone. This allows us to minimize the effect that personal credulity and bias have on the acceptance of theories, which is the only way we can ever really make any discoveries about our world. It's also why I think critical thinking and rational skepticism should be a major part of early-childhood education, but that's a topic for another time...
"Intelligent design" is the biggest "scientific hoax" ever devised. These people have literally taken creationist ideas and literature, and re-packaged them to look like a scientific theory.
Now, if we were talking about creationism, then ok, it's not a scientific hoax because it doesn't pretend to be scientific. But ID? It should be at the TOP of this list!
Their free version only pops up advertisements immediately after doing a successful update of the virus definitions, so you'll see it once a day at most. And since my updates usually run during the night-time, it never interrupts my work - I simply have to click the "ok" box when I wake up in the morning and go to check my e-mails.
Also, as another individual noted, it's childs-play to disable the advertisement entirely using security policies. Personally I don't like doing that since I'm already getting an excellent bit of software at no cost. But you can do it if you choose to.
As for AVG, it's fine too, but Avira has better detection rates. I would also say that Avira probably uses less resources, but that's my subjective opinion so I may be wrong.
Have you actually tried googling for "Open Office"? The first sponsored link points to exactly what he was talking about - a third-party knock-off which requests personal info in order to let you download. I haven't tried signing up, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they had all sorts of crapware bundled with it.
The problem isn't that his students are not careful, the problem is that:
1. Most people will click the first link on the page
and
2. Many people assume that sponsored links are guaranteed to be legitimate ("if its not legit, why would google let them advertise?").
Now, you could argue that such assumptions are dumb or ignorant - and I'd even agree with you - but blaming students from low-income families for not knowing the fine-points of internet use doesn't really solve the problem.
Yep, I agree. I got sick and tired of McAfee and Norton slowing down my computer, as well as taking hours of work to uninstall when something went wrong. So I tried out Avira and I've never looked back. I've installed it on something like 20 PC's since then, mostly for people who were complaining that their computer runs too slow, or relatives who didn't even know they needed to buy a new license every year (one of them had virus definitions that were 2 years out of date).
Another great thing about Avira is that you can customize it to a much greater extent than MC or Norton. I've set mine to only scan files when reading (instead of reading and writing) and I've removed some of the default file extensions from it's list of files to scan. With that setup my system runs almost as fast as without any AV at all. And in the 2 years I've been using it, I've never once had a problem with viruses.
Umm... those who support the Christian church through public funding?
That's a flawed definition. Let's take the UK as an example - they support the Christian church by granting it tax exmpt status, and allowing some public funding to go to Christian schools. But they also give tax exempt status to Mosques, and provide public funding for Muslim schools. So would you say that the UK is a Christian nation, or an Islamic nation?
Of course, you're just being willfully ignorant - the definition of a Christian nation would be one in which Christianity is the official government-sanctioned and supported religion. It's obvious that you didn't want to stick to the actual definition because it would have exposed the absurdity of your comment.
What about a country whose paper money says "In God we trust"?
Which God?
In Canada our money says "D.G. Regina", which translates to "By the Grace of God and Queen". Does that make us a Christian Matriarchy?
French currency says "Liberte, egalite, fraternite" - what does that make them?
However, I think he came from the east with buddhist ideals, and integrated and preached these ideas as best he could to the people in the Mideast.
What the hell? Buddhist Ideals? Are you kidding me? Do you have ANY idea what Buddhist society was like back then? They were some of the most barbaric, xenophobic, and megalomaniacal people in the world. When the Brits wanted to explore and map Tibet they had to send in Indian spies who were in constant danger of being beheaded. Tibetans would regularly execute any outsiders whom they found on their territory. You also seem to forget that the Samurai were majorly influenced by "Buddhist Ideals", and they were the most accomplished killers-for-hire of their time.
This myth of peaceful Buddhist cultures is a modern invention. It's nothing but another new-age fad. The idea that Jesus was peaceful because he was a Buddhist is simply ridiculous.
Really, if you read the scripture with a critical eye, it becomes apparent that Jesus was the bronze-age version of David Koresh. Sure, he's better than Mohammed in that he never preached open-warfare or genocide, but he wasn't exactly an angel either. He basically went around telling people to sell off all their property, disown their families, and come follow him. If there's a better definition of a Cult leader, I can't find one...
That people in Christian countries who usually mention Muslims as being a bunch of religious fanatics are usually, you know, Christians.
I'm sorry... "Christian Countries"? Which ones would those be, exactly?
Either way, I believe you're misguided if you believe the only reason why the so-called terrorism exists is because the Qu'ran advocates mass murder of infidels.
Well, no, not exactly. Technically it would be wrong to say that Floods only exist because of water.
Some social programs DO work - the problem is that when governments spend money on social development they generally either can't predict or don't care about the efficiency of the program. The politician who promises to increase welfare payouts to poor families probably doesn't give a damn about whether his promise will have a positive or negative effect in the long term - he cares mostly about getting votes.
You see the same things in other examples of government spending. NASA did some amazing things in it's early days, but since then it's become a bloated government body which cares more about maintaining it's source of funding and keeping all it's bureaucrats employed than it does about developing a viable means of space exploration, or about keeping it's astronauts safe.
Of course, once in a while governments manage to get it right, as in the case of the LHC. But, more often that not, the best way for them to contribute positively is to stay the hell out of our way.
If you really believed that, you'd never willingly board any aircraft.
Sure, things break down, whether electrical or mechanical. So what? That's why we conduct regular inspections, replace components based on established life-cycles, and conduct regular test-runs to ensure all systems function prior to being put into active service. Technicians aren't a bunch of witch-doctors, dancing around the machinery, shaking rattles, and moving components at random. It's a science like any other, and it produces repeatable results on which we can, and do, rely on to keep us safe and productive.
You're just being ridiculous now. I'm surprised you didn't write:
"Type it?? On What? HUH?? How many average Windows uses know what a keyboard is?"
Get over yourself. Just because someone isn't a computer guru, that doesn't mean they're retarded. If they don't know what a terminal window is, they'll either figure it out on their own or they'll ask someone. Either way, it's not friggin' rocket science.
_You_ could go out to your garage and run tests yourself. That's not normally the hallmark of snake oil.
Nonsense. You can go out to your garage and run tests on the Tornado, too, yet millions of people still have them. Snake-oil salesmen don't hinge their business on the testability of their devices - they hinge it on the unwillingness or incapability of the average person to carry out those tests. Most people simply have no interest in carrying out objective tests, and wouldn't know how even if they wanted to - that's why the most common defense you'll hear of homeopathy is that "it works for me".
Slashdot Mirror
If that's true, why did more than half of the defendants witnesses in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case either withdraw before the trial, or did not testify? We're talking some of the biggest names in ID here - William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Dick Carpenter ... several other, all of whom were scheduled to testify, none of whom did.
I postulate that the reason they did not give evidence is that they knew full well that the theories which they are pushing to the public are not scientific. They are perpetuating an intentional deceit, and realized that lying under oath would land them in a world of trouble, while telling the truth would be a death-blow for their movement.
No, they're fools who insist that their personal philosophy be taught in science class. If they truly were scientists waxing philosophical, they'd insist that science teachers NOT teach ID, and that it be taught in philosophy class instead. How many of these so-called scientists have done that?
I have no problem (or at least much less of one) with creationists, because they don't pretend that their theories are scientific. I have a major problem with ID-ers, because their claim to legitimacy is the idea that ID is a valid field of science.
My eyes are rolling so fast that I can't see the screen.
Sure, in the technical sense of the term, ANY kind of knowledge is a fallacy. However, that's an absurd position to take - anyone who truly believed it would be incapable of performing even the most rudimentary tasks.
I should also note that this is exactly why all explanations in science are labeled as theories. It helps remind us that nothing is written in stone, nothing is holy, nothing is exempt from being questioned. In practical terms, though, when a theory is supported by decades of research by hundreds of thousands of individuals in multiple unrelated fields, it's fairly safe to say that it's earned acceptance.
Let me guess ... the bible told you that?
ID is a hoax because it's proponents pretend that it's science. Their personal beliefs about creation are immaterial - they know full well that their theories are not scientific, and presenting them as such is a hoax or a fraud. Just like it doesn't matter whether a miracle healer truly believes that God really CAN heal people through him - if he's using tricks and scams to spice up the show, and lying about the effectiveness of his "powers", then he's nothing but a common scam-artist.
Oh, let me guess your next response .... "if miracle healers are scam artists, then science is even more so!".
I got it right, didn't I?
Hah, maybe psychics do exist after all ...
Well, no, you'd have to take out the phrase "best explained", since ID basically hinges on the idea that design is the ONLY possible explanation for certain phenomena. That's their entire case - "such and such is too complex to have evolved, ergo DESIGNER!".
That's a bit watered-down. ID-ers argue that everything from the Bacterial Flagellum to the eyeball is irreducibly complex. That implies, at the very least, that the bacterial flagellum was designed in it's current form, and that the half-dozen various major types of eyeballs were all designed in their current form. The implication is that this "designer" creates things the way he wants them, and that any major changes in species cannot happen without outside interference.
At the very least they are saying that speciation doesn't happen without interference, which is essentially the same thing as saying that "god" creates species. I may have been a bit extreme with my earlier summation, but it's fairly close to what their actual argument is. And I was certainly a lot closer than "edsousas" claim that ID "only defends that randomness was not a factor in the beginning of universe and life on Earth".
Sure. Let me reword my earlier statement then:
No, ID says "life was designed and constantly redesigned until it was finally designed in its current form".
Better? :)
It's semantics. Whether this "designer" created earlier versions or not is irrelevant, as long as you keep claiming that he's still designing. If I say that engineers at IBM designed the P3, that doesn't mean they didn't also design the P4 "in it's current form". It just means they made an earlier version before they made the new one. I'm still not allowing for the possibility of the P3 evolving into the P4 through natural selection.
And yes, I know that analogy probably sucks, but it's the best I can do at the moment ...
You may have noticed that nobody modded you "funny". That would seem to indicate that the problem lies with your sense of humour, rather than my cranial-rectal insertion techniques. Your failure is certainly not my fault.
Some points on the rest:
1. For a long time I also didn't run an AV, and had no viruses. Until one day I did. Then I started running AV. When you finally get one, feel free to picture me standing over you, belting out a Nelson-esque "HA - HA!".
2. If you turn a number of features off, it's not at all surprising that the system load will decrease. The point being made was that:
a. You could remove some functions without compromising effectiveness.
b. Other AV suites would not allow you to remove these functions
ergo
c. This AV suite is better.
I hope that cleared things up for you. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. I even give tips on cranial-rectal removal techniques, so I'll be more than happy to help if you're ever "stuck".
Science is neither right nor left. Intelligent design is, by it's very design (pardon the pun) aimed at people who are very religious; people who also happen to lean right on the political spectrum.
The science behind global warming is pretty simple - increased CO2 levels cause increased heat absorption. That's a fact. Where you stand on the political spectrum won't change it, any more than your political position will change the force of gravity. Whether human CO2 emissions are drastically affecting the earths climate is a different question, and one which has not been settled with any degree of certainty.
There is no question that we are having SOME effect. The real question is how much, and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing.
So to correct your earlier statement, it would be safe to say that the Cult of Al Gore is to the left what ID is to the right; global warming as a scientific field of study, though, has nothing in common with either. The fact that some political groups have hijacked the name, doesn't invalidate the science.
Oh, I know, I'm quite familiar with project alpha. I just think that the flaws which Randi exposed are most likely present BECAUSE these scientists were expecting a certain result. They had set out to prove the existence of telepathy - not to figure out whether or not it exists. If they hadn't already had the preconceived notion that telepathy is a real phenomenon, they would have been much more careful about how they designed their experiments.
Neither was the theory of gravity, not the theory of Electromagnetic Wave Propagation, nor the Magnetic Field Theory. I think you better tie yourself down to something and stop using your computer before it unexpectedly blows up and you go flying off into space.
Well, that's fine. I'm not sure what Darwinism is, so I'll take your word on it.
No, ID says "life was designed in it's current form". It makes no allowance for anything except what they call "micro-evolution". If you don't understand that, then you haven't actually read any ID "literature".
I never said it was a good hoax, I said it was the biggest hoax. No hoax is ever "good" in the sense that it's constructed well enough to fool people who know how to think critically. Most of them play to the lowest common denominator, or play to emotions and feelings which are innate to mankind. What sets apart hoaxes is how well they exploit our weaknesses. And ID is amongst the best in that sense. The basic marketing behind it is the concept of fairness and equality. We're told we need to teach ID because "evolution is just a theory", and because we need to expose our children to the debate so they can make up their own minds about what to believe. Of course, that argument carries no water with those who understand the difference between a scientific theory and an untested (and untestable) belief, but the marketing tactic is ingenious because it appeals to everyone's desire for fairness and open-mindedness.
Of course, now that ID has taken a beating in the courts, they've moved on to an even better version, which is "teach the flaws of evolution". That particular ploy has the advantage of casting doubt on evolutionary theory using creationist dogma, without once mentioning the words "creation" or "designer".
You gotta give it to 'em - they're not a stupid bunch. They're devious as fuck, totally closed-minded, and ignorant of the basic concept of logic, but they're not stupid by any means.
Not really - the big problem with "researchers" in those fields is that they go in expecting to see certain results. Even if we could expect 100% of participants to be totally honest (a silly expectation), the bias of the scientists themselves can easily (and often does) influence the results of the experiment.
The biggest point that Randi makes is that proper scientific controls and double-blind experiments are ESSENTIAL in determining the validity of a theory. There are countless examples of scientists (even well-established ones) conducting experiments which seemed to yield a certain result, only to be completely demolished once the experiment was repeated with proper controls. Perhaps the most famous was Jacques Benveniste's study of "homeopathy", which yielded positive results and was published in Nature - but under the condition that he repeat the experiment and allow a select team to observe and guide his experiment. Now, since the experiment already included control-samples of plain water, the only change that the team made was to re-label the test-tubes using a random code in order to remove any selection-bias on the part of the people performing the experiment. That simple procedure was all that was needed to show that Benveniste's earlier results were invalid - the new experiment showed the homeopathic "cure" being tested to have no effect whatsoever.
We see the same thing with all the other hoaxes - whether intentional or unintentional. The theory is initially accepted by those who WANT to believe it, only to be later disproven by properly controlled analysis or experimentation. As an example, the piltdown man "fossil" was only accepted by a small number of scientists - those who had pre-existing biases (about the supremacy of caucasians) which made them less critical of that fossil than they would be of others.
That's why the scientific process is so important - it forces all theories to undergo examination by other qualified individuals, and ensures that all supporting experiments are fully documented so that they can be repeated by anyone. This allows us to minimize the effect that personal credulity and bias have on the acceptance of theories, which is the only way we can ever really make any discoveries about our world. It's also why I think critical thinking and rational skepticism should be a major part of early-childhood education, but that's a topic for another time ...
How the hell did that get modded "troll"?
"Intelligent design" is the biggest "scientific hoax" ever devised. These people have literally taken creationist ideas and literature, and re-packaged them to look like a scientific theory.
Now, if we were talking about creationism, then ok, it's not a scientific hoax because it doesn't pretend to be scientific. But ID? It should be at the TOP of this list!
I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but I do know that whoever modded you insightful is an idiot.
Their free version only pops up advertisements immediately after doing a successful update of the virus definitions, so you'll see it once a day at most. And since my updates usually run during the night-time, it never interrupts my work - I simply have to click the "ok" box when I wake up in the morning and go to check my e-mails.
Also, as another individual noted, it's childs-play to disable the advertisement entirely using security policies. Personally I don't like doing that since I'm already getting an excellent bit of software at no cost. But you can do it if you choose to.
As for AVG, it's fine too, but Avira has better detection rates. I would also say that Avira probably uses less resources, but that's my subjective opinion so I may be wrong.
Have you actually tried googling for "Open Office"? The first sponsored link points to exactly what he was talking about - a third-party knock-off which requests personal info in order to let you download. I haven't tried signing up, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they had all sorts of crapware bundled with it.
The problem isn't that his students are not careful, the problem is that:
1. Most people will click the first link on the page
and
2. Many people assume that sponsored links are guaranteed to be legitimate ("if its not legit, why would google let them advertise?").
Now, you could argue that such assumptions are dumb or ignorant - and I'd even agree with you - but blaming students from low-income families for not knowing the fine-points of internet use doesn't really solve the problem.
Yep, I agree. I got sick and tired of McAfee and Norton slowing down my computer, as well as taking hours of work to uninstall when something went wrong. So I tried out Avira and I've never looked back. I've installed it on something like 20 PC's since then, mostly for people who were complaining that their computer runs too slow, or relatives who didn't even know they needed to buy a new license every year (one of them had virus definitions that were 2 years out of date).
Another great thing about Avira is that you can customize it to a much greater extent than MC or Norton. I've set mine to only scan files when reading (instead of reading and writing) and I've removed some of the default file extensions from it's list of files to scan. With that setup my system runs almost as fast as without any AV at all. And in the 2 years I've been using it, I've never once had a problem with viruses.
That's a flawed definition. Let's take the UK as an example - they support the Christian church by granting it tax exmpt status, and allowing some public funding to go to Christian schools. But they also give tax exempt status to Mosques, and provide public funding for Muslim schools. So would you say that the UK is a Christian nation, or an Islamic nation?
Of course, you're just being willfully ignorant - the definition of a Christian nation would be one in which Christianity is the official government-sanctioned and supported religion. It's obvious that you didn't want to stick to the actual definition because it would have exposed the absurdity of your comment.
Which God?
In Canada our money says "D.G. Regina", which translates to "By the Grace of God and Queen". Does that make us a Christian Matriarchy?
French currency says "Liberte, egalite, fraternite" - what does that make them?
Read it again, I'm sure you'll get it.
Oh, and it takes three lefts to make a right, not two. So you're wrong on every count. Good job!
What the hell? Buddhist Ideals? Are you kidding me? Do you have ANY idea what Buddhist society was like back then? They were some of the most barbaric, xenophobic, and megalomaniacal people in the world. When the Brits wanted to explore and map Tibet they had to send in Indian spies who were in constant danger of being beheaded. Tibetans would regularly execute any outsiders whom they found on their territory. You also seem to forget that the Samurai were majorly influenced by "Buddhist Ideals", and they were the most accomplished killers-for-hire of their time.
This myth of peaceful Buddhist cultures is a modern invention. It's nothing but another new-age fad. The idea that Jesus was peaceful because he was a Buddhist is simply ridiculous.
Really, if you read the scripture with a critical eye, it becomes apparent that Jesus was the bronze-age version of David Koresh. Sure, he's better than Mohammed in that he never preached open-warfare or genocide, but he wasn't exactly an angel either. He basically went around telling people to sell off all their property, disown their families, and come follow him. If there's a better definition of a Cult leader, I can't find one ...
I'm sorry ... "Christian Countries"? Which ones would those be, exactly?
Well, no, not exactly. Technically it would be wrong to say that Floods only exist because of water.
I hereby dub thee "+10 Fear Monger"
Some social programs DO work - the problem is that when governments spend money on social development they generally either can't predict or don't care about the efficiency of the program. The politician who promises to increase welfare payouts to poor families probably doesn't give a damn about whether his promise will have a positive or negative effect in the long term - he cares mostly about getting votes.
You see the same things in other examples of government spending. NASA did some amazing things in it's early days, but since then it's become a bloated government body which cares more about maintaining it's source of funding and keeping all it's bureaucrats employed than it does about developing a viable means of space exploration, or about keeping it's astronauts safe.
Of course, once in a while governments manage to get it right, as in the case of the LHC. But, more often that not, the best way for them to contribute positively is to stay the hell out of our way.
If you really believed that, you'd never willingly board any aircraft.
Sure, things break down, whether electrical or mechanical. So what? That's why we conduct regular inspections, replace components based on established life-cycles, and conduct regular test-runs to ensure all systems function prior to being put into active service. Technicians aren't a bunch of witch-doctors, dancing around the machinery, shaking rattles, and moving components at random. It's a science like any other, and it produces repeatable results on which we can, and do, rely on to keep us safe and productive.
They'd put the paparazzi out of businesses.
You're just being ridiculous now. I'm surprised you didn't write:
"Type it?? On What? HUH?? How many average Windows uses know what a keyboard is?"
Get over yourself. Just because someone isn't a computer guru, that doesn't mean they're retarded. If they don't know what a terminal window is, they'll either figure it out on their own or they'll ask someone. Either way, it's not friggin' rocket science.
Actually they say Almost 20,000 (without the dollar sign). You really shouldn't be drinking this early in the morning :)
Nonsense. You can go out to your garage and run tests on the Tornado, too, yet millions of people still have them. Snake-oil salesmen don't hinge their business on the testability of their devices - they hinge it on the unwillingness or incapability of the average person to carry out those tests. Most people simply have no interest in carrying out objective tests, and wouldn't know how even if they wanted to - that's why the most common defense you'll hear of homeopathy is that "it works for me".