I think there is some kind of Flash malware distribution scheme going on that tells you that you need to update your Flash player even though you have the latest version.
Here's a link to an article on it:
http://blogs.adobe.com/psirt/2008/08/verifying_installers.html
I don't know that this is what's happening with you though.
You might want to read his post again. He did not say they are "more" damaging to the land. I believe you added the word "more" yourself. Hopefully the OP will correct me if I am wrong, but I think his intent was to oppose the idea that somehow wheat and other crops are more "natural" than livestock. He points out that the land was already "naturally" hosting herds of buffalo. I believe his intent was to argue that if anything was out of place in the environment he is speaking of, it is crops such as wheat and not the livestock. You might also want to investigate the use of quotation marks (such as his around the word "damaging") to convey a sense of irony or sarcasm. I think you might have missed it in this case.
Well, since if you buy Ubuntu you aren't getting a Windows system, it isn't an insinuation, it is the truth. I have read the page you are talking about, and it seems to be their intent is to make sure people know what they are buying.
Not that I am crazy about those, but hasn't government always had the right to intercept communications under certain circumstances? Why should the fact that this is a method for doing so on a computer make this case any different?
The bottom line is that I am arguing that the scientific principle involved applies equally in all situations. It is impossible to prove that something or someone (God) in this case does not exist. Your hypothetical person-with-no-prior beliefs will have to answer for himself as to whether or not to him God is the same as a leprechaun. My personal belief is that God reveals himself to whomever he wishes in a way which is not open to scientific verification. I am a Christian. There is at least some evidence that a man named Jesus actually lived. More evidence than for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So therefore, my faith in Christ has at least some basis in reality. But as to whether or not this was Jesus was actually God incarnate is a matter of revelation and faith and not subject to scientific verification.
I cannot ultimately disprove the existence of leprechauns, FSMs/faries/dragons/etc. I do not believe they exist. But ultimately I cannot scientifically prove that they do not exist. So, from a scientific point of view, the point is the same no matter whether the subject is God or unicorns. It is impossible to prove a negative-- which was my point to begin with.
I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm stating a scientific fact. If you say "there is no God" you have make a claim you cannot prove because it is impossible to prove a negative.
I'm not debating the existence of anything. I'm making a simple statement of the fact that the person who says "there is no God" has made a statement that they cannot scientifically prove.
I am not an expert on medieval philosophy in general and Occam's razor in particular. But isn't it possible to erroneously explain a phenomenon and eliminate possible causes if you misinterpret the evidence or if you don't have all the evidence available?
I'm not making an argument for the existence of God. I'm simply saying that those who say "there is no God" have gone beyond the ability of science since a negative cannot be proved. Do you dispute that?
Alright, let's drop "faith" and use the term "belief." I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm just say that people who say there is no God are going beyond the evidence and making a statement that they cannot ultimately prove.
Again, I am responding to those making statements to the effect that those who believe in God are somehow defective. Whether they are scientists or not, they are making statements that they cannot back up. Therefore, they should be a bit more careful about how they word their statements.
I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm simply stating the fact that people who say there is no God have gone beyond facts and evidence and are themselves making unverifiable faith statements.
Slashdot Mirror
I think there is some kind of Flash malware distribution scheme going on that tells you that you need to update your Flash player even though you have the latest version. Here's a link to an article on it: http://blogs.adobe.com/psirt/2008/08/verifying_installers.html I don't know that this is what's happening with you though.
You might want to read his post again. He did not say they are "more" damaging to the land. I believe you added the word "more" yourself. Hopefully the OP will correct me if I am wrong, but I think his intent was to oppose the idea that somehow wheat and other crops are more "natural" than livestock. He points out that the land was already "naturally" hosting herds of buffalo. I believe his intent was to argue that if anything was out of place in the environment he is speaking of, it is crops such as wheat and not the livestock. You might also want to investigate the use of quotation marks (such as his around the word "damaging") to convey a sense of irony or sarcasm. I think you might have missed it in this case.
Could you explain how the cattle industry is destructive to the planet?
I not I'm not supposed to read the article, but when I tried to the site gives a "story not found" message.
Well, since if you buy Ubuntu you aren't getting a Windows system, it isn't an insinuation, it is the truth. I have read the page you are talking about, and it seems to be their intent is to make sure people know what they are buying.
Not that I am crazy about those, but hasn't government always had the right to intercept communications under certain circumstances? Why should the fact that this is a method for doing so on a computer make this case any different?
Seven times? I had them once when I was 19 or 20, and I thought I was going to die.
I don't know how it works for keyboards--never tried it. But I think it would probably ruin a laptop.
Yeah, I noticed that too. Does the North Korea government even allow citizens to have computers? I doubt it.
Well, just for the record, this was not a security patch. The record was set by individuals who chose to download Firefox.
Nice post. But you forgot Model T cranks.
Well, if they do sell the patents, it would be nice if the Open Invention Network people were standing first in line to buy them. http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/index.php/
Yes, let's remember the Marshall Plan in Europe. Not too many countries have helped rebuild countries that that they have had to fight.
The bottom line is that I am arguing that the scientific principle involved applies equally in all situations. It is impossible to prove that something or someone (God) in this case does not exist. Your hypothetical person-with-no-prior beliefs will have to answer for himself as to whether or not to him God is the same as a leprechaun. My personal belief is that God reveals himself to whomever he wishes in a way which is not open to scientific verification. I am a Christian. There is at least some evidence that a man named Jesus actually lived. More evidence than for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So therefore, my faith in Christ has at least some basis in reality. But as to whether or not this was Jesus was actually God incarnate is a matter of revelation and faith and not subject to scientific verification.
You potentially right and also potentially wrong since nothing has been proved one way or the other.
I cannot ultimately disprove the existence of leprechauns, FSMs/faries/dragons/etc. I do not believe they exist. But ultimately I cannot scientifically prove that they do not exist. So, from a scientific point of view, the point is the same no matter whether the subject is God or unicorns. It is impossible to prove a negative-- which was my point to begin with.
Ok, then, they are making a statement of "fact" that they cannot ultimately prove.
I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm stating a scientific fact. If you say "there is no God" you have make a claim you cannot prove because it is impossible to prove a negative.
I'm not debating the existence of anything. I'm making a simple statement of the fact that the person who says "there is no God" has made a statement that they cannot scientifically prove.
I am not an expert on medieval philosophy in general and Occam's razor in particular. But isn't it possible to erroneously explain a phenomenon and eliminate possible causes if you misinterpret the evidence or if you don't have all the evidence available?
Ok then, they are not making a faith statement. They are simply making a statement which they cannot prove.
I'm not making an argument for the existence of God. I'm simply saying that those who say "there is no God" have gone beyond the ability of science since a negative cannot be proved. Do you dispute that?
Alright, let's drop "faith" and use the term "belief." I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm just say that people who say there is no God are going beyond the evidence and making a statement that they cannot ultimately prove.
Again, I am responding to those making statements to the effect that those who believe in God are somehow defective. Whether they are scientists or not, they are making statements that they cannot back up. Therefore, they should be a bit more careful about how they word their statements.
I'm not trying to prove anything to you. I'm simply stating the fact that people who say there is no God have gone beyond facts and evidence and are themselves making unverifiable faith statements.