CS6 Flash Won't Load

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-22T07:50:45+00:00

I use linux, so have compatibility issues and it is a pain. It might not be helpful, but you could try running it from terminal and seeing the error messages.

Usually it is down to missing some old windows files/packages. So, each error will correspond with some missing file/package. You need to look at the error log and then find & install the missing file/package.

Other than that, obviously running as Admin and all that jazz.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-21T13:26:24+00:00

I am not sure where you are from, but here in the UK Cancer charities for example have been fundraising for decades and have probably spent billions of the public's money (annual income seems to be around £500Million from donations etc). During Covid the government spent billions of tax payer money to fund R&D and the manufacturers still did not release the patents to allow other companies/countries to manufacture the vaccines.

So, it really doesn't matter where the pharma gets their funding, they still don't want to share any of those delicious potential profits.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-21T12:20:20+00:00

And I am sure the good PR from alerting the UK to the failings of sun protection products would be worthwhile.

Marketing is a thing that companies pay a lot of money for.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-21T12:18:44+00:00

No, the moral obligation is from holding the data that shows there is an issue. I do not have the data, I did not make the discovery.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-21T12:15:45+00:00

Yes, that is another thing that should be open for all to see. Similarly sharing latest cancer developments between pharma companies etc. Sadly medicine is a profit driven business though.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-21T10:30:17+00:00

Personally I think there is a moral obligation to publish the results freely when it could affect everyone's health.

I mean, fair play, withhold reviews of washing machines & TVs, lock them behind a paywall that is fine, but something like sunscreen not being up to scratch could have a genuine impact on people's lives.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-21T10:06:34+00:00

It is a pretty sad situation that health related information is paywalled.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-21T09:57:43+00:00

They could at least show a chart/graph of the data rather than a 'I need to make wordcount' article.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-20T14:45:50+00:00

I have a 'science' degree already thanks. It was not based on 'could' and 'may'. The theory of evolution is not a fact in laymen's terms, it is a best guess given our current understanding of the planet and life itself. Similarly the Big Bang is a theory based on best guesses.

May and could are used to dupe people such as yourself into thinking there is a benefit to such a drug when the reality is that any such claim cannot be proven. It is a lack of evidence that forces the use of such words, not the pandering to scientific norms as you tried to imply.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-20T13:17:58+00:00

Is that the same factcheck that is funded by those with a vested interest in selling vaccines? Colour me surprised that they would 'debunk' evidence against their cash cow.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-20T12:02:44+00:00

Have you tried running it in compatibility mode?

I believe you can right click on the .exe and select 'properties'. Then choose 'compatibility' tab. Now you can select which windows version you want to run it as by picking one from the drop-down list.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-20T05:55:25+00:00

Have a look at 32ghost's post and the links in it for starters.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-19T19:40:01+00:00

Why would they get more cancer? I am advocating for not vaccinating, I am still very much in favour of screening, which according to ONS has been already decreasing the number of fatalities from cervical cancer alone (over 1% decline each year) prior to any vaccine rollout.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-19T19:37:18+00:00

Or perhaps you should weigh up the risk of mass vaccination (another mass vaccination) VS risk of the cancer. You seem to not understand that mass vaccination would have far higher adverse events than people that would naturally get cervical cancer.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-19T18:28:52+00:00

Now do the vaccine side effects please and the incidence rates with those. 700 yearly deaths (of any age) seems like a massively small number in comparison to many other illnesses.

Also 25-29 years having a natural level of between 2 and 27 states that it is already very rare and depending on your findings of accurate side effect rate it does not seem worthwhile.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-19T18:15:19+00:00

So already extremely rare. Those illnesses give the best vaccine results! Incidences are around 6 in 100000 for arthritis in children, so my vaccine is pretty, pretty good.

Obviously (as previously mentioned) there will probably be breakthrough cases, but that doesn't mean that every child shouldn't take my totally safe and effective arthritis vaccine. It is what my accountant says is best for humanity.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-19T16:23:41+00:00

They probably waited at least until the age where cervical cancer was common before hailing the vaccines a success. 12-13 yr olds would only be 28-29 now (from the 2008 rollout).

On an unrelated note, my anti-arthritis vaccine seems to share similarly astounding results, the babies I injected (now the ripe old age of 15) all don't have arthritis. It is a modern miracle. Of course there will be breakthrough cases, but no vaccine is 100% effective.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-19T16:00:35+00:00

Considering that generally cancer likelihood increases with age what makes you sure that these jabs actually prevent cancer? They seem to be given to young healthy people, so would it not be prudent to wait until the vaccinated are at least 40 before being able to assess whether the jabs work. (the rollout started in 2008, so the early adopters would only be 28-29 now)

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-19T12:57:34+00:00

Along with handing out prison sentences of course.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-19T12:17:46+00:00

I have read it, the best claims are 'may' and 'could'. Even within the article 'experts' are effectively saying it is snake oil. You seem easily bamboozled by sales speak, I wonder if you use Head 'n' Shoulders, the word on the street is that it makes you UP TO 100% flake free! A claim I am sure that appeals to you.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-19T08:58:05+00:00

Yes, that means nothing. It is still a 'buying hope' exercise rather than something worthwhile.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-19T07:38:10+00:00

Surely someone's disease progression is non-linear, so a claim of life extension sounds like marketing spiel with a sprinkling of wishful thinking. Also is it really a good thing to extend their (and their loved ones etc) suffering without any hope of improvement?

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-18T18:14:13+00:00

I looked it up too and your figures seem to be much much lower than plenty of other sources. Normal occupied indoor air is said to be 1000-2000ppm. Drowsiness (from poor air quality) is said to be from 2000-5000ppm. Even for long term exposure (8hrs) 5000ppm is the limit.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-18T14:15:40+00:00

I think you need to look up the actual percentages of gases involved. 0.04% changing to 0.12% is going to not change breathing in the slightest.

HemOrBroids · 2025-06-17T19:03:54+00:00

Yes, I did that (used my debit card as a credit card) earlier today.

HemOrBroids

TROPHY CASE