Slashdot Mirror

Look up Rob Hartill. Also, look up the definition of FUD before you use it again.

I'm no developer, and only a novice with programming and databases, so this may be a naive question.

I remember reading about Object-relational impedance mismatch. I thought, if object oriented programming is a poor fit, conceptually, with the relational database model, perhaps functional programming would be a better fit: the code leaves the management of state to the database, which is its specialty.

Does that make any sense?

Or at least not in any political faction that describes itself either as liberal or conservative.

Placing science first in politics is the tacit acceptance of utilitarianism or technocracy as the guiding principle or ideology. Liberalism is supposed to be about placing liberty first. And conservatives claim to be trying to bring back "traditional American values," which certainly includes liberty.

Very often you see this tacit acceptance of utilitarianism (the government should regulate anything that's harmful) and technocracy (what the experts say "is king") in political debates over policy decisions. For example, take two people debating over climate change, with one person citing data that supports climate change and the other citing data that discredits it. Often the whole point of the debate is actually whether or not some new policy should exist, but both people immediately attack the policy decision from the science angle: If global warming is real, obviously the government should pass these regulations! If global warming isn't real, obviously they shouldn't! Both people have already, tacitly, accepted that the government ought to pass the policy merely if the scientific data is correct, without addressing a deeper question that should be asked first: In a so-called "free society," which purports to respect things like personal freedom, property rights, &c., should the government even be legislating this particular topic in the first place, regardless of whether or not such regulations might stop or prevent some harm? Even if the policy might prevent some sort of physical harm, does the policy infringe upon human freedom?

As for the article, the whole thing is a straw man: Conservatives who "deny" climate change are in fact putting facts first; they are making the science "king" -- they're just presenting their own facts and data that discredit rather than support climate change, and basing their policy decisions on that. Both parties nowadays, while claiming to support "liberty" (albeit in slightly different ways) are in fact both utilitarian and technocratic. Only minority factions such as constitutionalists or libertarians seem to be willing to address the climate change debate from the deeper ethical and moral angle.

Normally you'd shove the control rods in and slow the reactions until not enough heat is generated to overheat even without special cooling (perhaps just immersed). But the cores are too melted for that I presume.

Shutdown: Reactivity is some safety margin below critical. The thermal power level will gradually fall.

Cold shutdown: The power level has fallen low enough that the cooling water doesn't boil even when depressurized. Active cooling may still be required.

Nuclear reaction: chain reactions where neutrons split atoms releasing more neutrons.

Decay heat: When the reactor is running shot-half-life nuclides are formed. After shutdown these continue to decay for a long time, releasing heat. There is no chain reaction, only spontaneous decays. Here's what the decay curve looks like.

The Fukushima reactors are shut down - they were immediately scrammed when the quake happened. There may have been some recriticality events, but these would be brief - the BWR design requires liquid water to moderate neutrons. Even if the entire core melted into a single blob it wouldn't be critical: it requires a bunch of water interspersed with the fuel. It's possible that the fuel fell to the bottom of the reactor vessel in little chipped up pieces with water between and formed a critical configuration, but doing so will create local heating which results in at least one of: churning until it settles in a subcritical configuration; melting the fuel until it's a solid blob instead of chunked thus creating a subcritical configuration; the water boils thereby depriving the core of the moderator, and the reaction stops. It will be a while before we know if any of these things happened.

Right now we're just waiting while the decay heat falls. It will reliably do so and eventually active cooling won't be necessary to prevent boiling.

Oh, for the love of crypto.

Cue the privacy protest in 3, 2...

(Note: See Florida v. Riley, IIRC, for a case on law enforcement flying overhead to spot crime). https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Florida_v._Riley

The largest wind farm in Europe is Whitelee Wind farm [wikipedia.org] in Scotland.

Afaict scotland doesn't have any exclusion zones arround wind turbines. Heck people seem to be encouraged to use the windfarm as a recreational area.

Even in countries that are paranoid enough to exclude the general public from windfarms it should still be possible to use the land under them for farming and similar activities with reasonable precautions.

But really this all ignores the key difference. Afaict building a windfarm is something a landowner chooses to do with their land voluntarily. Presumablly they would only do so if the value of the land to them as a windfarm is greater than the costs of making it one (in terms of other activities prevented/reduced/made less efficiant). A nuclear accident or a coal mine fire, or a chemical spill is an accident that renders an area of land uninhabitable and quite possiblly a larger area unsuitable for agriculture regardless of the landowners wishes and in the case of a nuclear accident the area rendered unusable can be a long way from the plant, it doesn't form nice circles you can plan for.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg

This might come off as rather mean, and possibly trolling, but my question is this:
Is the look and feel of your website, and other material, part of a carefully crafted style, or is it more... haphazard?

I ask because your official website has a very busy and disorganized look & feel. It is reminiscent of the early days of the Internet, where amateurish self-taught web designers would throw something together rather quickly (sometimes called "geocities style", involve animated gifs, mismatching colors, etc.). Similarly the cover of your latest album ( Seeking Major Tom ) looks like a Photoshop Disaster, with the perspective of your head not matching the space suit, and various objects clumsily composited together.

Overall this looks somewhat rough and sloppy, especially considering how wealthy and well-known you are as a celebrity. Surely you must be able to achieve a higher production value if that were something important to you. Is this look and feel intentional? A way to seem less grandiose and therefore to connect with fans more closely? Or is it something else?

New companies see the consumers broadband connection as a free resource to exploit. The ISPs would like these companies to share in the burden they are placing on their networks.

That, my friend, is a detestable rewording of the issues intended to evoke sympathy from the masses.

Share the burden? Exploit resources for free? That's called framing. Was that your intent?

New companies see the consumers broadband connection as a resource the consumers have paid for.

New companies see the consumers broadband connection as a resource the consumers will use to get goods and services.

People thinking about starting new companies see an opportunity to start new business using the consumers broadband connection to deliver goods and services.

People thinking about starting new companies can create innovative new products and services using the consumers broadband connection.

Let's all go back to the pre-iPhone model where the telcos were gatekeepers of phone apps. In those days you were lucky to get Tetris on a phone. It wasn't the vibrant ecology of business we now have, but at least no one was "exploiting" the user's "resource".

Grow some integrity. Get a job working for someone who doesn't pay you to lie.

Okay, so, admittedly I haven't read the book. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you didn't mean "Professor Moriarty" (Sherlock Holmes' nemesis), but rather "Q"?

Okay, so, admittedly I haven't read the book. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you didn't mean "Professor Moriarty" (Sherlock Holmes' nemesis), but rather "Q"?

but if they have oral sex then they can both go to jail for statutory rape.

Not since 2003. See Texas v Lawrence.

I suppose that many flowers will look different, as well as the plumage of many birds, which have UV color patterns that humans usually do not see:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/healthscience/science/aaas/2002-01-03-budgies-glow.htm
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cockatiel_under_blacklight.jpg
http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_ARNI_ANG.html
http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_LATH_PRA.html
http://i.livescience.com/images/i/7881/i02/fish-uv-pattern-100225-02.jpg?1296089823

There are a number of species of animal that can see ultraviolet light, and a number of plant and animal species have evolved to take advantage of this. Parrots are known for having UV patterns in their feathers, butterflies use UV patterns to communicate with each other, and most flowers have UV patterns to attract insects. Some fish-eating birds use UV light to help identify fish underwater.

So if you are truly able to see UV light, you should be seeing a very interesting world!

That's the first xkcd I've seen that has is a genuine disappointment.

Yes, "begging the question" is a type of fallacy and now it also means, "to elicit a question logically as a reaction or response".

Even the Wikipedia article you cite presently describes the modern usage as well. The Wikipedia article cites thefreedictionary.com entry, which includes a reference to the Cambridge Idioms Dictionary, 2nd ed, that lists the modern usage first, before the definition of the fallacy ("if a statement or situation begs the question, it causes you to ask a particular question").

The other internet-based citation from the Wikipedia article is even more damning: "...most people now suppose the phrase implies something quite different: that the argument demands that a question about it be asked—raises the question. Although using the expression in its original sense is now rare, using it in the newer sense will cause irritation among traditionalists." Ouch.

So, you're correct that language is fluid. It's just that the burden is now upon you to stamp out a commonly accepted idiom that makes perfect sense in its modern, "incorrect" form vs. the traditional, regrettable English translation of the petitio principii fallacy. This is obviously what you are attempting to accomplish, but I don't believe your goal is worthy. Furthermore, I believe it is disingenuous to refer to the modern usage as incorrect at this stage.

You actually help me make my point: I agree 100% with statement that this guy is a dumb criminal. However, that isn't what the article was about. Instead (according to the people who have much to gain from folks like us buying into the story) they stopped a "TERRORIST!"

This is just another example of security theater;"Look, we found this terrorist, but don't worry, we had everything under control the whole time".

And drop the whole "this is like stopping a pedo before it's too late!" bullshit. Different things. You are just looking for a justification for fear. The whole "Terrorists are everywhere" myth is just that. Don't be terrorized.

I travel a lot and can identify with this problem. Sometimes a page is not available and there has been times where I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why on earth someone would block it. Different countries have different goals so we can always get around the problem by trying different routes but I didn't want the hassle of having to switch providers. I'd imagine too it would be useful for anyone wanting to provide such a service where to locate it.

So the useful info here is, which countries have the best net neutrality laws and privacy laws?

According to https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Network_neutrality#Law_in_Chile Chile is the best place for that, followed by Japan. See the article and compare to lowendbox.com providers that you can find.

Many suggestions cite English language countries. Things might be better on hosting in a country with a language different to the source traffic.

There is also the question of security and privacy. Is the ISP a guy in a bedroom hosting off a laptop and WiFi or is it straight onto a transatlantic backbone connection with no ISP - how big is the pipe we are connecting to so we are connecting through less points of risk. This aspect I found harder to figure out. Can anyone comment here? Certainly a VPS is quite secure, but how secure is the actual machine doing the hosting? What happens if that is compromised? I tried some VPS hosting in Turkey and within 5mins ssh being brute forced. That's another question.

  Also we have to think, where are we connecting from? We want a short path to this for hosting. Thus, because you are in Brazil I recommend a (reputable?) VPS in Chile because it's close and they recognise the value of speech there and it's Spanish not Portuguese. However, if you find this doesn't work for you then I suggest having a look at the transatlantic cables and going off the next hop from there.

  -j

It's repeating every 100k years. I'm not saying that global warming doesn't have an artifical part but this is no proof.

Just be glad they've figured out ASCII. This web site would be a bitch in EBCDIC.

I suppose I should be glad of that. However, ordered and unordered lists were working just fine before their latest "upgrade".

Hey Slashdot! What happened to my bullets? You indented the list, but the bullets are missing.

The Slashdot coders are waiting for the next buzz word technology concept to come along before they support unordered lists. Or Unicode.

Just be glad they've figured out ASCII. This web site would be a bitch in EBCDIC.

Return on investment was pretty good for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. The space shuttle... not so much.

The X-37B folks beg to differ. Smile for the camera!

they don't sell it commercially

But... that's likely to change imminently.

The moment Google has to make licensing deals on patents, Android will cease to be free... and by that, I don't mean to companies, but to small developers just wanting to use it on homebrew devices. It'll become the Unix of the mobile OS world. Open source, but huge license fees to use so as to pay for the lawyers to protect it.

Furthermore, deals like these have very similar effects to patent licensing for Google, though they seem potentially more protective of the small developers.

I usually check on Wikipedia: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportClients.htm
MSIE: 36.25%
Firefox: 24.06%
Chrome: 18.22%
This is of course not representative, but if they measure for example Friendface or Shitter then they do not see what I use :)

Also:

Kembell-Cook is now in the running to win the Shell LiveWIRE Young Entrepreneur of 2011 Award which would give him 10,000 lbs to use towards his invention.

Wow. Will his prize be in the form of a giant cartoon-style weight with "10,000 lbs" written on it? Perhaps they'll drop it on his house.

You do have to wonder if that journalist has ever been outside of the US.... or maybe he was assuming that the original definition of "pound sterling" was still in use?

Are you suggesting a monopoly would try to force you to use their browser by reducing compatibility with the competition?

That would be a novel strategy

Nonsense. It's made of the same stuff as the bluish Horsehead Nebula . I wonder why it sometimes turns pink

OMG PINK STAR PONIES!

No, when you mix blue with pink, you get purple.

Why, yes, Slashdot, it IS just like shouting. Because it is, in fact, shouting.

But I thought Slashdot WANTED shouting...

Nonsense. It's made of the same stuff as the bluish Horsehead Nebula . I wonder why it sometimes turns pink

OMG PINK STAR PONIES!

No, when you mix blue with pink, you get purple.

Why, yes, Slashdot, it IS just like shouting. Because it is, in fact, shouting.

But I thought Slashdot WANTED shouting...

Nonsense. It's made of the same stuff as the bluish Horsehead Nebula . I wonder why it sometimes turns pink

OMG PINK STAR PONIES!

No, when you mix blue with pink, you get purple.

Why, yes, Slashdot, it IS just like shouting. Because it is, in fact, shouting.

But I thought Slashdot WANTED shouting...

Nonsense. It's made of the same stuff as the bluish Horsehead Nebula . I wonder why it sometimes turns pink

OMG PINK STAR PONIES!

No, when you mix blue with pink, you get purple.

Why, yes, Slashdot, it IS just like shouting. Because it is, in fact, shouting.

But I thought Slashdot WANTED shouting...

Nonsense. It's made of the same stuff as the bluish Horsehead Nebula. I wonder why it sometimes turns pink.

Nonsense. It's made of the same stuff as the bluish Horsehead Nebula. I wonder why it sometimes turns pink.

that the earth was a flat disc hanging from some sort of object despite the fact the Bible says the very opposite!

Sorry to burst your bubble but the entire flat earth belief system is based on the Bible:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Additionally, Isaiah 40:22 says circular not round. They have completely different meanings hence my reference to flat disc. The Bible also says numerous times the Earth is in a fixed position, another fallacy.

I've never heard of this belief before so I can't say much on it.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

I'd have to research this further to be sure but I would figure that an "ice age" would have similar effects on earth's geology as a world wide deluge.

To be forthright, I'm no geologist but it's hard to imagine how a flood and ice age would cause identical let alone similar geological changes. They are very different phenomena. Not much need for an ark for an ice age either. What's more, if such an ark and loading of it were a true event the design, building, and logistical feat of it would by far dwarf anything mankind has accomplished since. This includes any space stations, landing on the moon, or any other engineering feat in modern history. A person capable of believing such a story without a shred of good evidence is capable of believing anything and it doesn't say much good about them.

a good example might be the practice of blood letting or the idea of the four temperaments

These aren't good examples because they aren't science and neither is shamanism. Pre-scientific endeavors to solve the mysteries of nature may or may not be true, but they simply aren't science. Perhaps a better example of your intended point would be something like string theory, but then I would say that isn't science either because it's untestable at this point. Do you have a real example of a currently generally accepted scientific theory you claim is false? I know some who doubt electromagnetism, yet they refuse to touch nodes of high current when offered.

These types of arguments of "remain skeptical of science" always seem so absurd to me coming from the religious. Of course I'm skeptical of science, but science has offered evidence and proof whereas religion has offered none after thousands of years of trying.

Imagine you had unlimited access to Google's home page and search results page to advertise your product. You'd probably sell a few too.

It reminds me of another monopoly, who used their near-universal access to users to distribute their free browser and drive Firefox' predecessor out of business.

Are the docking ports compatible?

I read many years ago on Chinese media (can't find the source anymore) when they first launched Shenzhou that the docking port is imported from Russia for the explicit goal of compatibility with other vehicles as the Russian design is now the de factor standard.

Yes. Same one as on the Shuttle and ISS.

Actually, the Vikings predated the English by quite a bit (6 centuries), but yes, economic colonization often takes decades to centuries.

I was wondering whether there were some damage potential from capsaicin.

Capsaicin is a highly irritant material requiring proper protective goggles, respirators, and proper hazardous material handling procedures.In cases of skin contact (irritant, sensitizer), eye contact (irritant), ingestion, and inhalation (lung irritant, lung sensitizer). Severe over-exposure to pure capsaicin can result in death; the lethal dose (LD50 in mice) is 47.2 mg/kg.[52] [57]

Painful exposures to capsaicin-containing peppers are among the most common plant-related exposures presented to poison centers. They cause burning or stinging pain to the skin, and if ingested in large amounts by adults or small amounts by children, can produce nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and burning diarrhea. Eye exposure produces intense tearing, pain, conjunctivitis and blepharospasm.[58]

I was wondering whether there were some damage potential from capsaicin.

Capsaicin is a highly irritant material requiring proper protective goggles, respirators, and proper hazardous material handling procedures.In cases of skin contact (irritant, sensitizer), eye contact (irritant), ingestion, and inhalation (lung irritant, lung sensitizer). Severe over-exposure to pure capsaicin can result in death; the lethal dose (LD50 in mice) is 47.2 mg/kg.[52] [57]

Painful exposures to capsaicin-containing peppers are among the most common plant-related exposures presented to poison centers. They cause burning or stinging pain to the skin, and if ingested in large amounts by adults or small amounts by children, can produce nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and burning diarrhea. Eye exposure produces intense tearing, pain, conjunctivitis and blepharospasm.[58]

I was wondering whether there were some damage potential from capsaicin.

Capsaicin is a highly irritant material requiring proper protective goggles, respirators, and proper hazardous material handling procedures.In cases of skin contact (irritant, sensitizer), eye contact (irritant), ingestion, and inhalation (lung irritant, lung sensitizer). Severe over-exposure to pure capsaicin can result in death; the lethal dose (LD50 in mice) is 47.2 mg/kg.[52] [57]

Painful exposures to capsaicin-containing peppers are among the most common plant-related exposures presented to poison centers. They cause burning or stinging pain to the skin, and if ingested in large amounts by adults or small amounts by children, can produce nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain and burning diarrhea. Eye exposure produces intense tearing, pain, conjunctivitis and blepharospasm.[58]

Yep. Some Muslim faiths actively encourage science and even say that where there's a conflict, science is correct and the old beliefs are wrong.

eg. One of the basic tenets of the Baha'i faith is "The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition".

They're serious about it, too. I've been to a conference on the impact of human genome project which was organized by Bahai's for their everyday followers. It was pretty hardcore. When was the last time your local Christian church organized something like that?

Now try to teach evolution in Muslim countries like Pakistan. Go on, try it. We'll pay for your funeral.

101 Muslim Bashing FAIL.
from Wikipedia

Evolutionary biology is included in the high-school curricula of most Muslim countries. Science foundations of 14 Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, and Egypt, recently signed a statement by the Interacademy Panel (IAP, a global network of science academies), in support of the teaching of evolution, including human evolution

Like mentioned in the above article, the relationship between the Theory of Evolution and Islam is much more ambiguous, although modern views seem to be more closely aligned with that of (and partially derived from) Christians. Historically, Muslims have had much less of an "Us vs Them" attitude in relation to science and evolution, but that may be changing in modern times. Being a not-particularly-religous muslim, the wiki article tallies with my experience. Of course, most Muslims would say that "Humans came from Adam and Eve, not planet of the Apes" but do not think that evolution in general, precludes the possibility of a Creator.

Dude, some fuckwit Muslim 'astronomers' claim that the Earth is flat.

Got us a link?

Islamic astronomy inherited the idea of a spherical earth from the Greek astronomical tradition.[39] The Islamic theoretical framework largely relied on the fundamental contributions of Aristotle (De caelo) and Ptolemy (Almagest), both of which worked with the premise that the earth was spherical and at the center of the universe (geocentric model).

Of course, you can count on some ignorant illiterate person from a village in some impoverished third-world country to make idiotic statements like "The World is Flat" (no pun intended) or that "women should marry their rapists", but that is not good enough for making broad generalizations.

Now try to teach evolution in Muslim countries like Pakistan. Go on, try it. We'll pay for your funeral.

101 Muslim Bashing FAIL.
from Wikipedia

Evolutionary biology is included in the high-school curricula of most Muslim countries. Science foundations of 14 Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Indonesia, and Egypt, recently signed a statement by the Interacademy Panel (IAP, a global network of science academies), in support of the teaching of evolution, including human evolution

Like mentioned in the above article, the relationship between the Theory of Evolution and Islam is much more ambiguous, although modern views seem to be more closely aligned with that of (and partially derived from) Christians. Historically, Muslims have had much less of an "Us vs Them" attitude in relation to science and evolution, but that may be changing in modern times. Being a not-particularly-religous muslim, the wiki article tallies with my experience. Of course, most Muslims would say that "Humans came from Adam and Eve, not planet of the Apes" but do not think that evolution in general, precludes the possibility of a Creator.

Dude, some fuckwit Muslim 'astronomers' claim that the Earth is flat.

Got us a link?

Islamic astronomy inherited the idea of a spherical earth from the Greek astronomical tradition.[39] The Islamic theoretical framework largely relied on the fundamental contributions of Aristotle (De caelo) and Ptolemy (Almagest), both of which worked with the premise that the earth was spherical and at the center of the universe (geocentric model).

Of course, you can count on some ignorant illiterate person from a village in some impoverished third-world country to make idiotic statements like "The World is Flat" (no pun intended) or that "women should marry their rapists", but that is not good enough for making broad generalizations.

You might want to look into the concept of blinding.

Address the mail to your post office. It's called General Delivery (US)/To be claimed for (UK)/Poste Restante. It might cost you few pennies, but only if you care to claim the letter, not if you just want to annoy facebook.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Poste_restante

My Discovery of America is probably my favourite story of this persistent debacle-- and its events occurred in 1985, not 2011!

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?"
* God doesn't prevent "evil" for the same reason you allow you child to fall sometimes. Kids have to fall in order to learn how to walk.

Methinks you either fail to grasp the meaning of "evil" or intentionally misconstrue it.

Let me give you an example in two parts.

Assume you have two kids, a 5 year old daughter and a newborn son.
Your daughter gets jealous of all the attention that her baby brother gets, so she takes a knitting needle and attempts to stab him in the face.

Question for part 1: will you stop her or will you let her poke your son's eye out because you believe that "kids have to fall in order to learn how to walk"?

But wait, that's not truly "evil" yet, so let's adjust the setting a little.

Assume that the daughter is not 5 but 25. She is fully aware of the consequences of her actions and her motivation in trying to blind (or kill) her brother is not a juvenile spur-of-the-moment, jealousy-induced rage but something that was thought through to some extent.

Question for part 2: Will you stop her now?

Apparently, this construct which you refer to as "God" does not prevent infanticide. It also does not prevent wars, genocides and other massacres, or, come tho think of it, natural disasters.

Home assignment for part 3: read this, this and this, then correct your post to make it look less idiotic. In particular, consider your assertion that

"Evil" is unfortunately a prerequisite for learning. One of the most important things to learn in this life is that many things a child sees as "evil" are in fact "good"

in light of the aforementioned links.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?"
* God doesn't prevent "evil" for the same reason you allow you child to fall sometimes. Kids have to fall in order to learn how to walk.

Methinks you either fail to grasp the meaning of "evil" or intentionally misconstrue it.

Let me give you an example in two parts.

Assume you have two kids, a 5 year old daughter and a newborn son.
Your daughter gets jealous of all the attention that her baby brother gets, so she takes a knitting needle and attempts to stab him in the face.

Question for part 1: will you stop her or will you let her poke your son's eye out because you believe that "kids have to fall in order to learn how to walk"?

But wait, that's not truly "evil" yet, so let's adjust the setting a little.

Assume that the daughter is not 5 but 25. She is fully aware of the consequences of her actions and her motivation in trying to blind (or kill) her brother is not a juvenile spur-of-the-moment, jealousy-induced rage but something that was thought through to some extent.

Question for part 2: Will you stop her now?

Apparently, this construct which you refer to as "God" does not prevent infanticide. It also does not prevent wars, genocides and other massacres, or, come tho think of it, natural disasters.

Home assignment for part 3: read this, this and this, then correct your post to make it look less idiotic. In particular, consider your assertion that

"Evil" is unfortunately a prerequisite for learning. One of the most important things to learn in this life is that many things a child sees as "evil" are in fact "good"

in light of the aforementioned links.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?"
* God doesn't prevent "evil" for the same reason you allow you child to fall sometimes. Kids have to fall in order to learn how to walk.

Methinks you either fail to grasp the meaning of "evil" or intentionally misconstrue it.

Let me give you an example in two parts.

Assume you have two kids, a 5 year old daughter and a newborn son.
Your daughter gets jealous of all the attention that her baby brother gets, so she takes a knitting needle and attempts to stab him in the face.

Question for part 1: will you stop her or will you let her poke your son's eye out because you believe that "kids have to fall in order to learn how to walk"?

But wait, that's not truly "evil" yet, so let's adjust the setting a little.

Assume that the daughter is not 5 but 25. She is fully aware of the consequences of her actions and her motivation in trying to blind (or kill) her brother is not a juvenile spur-of-the-moment, jealousy-induced rage but something that was thought through to some extent.

Question for part 2: Will you stop her now?

Apparently, this construct which you refer to as "God" does not prevent infanticide. It also does not prevent wars, genocides and other massacres, or, come tho think of it, natural disasters.

Home assignment for part 3: read this, this and this, then correct your post to make it look less idiotic. In particular, consider your assertion that

"Evil" is unfortunately a prerequisite for learning. One of the most important things to learn in this life is that many things a child sees as "evil" are in fact "good"

in light of the aforementioned links.

subsequently courts sided with 'the law' that you must provide identification at all times including on your own property.

Come on. An extraordinary claim like that requires at least some sort of support.
The only recent ruling that I am aware of from the SCOTUS on the requirement to provide identification is Hiibel which ultimately ruled that Hiibel, who was on public land, had to identify himself by name only.

And don't forget GTK, which used to mean GIMP Toolkit, since it was originally developed to replace motif on the application.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gtk#History
GTK+ was originally designed and used in the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) as a replacement of the Motif toolkit; at some point Peter Mattis became disenchanted with Motif and began to write his own GUI toolkit called the GIMP toolkit and had successfully replaced Motif by the 0.60 release of GIMP.[3] Finally GTK was re-written to be object oriented and was renamed GTK+. This was first used in the 0.99 release of GIMP.

Wuala is a recent example, developed at the ETH Zürich, then spun off and bought by LaCie.