You can't be a good scientist and say that from a scientific standpoint that creationism is true or false. If scientists are following appropriate procedure it doesn't matter what their personal beliefs are, if they are not, they should be fired on those grounds and no other.
Creationism has not been and cannot be tested by the scientific method. Any evidence that seems to contradict it can be claimed to be God interfering with the test. Religion is not science and should not be studied by science, scientists should neither claim (as scientists) that a religion is true or false.
DNA evidence is 'better' than fingerprints, but the problem is that both are given far more weight than they deserve. The mere existence of DNA evidence, even when that evidence isn't necessarily linked to the crime, can be enough for a conviction.
Majority vote for not guilty or civil cases would be reasonable, for a guilty vote in a criminal trial however a consensus should be required. The burden of proof being that no reasonable person would doubt their guilt, if anyone on the jury does doubt it, they should either be found not guilty or the case retried after a hung jury.
Since it specifies that the access is free, I'd guess it means that the court's wi-fi is available to anyone for a fee and his office will pay their fee in exchange for friending.
We can build one, the problem is we don't trust anyone to actually do the building. With ATMs the builders have a vested interest in making them secure, with voting systems the opposite is more likely to be true.
The big media companies aren't the only ones who will be charged, having to pay fees to all the ISPs that you want to carry your content would be a huge barrier for entry into internet commerce.
We have elections, but that doesn't mean our government changes in any meaningful way.
I see no evidence that the changes in policy helped in the prevention of any of the cases you cited, though it's possible that the articles are inaccurate or incomplete. I also find it surprising that you could find so many cases where undercover agents barely managed to prevent an attack but there aren't any where they were successful.
This is more akin to an employer badmouthing employees on Facebook and getting fired by his boss. There's a difference between complaining about those who have authority over you and complaining about those you have authority over.
It's not an unrelated action, the MPAA complains about Google linking to/hosting copyrighted content so Google eliminates all links to the MPAA's copyrighted content, including their websites.
It's badly worded, it's saying that they were deliberately infected after being vaccinated not that they were already infected when they were vaccinated.
Slashdot Mirror
If I remember correctly it was algebra for things more complicated than linear equations, powers, roots, etc.
Unless your theater is like ours and makes more money on the 3D showings so they only show 3D for the first week or two after a movie is released.
You can't be a good scientist and say that from a scientific standpoint that creationism is true or false. If scientists are following appropriate procedure it doesn't matter what their personal beliefs are, if they are not, they should be fired on those grounds and no other.
Creationism has not been and cannot be tested by the scientific method. Any evidence that seems to contradict it can be claimed to be God interfering with the test. Religion is not science and should not be studied by science, scientists should neither claim (as scientists) that a religion is true or false.
Because they receive the most post-release testing to detect bugs.
An ironclad absolute guarantee, the samples will definitely not be destroyed.
Just hope that no one with access to the database ever decides to commit a crime.
DNA evidence is 'better' than fingerprints, but the problem is that both are given far more weight than they deserve. The mere existence of DNA evidence, even when that evidence isn't necessarily linked to the crime, can be enough for a conviction.
Except that some of the things he buys may not be MS products, meaning MS would have to pay for the goods he purchased.
That and $10 will get you a cup of coffee.
No matter who wins the house makes money.
Or above average.
Or someone making a Youtube video and trolling with it.
Majority vote for not guilty or civil cases would be reasonable, for a guilty vote in a criminal trial however a consensus should be required. The burden of proof being that no reasonable person would doubt their guilt, if anyone on the jury does doubt it, they should either be found not guilty or the case retried after a hung jury.
Since it specifies that the access is free, I'd guess it means that the court's wi-fi is available to anyone for a fee and his office will pay their fee in exchange for friending.
That or people who actually want to be on the jury and know how to hide their opinions.
We can build one, the problem is we don't trust anyone to actually do the building. With ATMs the builders have a vested interest in making them secure, with voting systems the opposite is more likely to be true.
The big media companies aren't the only ones who will be charged, having to pay fees to all the ISPs that you want to carry your content would be a huge barrier for entry into internet commerce.
It only counts exploits that have been patched.
We have elections, but that doesn't mean our government changes in any meaningful way.
I see no evidence that the changes in policy helped in the prevention of any of the cases you cited, though it's possible that the articles are inaccurate or incomplete. I also find it surprising that you could find so many cases where undercover agents barely managed to prevent an attack but there aren't any where they were successful.
The company that owns the warehouse isn't selling anything, they're just distributing packages.
The student has no authority over the teacher and is not paid to act in a professional manner.
This is more akin to an employer badmouthing employees on Facebook and getting fired by his boss. There's a difference between complaining about those who have authority over you and complaining about those you have authority over.
It's not an unrelated action, the MPAA complains about Google linking to/hosting copyrighted content so Google eliminates all links to the MPAA's copyrighted content, including their websites.
It's badly worded, it's saying that they were deliberately infected after being vaccinated not that they were already infected when they were vaccinated.