Not quite, novel has actually all but completely failed to do one last critical step: collect damages. Due to SCO's stratagies extending the litigation, it has/is/will be bankrupt, so that Novell will be lucky if it manages to recoup even a small percentage of its legal costs.
Darl Mcbride is probably pretty happy about the whole thing though.
While the bill from the article is from a year ago, and therefore the summary sucks, the basic premise of the story remains very much intact under the current Harper government. The real story is as follows and is only six months old, as opposed to a year, so its good for slashdot:
"A bill will soon be passed into law by the Canadian government, which will require that ISPs disclose customer information such as name, phone number, email address, IP address, house address, and more, and furthermore require ISPS to allow for the monitoring, interception, and isolation of internet communications in real time. This will be brought forward in an omnibus collection of other bills by the majority government."
If you think the idea of the linked bill was bad, enjoy the one that will *actually* come to pass.
I agree that there are things that can be disproved about religion, but there are few of those. And even those proofs rely on postulates such as the law of non-contradiction (which, though it completely boggles my mind, some religions believe is false).
Furthermore circumstantial evidence should not be discounted as worthless, evidence that suggests a religion is wrong, such as evidence of "miraculous" healings, or evidence that the bible stole ideas from other religions that it declares are false, while not final, is worth considering.
However, some of the things you call proof do not even come close. "We can show that a large portion of the bible is also immoral", for instance. Even within our own culture there are far, far too many theories surrounding morality for anything to be proved. Even circumstantial evidence (the fact that our culture tends toward one way of thinking about ethics is not evidence, its the naturalistic fallacy) is scarce here. Most contradictions in the bible are found by people looking for them, and not found by people who are not looking for them (or looking for them not to be there), similar to how cell-phone company funded researches that didn't find evidence of cell-phones causing harm. I also know of no evidence that the bible rips off older religions (other than Judaism, which the bible acknowledges) that is so clear that someone could legitimately call it proof. Mithraism was once used as such as example, but is no longer considered to mirror Christianity.
Similarly, some "radiation sensitive" people have been proven to be faking it is proof that some radiation sensitive people are faking it. Given that some research indicates a certain level of harm due to non-ionizing radiation suggests that there is a potential for such a reaction, beyond individual people, the idea of "radiation sensitivity" is quite far from being disproved.
I agree that there is reason to be skeptical of people who call themselves radiation sensitive. And given how the word "cancer" has been thrown around as a means of fear-mongering, I take all of those accusations with a grain of salt as well. However, I think there is evidence to suggest an indirect effect. Some studies suggest that radiation, even non-ionizing radiation, can interfere with the blood brain barrier, allowing potentially harmful chemicals to pass through in greater quantities (or simply pass through at all). This would not cause cancer, but a variety of other conditions (which might cause cancer), and only indirectly.
Some articles to take such positions include this one, which notes that lower SAR values have the potential to be more damaging than higher ones. and this scholarly article, which also suggests using such radiation to treat cancer. It should be noted that this is a somewhat newer area of research. According to the later article: "Clearly, the highly complex physical and biological phenomena involved requires the development of new experimental, measuring and observation procedures; these were not always completely controlled in the early research projects".
Slashdot Mirror
I have the answer:
Not quite, novel has actually all but completely failed to do one last critical step: collect damages. Due to SCO's stratagies extending the litigation, it has/is/will be bankrupt, so that Novell will be lucky if it manages to recoup even a small percentage of its legal costs.
Darl Mcbride is probably pretty happy about the whole thing though.
While the bill from the article is from a year ago, and therefore the summary sucks, the basic premise of the story remains very much intact under the current Harper government. The real story is as follows and is only six months old, as opposed to a year, so its good for slashdot:
"A bill will soon be passed into law by the Canadian government, which will require that ISPs disclose customer information such as name, phone number, email address, IP address, house address, and more, and furthermore require ISPS to allow for the monitoring, interception, and isolation of internet communications in real time. This will be brought forward in an omnibus collection of other bills by the majority government."
If you think the idea of the linked bill was bad, enjoy the one that will *actually* come to pass.
Now all that's needed is a third.
Indeed. Actually now I kinda want to translate this into iambic pentameter and give it a rhyming pattern.
I agree that there are things that can be disproved about religion, but there are few of those. And even those proofs rely on postulates such as the law of non-contradiction (which, though it completely boggles my mind, some religions believe is false).
Furthermore circumstantial evidence should not be discounted as worthless, evidence that suggests a religion is wrong, such as evidence of "miraculous" healings, or evidence that the bible stole ideas from other religions that it declares are false, while not final, is worth considering.
However, some of the things you call proof do not even come close. "We can show that a large portion of the bible is also immoral", for instance. Even within our own culture there are far, far too many theories surrounding morality for anything to be proved. Even circumstantial evidence (the fact that our culture tends toward one way of thinking about ethics is not evidence, its the naturalistic fallacy) is scarce here. Most contradictions in the bible are found by people looking for them, and not found by people who are not looking for them (or looking for them not to be there), similar to how cell-phone company funded researches that didn't find evidence of cell-phones causing harm. I also know of no evidence that the bible rips off older religions (other than Judaism, which the bible acknowledges) that is so clear that someone could legitimately call it proof. Mithraism was once used as such as example, but is no longer considered to mirror Christianity.
Similarly, some "radiation sensitive" people have been proven to be faking it is proof that some radiation sensitive people are faking it. Given that some research indicates a certain level of harm due to non-ionizing radiation suggests that there is a potential for such a reaction, beyond individual people, the idea of "radiation sensitivity" is quite far from being disproved.
I agree that there is reason to be skeptical of people who call themselves radiation sensitive. And given how the word "cancer" has been thrown around as a means of fear-mongering, I take all of those accusations with a grain of salt as well. However, I think there is evidence to suggest an indirect effect. Some studies suggest that radiation, even non-ionizing radiation, can interfere with the blood brain barrier, allowing potentially harmful chemicals to pass through in greater quantities (or simply pass through at all). This would not cause cancer, but a variety of other conditions (which might cause cancer), and only indirectly.
Some articles to take such positions include this one, which notes that lower SAR values have the potential to be more damaging than higher ones. and this scholarly article, which also suggests using such radiation to treat cancer. It should be noted that this is a somewhat newer area of research. According to the later article: "Clearly, the highly complex physical and biological phenomena involved requires the development of new experimental, measuring and observation procedures; these were not always completely controlled in the early research projects".