I used to hate writing. First of all, I'm left handed so writing with a pen often meant ink stains on my hand and smeared handwriting. Secondly, I never felt that my handwriting speed could keep up with my brain speed. I'd always have to slow down my thoughts to get them on paper. Finally, I also couldn't easily make edits to my writing. Deciding to reword a sentence or move a paragraph meant ugly looking cross outs, hard-to-write-over white-out or completely rewriting the page I was working on.
Then, I got to type on a computer for the first time. Suddenly, there were no ink stains, my typing speed was better able to keep pace with my thinking speed, and edits were a quick cut/copy/paste away. Suddenly, I found that I loved writing and wrote anytime I could.
I still can write pen on paper but whenever possible I compose my writing on the computer first so my pen-on-paper writing is as neat as possible.
I swore that I'd never use Vista after hearing the horrible things about it. Then my work laptop died and I had the opportunity to buy a personal one for relatively cheap. Only problem was that it came with Vista preinstalled. It also comes with a free Windows 7 upgrade, so I figured I'd deal with Vista for now. I'll admit, there are things to like with Vista. For example, the application specific volume controls. Finally, I can tell my web browser to shut up while my MP3s play on.
Still, I hit upon a frustration before the laptop was completely set up the way I like it. I used this application called menuApp to bring up drill down menus of my file system. When I clicked on it in Vista, though, I was told "The publisher count not be verified. Are you sure you want to run this software?" I unchecked the "Always ask before opening this file" and clicked Run. Then I clicked on menuApp again and was asked the exact same question. Vista wasn't remembering that I told it not to ask again.
Finally, I was pointed in the right direction for a fix. Long story short, there was an "alternate data stream" in the file that tripped up Vista. I'm very tech-savvy and even I couldn't figure out this one. What's Joe Averageuser supposed to do?
Why wouldn't it be? If a restaurant kicks a woman out for feeding her child, why can't ten women protest the restaurant's actions by going there and breastfeeding their children? Taking this back to the civil rights movement, it would have been ok for one person to sit in the "whites only" section when they "weren't allowed" but not for a group of people to do so? So long as the group doesn't turn violent, I see nothing against a group organizing such an activity to shine a light on an unjust practice.
Because intentionally violating the unjust rule is forcing their hand into enforcing it, thus revealing it to be unjust. I'd liken it to "colored" protesters back in the 60's who sat in the "whites only" sections fully intending to be arrested or to mothers who congregate and all breastfeed their babies together at a restaurant that bans breastfeeding everywhere except in the restroom stalls. (Would you want to eat your meal on some of those toilets?) Let's see the stadiums eject 100 fans per game for tweeting and see what kind of press coverage they get.
As someone who's had both his credit card account compromised in one of these breaches and had his identity full-on stolen (SSN, DOB, name, address, etc), a simple "thief uses your card to buy some stuff" is no big deal (relatively speaking). A close eye on your credit card statements, something you should do anyway, a quick call to the card company and you'll get a new card number and the charge will be taken off. Once the card is canceled, you're safe again. With full-on identity theft, even closing the accounts opened in your name isn't enough.
I agree that the system is broken, though. In my case, the credit card company (Capital One) approved the online credit card application with an incorrect mother's maiden name and didn't raise a red flag when the address was changed right away or when "I" tried to get a large cash advance before activating the card. I was just lucky that the card was sent out before the address change was processed. Otherwise, it wouldn't have landed on my doorstep and I would've never known that anything was wrong until the collection agencies came knocking.
It's still not identity theft, but it would be a sign that the system is seriously broken. Let's say that John Smith (SSN: 123-45-6789) gives his SSN for a loan. But the guy typing the information into the computer types it in as 123-54-6879. A simple transposing of a couple of digits. I've seen it happen lots of times. That new SSN happens to belong to Fred Jones. John Smith didn't intend to steal anyone's identity. But now Fred has a loan on his credit as well as an alias and new address? Then, if John Smith defaults on the loan and skips town, Fred Jones' door is the one that the debt collectors come knocking down? And Fred has to spend his time, money and energy clearing his credit? All because some guy at a keyboard typed a couple of digits incorrectly? I'd say that your system needs some serious integrity checking if a mere transposed digit could cause so much trouble.
I don't think giving a fake SSN is identity theft. (And I happen to be a victim of identity theft.) If I say "my name is Jason Levine and my SSN is 583-58-2958" (not my real SSN, of course), I haven't stolen anyone's identity. Yes, that number might match someone's SSN somewhere, but chances are the name won't. So if you look up the SSN and see it's assigned to "Jane Smith", it will be pretty obvious that the SSN given was wrong or an error occurred somewhere.
Now, if I said "my name is John Smith" and gave John Smith's SSN, Address, etc, *that* would be identity theft.
Even if it's private property, the most they can do is kick you off and forbid you from coming back on. They can't confiscate your camera/photos nor can they tell you how you can and can't use those photos. They certainly can't suddenly claim copyright ownership on your photos. BMO is claiming rights that they simply don't have.
I've actually taken to using a pseudonym on every new site I join. Slashdot is one of a handful of sites that I keep my old "real name" username because I can't really switch to the pseudonym easily. If I tell everyone "hey, I'm going to be known as Pseudonym now" it kind of defeats the purpose of the pseudonym. And if I just disappear as "Jason Levine" and reappear as another user, people wouldn't realize that I'm not just some newcomer but have been part of the community for years. Then there's the forum I run where a sudden change of the administrator from "Jason Levine" to "Pseudonym" would be quite noticeable.
Besides, I doubt my identity was stolen by my being called "Jason Levine" in an online forum. I never post my SSN or real address online and the thief had both of those. My phone number is unlisted so even if you knew the city/state I live in, you couldn't just use Google to find my other personal information.
I honestly don't know how the thieves got my personal information. (Wish I did, though. I'm not sue-happy, but I think a lawsuit would be appropriate here.) It could have been from my doctor's office, employer, some government worker peaking at records he shouldn't, a credit card company employee, etc. Unfortunately, there's just too many places where the average American's personal information is housed.
I definitely do agree that something needs to be done to ease the burden on Identity Theft victims. Victims shouldn't have to spend years cleaning up their credit (or police record) because some crook got their personal information and some bank didn't check if the Mother's maiden name matches.
Then I would think that the distribution to consumers in the US would be illegal. They might not be able to charge the person/company with anything depending on how it was operated, but it would be technically illegal. Alternatively, they might charge the person in the US even though they live elsewhere and then, on any visit to the US, the person would be arrested and tossed in jail.
If someone "borrows" your new car while you sleep and returns it all scratched and dented, it would be wrong to say "Well, you were sleeping so you didn't lose use of the car and when you woke up you were able to drive it so it wasn't really stolen." The car was stolen and now you'll need to take time (and spend money) fixing the damage done.
When your identity is stolen, the thieves steal your good credit rating and your time to fix the mess. I was lucky that the thieves tripped up before any real damage was done to my credit. Had the card gone to them, they would have maxed it out and stuck me with the bill. Collections agencies don't really care if you tell them someone else ran up the charges. They just want to be paid and will hound you until you pay up. (Side Note: The thieves actually tried getting a $5,000 cash advance before the card was activated. Capital One denied the request but didn't flag this as suspicious behavior.)
Also, ID Theft can lead to Criminal ID Theft. For example, this guy: http://g27radio.blogspot.com/2007/04/think-youre-safe.html Because someone stole his identity and gave the stolen identity to police, this guy's life has gone down the tubes. Criminal checks by employers uncover his (wrongfully assigned) criminal history. Police (unconvinced that he really isn't the guy who was arrested) hound him waiting for any slight trip-up. His life is a living hell and all because some guy said he was Joe Smith instead of Jim Jones.
So when a criminal takes some private information of yours and winds up trashing your credit rating, possibly ruining you financially and causing you to have to spend tons of time/money repairing the damage, I feel that "theft" is an appropriate term.
I wonder if the patent could be broadly interpreted to apply to HTML also. If so, it would mean that anything that manipulated HTML in any way would need to pay up also. Suddenly, the entire Internet industry in the US would collapse as companies fled to other countries to survive. Web browsers? Pay up. Web Servers utilizing server side coding? Fork over the cash. HTML editors? Show them the money!
And now for another edition of the latest reality show craze: "Watching People Watching TV!" Today's randomly chosen family are the Orwells from Wisconsin. Let's watch as they tune in to America's Funniest Home Videos! There they are sitting on their sofa. Mrs. Orwell is knitting a scarf while Mr. Orwell... Oooh, looks like Mr. Orwell is picking his nose! Riveting television, folks. Simply riveting. That's why we're the #1 rated reality show of people watching TV in our timeslot!
I'm sorry, but if you don't want to pay for cable and have the cable company spy on you every second of the day then you're probably a filthy Internet pirate. Your bank accounts will be deducted the monthly price of cable to offset any piratical activities that you might possibly engage in. To stop these deductions, merely sign back up with your friendly neighborhood cable company.
I'm a victim of Identity theft. Some thieves got my name, address, date of birth and SSN, filled out an online form and got a credit card in my name. (Despite the mother's maiden name being wrong. Thank you very much Capital One!) The only reason I found out about it was that the thieves tripped up. They paid to have the card rush-mailed to them and *then* they changed the address from my address to theirs (or at least a drop box of theirs). The card was mailed out before the address change went through and landed in my hands.
I never did catch the thieves (slow working police who weren't prepared for an ID theft case and an uncooperative Capital One), but I learned how to prevent ID Theft: Freeze your credit. Then the thieves can't open any new lines of credit in your name. The only downside is that you can't open up any new lines yourself without first "thawing" the credit file temporarily. (Did that when I bought my new car.)
As a side benefit, people can't look at your credit file either. So jobs can't run background checks without your prior approval and banks can't pre-approve you for credit card after credit card that you don't want or need.
The MPAA/RIAA/etc gets their draconian copyright laws but with two modifications:
1) When the copyright on a work expires, they are required to publish a high quality public domain version of the work in a well-documented format. (e.g. a high bitrate MP3 or lossless FLAC for audio. MPEG-2 for video.)
It's not thought of as evidence supporting truth. Remember, we're talking about moral laws here, not scientific facts or history. There is no empirical way to decide whether you should wait 6 hours after eating meat until you can eat dairy or whether 3 will do (to pick a Jewish law totally at random). These are the types of things that would be debated by rabbis. The rabbis would look at the various versus in the Torah and would put forth various arguments. One might claim that because this one verse is phrased this way the Torah means 6 hours. Another might claim that another verse clearly indicated 3 hours. If the "3 hour" rabbi's argument was so persuasive that vastly more rabbis agreed with him, that would be considered the law.
Even if God himself came down and said "Actually, I meant it to be 2 hours and 32 seconds" it wouldn't matter since the interpretation of the Torah's laws are left up to man, not God. Though, honestly, that's just a parable. I have a feeling that if God truly started talking to everyone, clarifying what His religious laws really were, people would listen no matter what their previous religious beliefs.*
Things are different in the scientific world where two differing arguments could be tested out to see which, if either, work. With moral laws, things are murkier and there's no real test to determine who, if anyone, is right.
* Then again, maybe not. The last time God talked to a big group of people directly was on Mount Sinai and right after that they began worshiping a Golden Calf. Not a very good track record for a Supreme Being if you ask me.;-)
One problem, you're quoting the English translation of the original Hebrew. What the Hebrew actually says is "the young woman shall conceive". Now, yes this still could be talking about Jesus... except for the being named Immanuel part, but it could also be talking about a lot of other people. In addition, this "sign" makes no mention of being the "son of God" or Messiah or anything of the sort. So this verse is an exaggeration of a mistranslation to support claims of Mary's virgin birth.
That's pretty much my view also. A God who planned things out and created (albeit via scientifically discoverable processes) the entire universe is much more impressive to me than a God who just says "Do It" and has it done. Command line God versus Point-and-click GUI God?;-)
I'm not telling God what he can or can't do at all. Perhaps he could have used evolution, if he wanted to, but he claims he didn't. He pretty clearly described how he created everything, and he didn't say anything about using evolution. (Now if you want to argue about the authenticity of the Bible, that's a different issue altogether.)
Judaism holds that the text of the Torah was written by God but that man has exclusive rights to interpreting the text. To give an example of this, there's an old Jewish story about a group of rabbis debating some point of Jewish law. They all referred to the same verse, but had two different interpretations of it. One rabbi, insisting that he was right and the others were wrong, keeps commanding various natural events to happen if he is right. Invariably the events occur, but the other rabbis are unimpressed. Finally, the dissenting rabbi calls for the heavens themselves to affirm that he's right. God declares the dissenting rabbi correct but the group tells God to stay out of this as the Torah is for man and not the heavens. ( See http://jhom.com/topics/lions/voice/bat_kol_bab.htm for the full story.)
The lesson here is that, by Jewish custom, you can interpret "6 days" as being "6 periods of time totaling somewhere around 14 billion years" and no heavenly voice can boom at you pronouncing you wrong according to Scripture. Of course, I'm guessing that you are Christian and not Jewish, so Your Religious Mileage May Vary.
I'd argue that Evolution doesn't merely say "only the strong survive and if you are too weak to survive we shouldn't help you do so." It only really says that species will change over time to better adapt to their surroundings or they will die off.
Let's suppose that there's a tribe of gorillas. One of them, an elderly gorilla, is weak. He can't run as fast or for as long as the other gorillas. Yet the tribe might keep him along because his knowledge of where to go get food and how to survive in rough circumstances. The younger gorillas, the ones who are of mating age, keep him around because of this knowledge. More food and better survival odds means that they'll get more mating opportunities which means more chances of their genes getting passed on to the next generation. Younger gorillas might even be willing to defend the elderly gorilla against predators - risking their own lives for his. The species (in this case represented by a single tribe) survives and adapts better with the elderly infirm gorilla than without him.
It's been done before (claiming to have a machine that produced more energy than was put in, I mean). In nearly every instance, requests to examine the machine have either been denied outright or granted but then something "comes up." When the machines can be examined, they nearly always wind up being some sort of scam. (The device on the table is actually powered by a hidden battery or something.) However, if you really did come up with some device to make more energy than you put in, let people examine the device, and it held up to examination then you would get quite a fair hearing.
Even if scientists couldn't figure out *how* it worked, they would credit your device with being a success. In fact, I'd think that they would be more excited if they couldn't figure out how it works. After all, it would mean a major reworking of some theories. People like to characterize scientists as being dogmatic, but I think that most scientists get excited by the prospect of being at the forefront of one of the rare times when otherwise "set in stone" theories get upended and revised.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to hate writing. First of all, I'm left handed so writing with a pen often meant ink stains on my hand and smeared handwriting. Secondly, I never felt that my handwriting speed could keep up with my brain speed. I'd always have to slow down my thoughts to get them on paper. Finally, I also couldn't easily make edits to my writing. Deciding to reword a sentence or move a paragraph meant ugly looking cross outs, hard-to-write-over white-out or completely rewriting the page I was working on.
Then, I got to type on a computer for the first time. Suddenly, there were no ink stains, my typing speed was better able to keep pace with my thinking speed, and edits were a quick cut/copy/paste away. Suddenly, I found that I loved writing and wrote anytime I could.
I still can write pen on paper but whenever possible I compose my writing on the computer first so my pen-on-paper writing is as neat as possible.
... I'm only 34!
I swore that I'd never use Vista after hearing the horrible things about it. Then my work laptop died and I had the opportunity to buy a personal one for relatively cheap. Only problem was that it came with Vista preinstalled. It also comes with a free Windows 7 upgrade, so I figured I'd deal with Vista for now. I'll admit, there are things to like with Vista. For example, the application specific volume controls. Finally, I can tell my web browser to shut up while my MP3s play on.
Still, I hit upon a frustration before the laptop was completely set up the way I like it. I used this application called menuApp to bring up drill down menus of my file system. When I clicked on it in Vista, though, I was told "The publisher count not be verified. Are you sure you want to run this software?" I unchecked the "Always ask before opening this file" and clicked Run. Then I clicked on menuApp again and was asked the exact same question. Vista wasn't remembering that I told it not to ask again.
Finally, I was pointed in the right direction for a fix. Long story short, there was an "alternate data stream" in the file that tripped up Vista. I'm very tech-savvy and even I couldn't figure out this one. What's Joe Averageuser supposed to do?
Why wouldn't it be? If a restaurant kicks a woman out for feeding her child, why can't ten women protest the restaurant's actions by going there and breastfeeding their children? Taking this back to the civil rights movement, it would have been ok for one person to sit in the "whites only" section when they "weren't allowed" but not for a group of people to do so? So long as the group doesn't turn violent, I see nothing against a group organizing such an activity to shine a light on an unjust practice.
Because intentionally violating the unjust rule is forcing their hand into enforcing it, thus revealing it to be unjust. I'd liken it to "colored" protesters back in the 60's who sat in the "whites only" sections fully intending to be arrested or to mothers who congregate and all breastfeed their babies together at a restaurant that bans breastfeeding everywhere except in the restroom stalls. (Would you want to eat your meal on some of those toilets?) Let's see the stadiums eject 100 fans per game for tweeting and see what kind of press coverage they get.
As someone who's had both his credit card account compromised in one of these breaches and had his identity full-on stolen (SSN, DOB, name, address, etc), a simple "thief uses your card to buy some stuff" is no big deal (relatively speaking). A close eye on your credit card statements, something you should do anyway, a quick call to the card company and you'll get a new card number and the charge will be taken off. Once the card is canceled, you're safe again. With full-on identity theft, even closing the accounts opened in your name isn't enough.
I agree that the system is broken, though. In my case, the credit card company (Capital One) approved the online credit card application with an incorrect mother's maiden name and didn't raise a red flag when the address was changed right away or when "I" tried to get a large cash advance before activating the card. I was just lucky that the card was sent out before the address change was processed. Otherwise, it wouldn't have landed on my doorstep and I would've never known that anything was wrong until the collection agencies came knocking.
It's still not identity theft, but it would be a sign that the system is seriously broken. Let's say that John Smith (SSN: 123-45-6789) gives his SSN for a loan. But the guy typing the information into the computer types it in as 123-54-6879. A simple transposing of a couple of digits. I've seen it happen lots of times. That new SSN happens to belong to Fred Jones. John Smith didn't intend to steal anyone's identity. But now Fred has a loan on his credit as well as an alias and new address? Then, if John Smith defaults on the loan and skips town, Fred Jones' door is the one that the debt collectors come knocking down? And Fred has to spend his time, money and energy clearing his credit? All because some guy at a keyboard typed a couple of digits incorrectly? I'd say that your system needs some serious integrity checking if a mere transposed digit could cause so much trouble.
I don't think giving a fake SSN is identity theft. (And I happen to be a victim of identity theft.) If I say "my name is Jason Levine and my SSN is 583-58-2958" (not my real SSN, of course), I haven't stolen anyone's identity. Yes, that number might match someone's SSN somewhere, but chances are the name won't. So if you look up the SSN and see it's assigned to "Jane Smith", it will be pretty obvious that the SSN given was wrong or an error occurred somewhere.
Now, if I said "my name is John Smith" and gave John Smith's SSN, Address, etc, *that* would be identity theft.
Even if it's private property, the most they can do is kick you off and forbid you from coming back on. They can't confiscate your camera/photos nor can they tell you how you can and can't use those photos. They certainly can't suddenly claim copyright ownership on your photos. BMO is claiming rights that they simply don't have.
I've actually taken to using a pseudonym on every new site I join. Slashdot is one of a handful of sites that I keep my old "real name" username because I can't really switch to the pseudonym easily. If I tell everyone "hey, I'm going to be known as Pseudonym now" it kind of defeats the purpose of the pseudonym. And if I just disappear as "Jason Levine" and reappear as another user, people wouldn't realize that I'm not just some newcomer but have been part of the community for years. Then there's the forum I run where a sudden change of the administrator from "Jason Levine" to "Pseudonym" would be quite noticeable.
Besides, I doubt my identity was stolen by my being called "Jason Levine" in an online forum. I never post my SSN or real address online and the thief had both of those. My phone number is unlisted so even if you knew the city/state I live in, you couldn't just use Google to find my other personal information.
I honestly don't know how the thieves got my personal information. (Wish I did, though. I'm not sue-happy, but I think a lawsuit would be appropriate here.) It could have been from my doctor's office, employer, some government worker peaking at records he shouldn't, a credit card company employee, etc. Unfortunately, there's just too many places where the average American's personal information is housed.
I definitely do agree that something needs to be done to ease the burden on Identity Theft victims. Victims shouldn't have to spend years cleaning up their credit (or police record) because some crook got their personal information and some bank didn't check if the Mother's maiden name matches.
Then I would think that the distribution to consumers in the US would be illegal. They might not be able to charge the person/company with anything depending on how it was operated, but it would be technically illegal. Alternatively, they might charge the person in the US even though they live elsewhere and then, on any visit to the US, the person would be arrested and tossed in jail.
If someone "borrows" your new car while you sleep and returns it all scratched and dented, it would be wrong to say "Well, you were sleeping so you didn't lose use of the car and when you woke up you were able to drive it so it wasn't really stolen." The car was stolen and now you'll need to take time (and spend money) fixing the damage done.
When your identity is stolen, the thieves steal your good credit rating and your time to fix the mess. I was lucky that the thieves tripped up before any real damage was done to my credit. Had the card gone to them, they would have maxed it out and stuck me with the bill. Collections agencies don't really care if you tell them someone else ran up the charges. They just want to be paid and will hound you until you pay up. (Side Note: The thieves actually tried getting a $5,000 cash advance before the card was activated. Capital One denied the request but didn't flag this as suspicious behavior.)
Also, ID Theft can lead to Criminal ID Theft. For example, this guy: http://g27radio.blogspot.com/2007/04/think-youre-safe.html Because someone stole his identity and gave the stolen identity to police, this guy's life has gone down the tubes. Criminal checks by employers uncover his (wrongfully assigned) criminal history. Police (unconvinced that he really isn't the guy who was arrested) hound him waiting for any slight trip-up. His life is a living hell and all because some guy said he was Joe Smith instead of Jim Jones.
So when a criminal takes some private information of yours and winds up trashing your credit rating, possibly ruining you financially and causing you to have to spend tons of time/money repairing the damage, I feel that "theft" is an appropriate term.
I wonder if the patent could be broadly interpreted to apply to HTML also. If so, it would mean that anything that manipulated HTML in any way would need to pay up also. Suddenly, the entire Internet industry in the US would collapse as companies fled to other countries to survive. Web browsers? Pay up. Web Servers utilizing server side coding? Fork over the cash. HTML editors? Show them the money!
And now for another edition of the latest reality show craze: "Watching People Watching TV!" Today's randomly chosen family are the Orwells from Wisconsin. Let's watch as they tune in to America's Funniest Home Videos! There they are sitting on their sofa. Mrs. Orwell is knitting a scarf while Mr. Orwell... Oooh, looks like Mr. Orwell is picking his nose! Riveting television, folks. Simply riveting. That's why we're the #1 rated reality show of people watching TV in our timeslot!
I'm sorry, but if you don't want to pay for cable and have the cable company spy on you every second of the day then you're probably a filthy Internet pirate. Your bank accounts will be deducted the monthly price of cable to offset any piratical activities that you might possibly engage in. To stop these deductions, merely sign back up with your friendly neighborhood cable company.
- The MPAA
I'm a victim of Identity theft. Some thieves got my name, address, date of birth and SSN, filled out an online form and got a credit card in my name. (Despite the mother's maiden name being wrong. Thank you very much Capital One!) The only reason I found out about it was that the thieves tripped up. They paid to have the card rush-mailed to them and *then* they changed the address from my address to theirs (or at least a drop box of theirs). The card was mailed out before the address change went through and landed in my hands.
I never did catch the thieves (slow working police who weren't prepared for an ID theft case and an uncooperative Capital One), but I learned how to prevent ID Theft: Freeze your credit. Then the thieves can't open any new lines of credit in your name. The only downside is that you can't open up any new lines yourself without first "thawing" the credit file temporarily. (Did that when I bought my new car.)
As a side benefit, people can't look at your credit file either. So jobs can't run background checks without your prior approval and banks can't pre-approve you for credit card after credit card that you don't want or need.
Here's some more information on credit freezing: http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/learn_more/003484indiv.html
The MPAA/RIAA/etc gets their draconian copyright laws but with two modifications:
1) When the copyright on a work expires, they are required to publish a high quality public domain version of the work in a well-documented format. (e.g. a high bitrate MP3 or lossless FLAC for audio. MPEG-2 for video.)
2) Copyright terms will be shortened to 5 years.
That's too expensive. We can rebuild him using Walmart for just $42 and change.
It's not thought of as evidence supporting truth. Remember, we're talking about moral laws here, not scientific facts or history. There is no empirical way to decide whether you should wait 6 hours after eating meat until you can eat dairy or whether 3 will do (to pick a Jewish law totally at random). These are the types of things that would be debated by rabbis. The rabbis would look at the various versus in the Torah and would put forth various arguments. One might claim that because this one verse is phrased this way the Torah means 6 hours. Another might claim that another verse clearly indicated 3 hours. If the "3 hour" rabbi's argument was so persuasive that vastly more rabbis agreed with him, that would be considered the law.
Even if God himself came down and said "Actually, I meant it to be 2 hours and 32 seconds" it wouldn't matter since the interpretation of the Torah's laws are left up to man, not God. Though, honestly, that's just a parable. I have a feeling that if God truly started talking to everyone, clarifying what His religious laws really were, people would listen no matter what their previous religious beliefs.*
Things are different in the scientific world where two differing arguments could be tested out to see which, if either, work. With moral laws, things are murkier and there's no real test to determine who, if anyone, is right.
* Then again, maybe not. The last time God talked to a big group of people directly was on Mount Sinai and right after that they began worshiping a Golden Calf. Not a very good track record for a Supreme Being if you ask me. ;-)
One problem, you're quoting the English translation of the original Hebrew. What the Hebrew actually says is "the young woman shall conceive". Now, yes this still could be talking about Jesus... except for the being named Immanuel part, but it could also be talking about a lot of other people. In addition, this "sign" makes no mention of being the "son of God" or Messiah or anything of the sort. So this verse is an exaggeration of a mistranslation to support claims of Mary's virgin birth.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14#Judaism_and_the_Hebrew_Bible
That's pretty much my view also. A God who planned things out and created (albeit via scientifically discoverable processes) the entire universe is much more impressive to me than a God who just says "Do It" and has it done. Command line God versus Point-and-click GUI God? ;-)
Judaism holds that the text of the Torah was written by God but that man has exclusive rights to interpreting the text. To give an example of this, there's an old Jewish story about a group of rabbis debating some point of Jewish law. They all referred to the same verse, but had two different interpretations of it. One rabbi, insisting that he was right and the others were wrong, keeps commanding various natural events to happen if he is right. Invariably the events occur, but the other rabbis are unimpressed. Finally, the dissenting rabbi calls for the heavens themselves to affirm that he's right. God declares the dissenting rabbi correct but the group tells God to stay out of this as the Torah is for man and not the heavens. ( See http://jhom.com/topics/lions/voice/bat_kol_bab.htm for the full story.)
The lesson here is that, by Jewish custom, you can interpret "6 days" as being "6 periods of time totaling somewhere around 14 billion years" and no heavenly voice can boom at you pronouncing you wrong according to Scripture. Of course, I'm guessing that you are Christian and not Jewish, so Your Religious Mileage May Vary.
I'd argue that Evolution doesn't merely say "only the strong survive and if you are too weak to survive we shouldn't help you do so." It only really says that species will change over time to better adapt to their surroundings or they will die off.
Let's suppose that there's a tribe of gorillas. One of them, an elderly gorilla, is weak. He can't run as fast or for as long as the other gorillas. Yet the tribe might keep him along because his knowledge of where to go get food and how to survive in rough circumstances. The younger gorillas, the ones who are of mating age, keep him around because of this knowledge. More food and better survival odds means that they'll get more mating opportunities which means more chances of their genes getting passed on to the next generation. Younger gorillas might even be willing to defend the elderly gorilla against predators - risking their own lives for his. The species (in this case represented by a single tribe) survives and adapts better with the elderly infirm gorilla than without him.
It's been done before (claiming to have a machine that produced more energy than was put in, I mean). In nearly every instance, requests to examine the machine have either been denied outright or granted but then something "comes up." When the machines can be examined, they nearly always wind up being some sort of scam. (The device on the table is actually powered by a hidden battery or something.) However, if you really did come up with some device to make more energy than you put in, let people examine the device, and it held up to examination then you would get quite a fair hearing.
Even if scientists couldn't figure out *how* it worked, they would credit your device with being a success. In fact, I'd think that they would be more excited if they couldn't figure out how it works. After all, it would mean a major reworking of some theories. People like to characterize scientists as being dogmatic, but I think that most scientists get excited by the prospect of being at the forefront of one of the rare times when otherwise "set in stone" theories get upended and revised.