Going to need a 1st Amendment right, obviously, to freedom of speech in all cases that do not cause tangible harm to others--e.g. libel and slander, producing kiddie porn, etc.
I know a number of Catholics and other christians, a number of Jews, and a handful of Buddhists who would all reject your attempted "evidence" for a number of reasons.
The base reason, though, why you're entirely wrong, is twofold:
Number one, you're assuming that science is unchangeable and that what came first is inevitably more accurate. While this may be acceptable for scripture, it's exactly opposite to what's acceptable for science.
Why is this?
Because science is based on the assumption that while it may be the most useful explanation for the way things work at the moment, it may possibly be disproved with better equipment and techniques at some time in the future. Hence, this 'revisionism' that your link claims is somehow a bad thing is, instead, just the way science works.
Secondly, each of the explanations for the apparent "young age" given is incomplete. The age of Niagara falls, for instance, does not take into account geological uplift, vulcanism, deposition of sediments, or any other of the ways in which erosion is countered. The assertion that the sun is "getting smaller" has been measured; Heimholz' calculations were based on incomplete information and on an incorrect assumption that the sun was burning according to the standard oxygen-fuel model--being as nuclear fusion had not yet been discovered.
You do not have to be an atheist to practice good science. Many, many men and women of faith have no problem with scientific thought and principles, because they understand that science is not a -threat- to their beliefs, but rather a -celebration- of them. If your faith is so fragile that anything which does not read exactly according to your preconceived notion, your personal interpretation, of what the bible says is counted as a threat, then the problem lies not with science, but with you.
And I'm not posting as an Anonymous Coward because, unlike you, I can stand behind my words.
You're not preventing anyone else from browsing or checking out the books, and at worst you're taking up a little bit of space in the hall. The resources that you've accessed are still there for all the other patrons.
You're going to encounter a lot of resistance trying to convince people that freeloading in this fashion is "wrong". After all, everything else on the web that's publicly accessible is considered to be 'free'; if they've made this publicly accessible without even a username/password or SIM verification or whatnot, then they've made it equivalent to any other webpage out there.
Also, they're not -prevented- from receiving revenue. Those people who have subscribed and paid are still (unless they take the time to unsubscribe) subscribed and paying. They may not be receiving as much revenue per unit of usage, sure, but nothing has been done to -prevent- them from making money.
If they don't even have the sense to do some basic authentication, then they deserve whatever they get. It's not as though authentication schemes are even that difficult...if it's on a phone-by-phone basis, then SIM authentication would seem to be a fairly easy and effective method of authentication.
No. As far as the IRS is concerned, a corporation is an -entity- separate from any of the individual employees or shareholders of said corporation.
You may file suit against persons or entities--this is why you can sue various departments of the government or the government as a whole--they count as -entities-.
Unless you're going to try to make the argument that the Federal Government is a 'person'?
I can think of a way to make an obscene profit off of it: negotiate to be paid by the hour rather than by the unit. The longer it takes to authenticate a chip, the better.;-P
Slightly better, but still dodgy in my mind. If someone wants to counterfeit a chip design, then it'll be counterfeited--if by nothing else, then by someone with access to an electron microscope and a solid background in chip design theory, or by someone getting hold of a few of the 'unlocked' chips and reverse-engineering 'em that way.
Presuming that there's a constant internet connection, that the manufacturer's server is incapable of being cracked and maintains at least 5-9's uptime, and that anyone's stupid enough to buy a crippled chip with this on it.
...to the EU's argument that censorship restricts free trade. This looks to be a fairly clear example where censorship caused direct economic difficulties.
As I said before, you're using outdated science. The notion of macroevolution being distinct from microevolution fell by the wayside in serious scientific literature years ago.
As I said before, try reading some literature from this century.
And if you don't like mice, then read up on yeast. If you don't like yeast, then read up on various plants. There are many different examples of speciation that have been shown to happen well within the historical period.
However, so long as you keep on with the nonsensical notion that evolution comes in different 'kinds' you'll not be capable of understanding the way things work. I don't say this to be cruel--it's simply a statement of fact. You're clinging to newtonian gravitation when everyone else has moved on to relativity. Catch up with the rest of the world--unlike religious dogma, science is not immutable and everlasting. It changes to conform closer to reality.
First, the micro-macro distinction is false. There is evolution. That's it. Distinctions of scale are irrelevant.
Second, speciation (one of the predictions alluded to) has been observed in, amongst other things, mice on an island--one of the classic examples of speciation by population separation.
It is apparent that your knowledge of evolution is severely outdated. Please read up on research from this century before trying to make any further arguments.
Comparative genetics can show the point at which two species diverged, and give some idea of the general time frame in which that happened. It's possible to trace single mutations, in some cases.
This is not a question of proving that two proteins have a similar function--that can be shown by simple chemistry. This is, however, a question of showing that, by virtue of having closely related proteins, two groups of organisms can be shown to be related. You've got things entirely backwards.
Further, the very definition of a scientific theory mandates that said explanation be useful for predictions. An evolutionary explanation can predict how bacteria will become drug-resistant over time; there are no alternative theories that will allow such a prediction.
In addition, "evolutionism" is an outdated and discredited notion from the early 1900s, back when people were under the misconception that evolution was directed towards a goal. It belongs in the same place as the Lamarkian hypothesis and philogiston--in history books, filed under "naive mistakes brought on by incomplete understandings." You do yourself a distinct disservice by even using the word.
tl;dr:
Evolutionary theory makes plenty of predictions that can be (and are!) tested. No other "alternative" is capable at present of doing so. Therefore, evolution is scientific; the alternatives are not.
Slashdot Mirror
Going to need a 1st Amendment right, obviously, to freedom of speech in all cases that do not cause tangible harm to others--e.g. libel and slander, producing kiddie porn, etc.
Doesn't matter; it can be retconned to be named after the Roman god.
I know a number of Catholics and other christians, a number of Jews, and a handful of Buddhists who would all reject your attempted "evidence" for a number of reasons.
The base reason, though, why you're entirely wrong, is twofold:
Number one, you're assuming that science is unchangeable and that what came first is inevitably more accurate. While this may be acceptable for scripture, it's exactly opposite to what's acceptable for science.
Why is this?
Because science is based on the assumption that while it may be the most useful explanation for the way things work at the moment, it may possibly be disproved with better equipment and techniques at some time in the future. Hence, this 'revisionism' that your link claims is somehow a bad thing is, instead, just the way science works.
Secondly, each of the explanations for the apparent "young age" given is incomplete. The age of Niagara falls, for instance, does not take into account geological uplift, vulcanism, deposition of sediments, or any other of the ways in which erosion is countered. The assertion that the sun is "getting smaller" has been measured; Heimholz' calculations were based on incomplete information and on an incorrect assumption that the sun was burning according to the standard oxygen-fuel model--being as nuclear fusion had not yet been discovered.
You do not have to be an atheist to practice good science. Many, many men and women of faith have no problem with scientific thought and principles, because they understand that science is not a -threat- to their beliefs, but rather a -celebration- of them. If your faith is so fragile that anything which does not read exactly according to your preconceived notion, your personal interpretation, of what the bible says is counted as a threat, then the problem lies not with science, but with you.
And I'm not posting as an Anonymous Coward because, unlike you, I can stand behind my words.
How is it that a flat spacetime terminates again? Is that the one that goes off into timelike infinity and eventually has the protons break down?
Browsing the stacks, in this case.
You're not preventing anyone else from browsing or checking out the books, and at worst you're taking up a little bit of space in the hall. The resources that you've accessed are still there for all the other patrons.
They must have some sort of hardware-based authentication in order to verify that a handset is authorized to be on the network, surely?
Yeah, but the waitstaff really sucks. They're not getting a tip, that's for sure....
(And not to whine, but I think someone may need a sense of humor.)
You're going to encounter a lot of resistance trying to convince people that freeloading in this fashion is "wrong". After all, everything else on the web that's publicly accessible is considered to be 'free'; if they've made this publicly accessible without even a username/password or SIM verification or whatnot, then they've made it equivalent to any other webpage out there.
Also, they're not -prevented- from receiving revenue. Those people who have subscribed and paid are still (unless they take the time to unsubscribe) subscribed and paying. They may not be receiving as much revenue per unit of usage, sure, but nothing has been done to -prevent- them from making money.
If they don't even have the sense to do some basic authentication, then they deserve whatever they get. It's not as though authentication schemes are even that difficult...if it's on a phone-by-phone basis, then SIM authentication would seem to be a fairly easy and effective method of authentication.
Lookit me! I'm hacking the pentagon! And the CIA! And the FBI!
Hold on, one moment--someone's knocking.
No. As far as the IRS is concerned, a corporation is an -entity- separate from any of the individual employees or shareholders of said corporation.
You may file suit against persons or entities--this is why you can sue various departments of the government or the government as a whole--they count as -entities-.
Unless you're going to try to make the argument that the Federal Government is a 'person'?
I can think of a way to make an obscene profit off of it: negotiate to be paid by the hour rather than by the unit. The longer it takes to authenticate a chip, the better. ;-P
Slightly better, but still dodgy in my mind. If someone wants to counterfeit a chip design, then it'll be counterfeited--if by nothing else, then by someone with access to an electron microscope and a solid background in chip design theory, or by someone getting hold of a few of the 'unlocked' chips and reverse-engineering 'em that way.
Not to mention that if the manufacturer goes out of business, all the equipment stops working.
As if anyone would take -that- risk...
Presuming that there's a constant internet connection, that the manufacturer's server is incapable of being cracked and maintains at least 5-9's uptime, and that anyone's stupid enough to buy a crippled chip with this on it.
It's not -really- a person, though. It is an -entity-, yes, but not an actual -person-.
Unless corporations have gained the right to vote and to hold public office while I wasn't looking?
"The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
Just because it's not using TCP/IP doesn't mean it's not still internet.
Jeeze, there were few movies that were even -watchable- much less -good- last year, and they still set records?
That's not so much 'hot air' as 'complete bullshit' then.
So what's it cost to set up a 419-scam workshop in a west African country these days? About $7000?
Hey, I have no favoritism--I 'decry' censorship when we do it, too.
I even write to my representative in congress when I notice that it's being done, so y'can't say I'm not doing anything about it.
You're only as free as you want to take the effort to be.
...to the EU's argument that censorship restricts free trade. This looks to be a fairly clear example where censorship caused direct economic difficulties.
As I said before, you're using outdated science. The notion of macroevolution being distinct from microevolution fell by the wayside in serious scientific literature years ago.
As I said before, try reading some literature from this century.
And if you don't like mice, then read up on yeast. If you don't like yeast, then read up on various plants. There are many different examples of speciation that have been shown to happen well within the historical period.
However, so long as you keep on with the nonsensical notion that evolution comes in different 'kinds' you'll not be capable of understanding the way things work. I don't say this to be cruel--it's simply a statement of fact. You're clinging to newtonian gravitation when everyone else has moved on to relativity. Catch up with the rest of the world--unlike religious dogma, science is not immutable and everlasting. It changes to conform closer to reality.
First, the micro-macro distinction is false. There is evolution. That's it. Distinctions of scale are irrelevant.
Second, speciation (one of the predictions alluded to) has been observed in, amongst other things, mice on an island--one of the classic examples of speciation by population separation.
It is apparent that your knowledge of evolution is severely outdated. Please read up on research from this century before trying to make any further arguments.
That's alright, the sun should be good for another 10 billion, give or take a few.
O'course, the earth will be uninhabitable in about 7 billion, so...
No, not quite.
Comparative genetics can show the point at which two species diverged, and give some idea of the general time frame in which that happened. It's possible to trace single mutations, in some cases.
This is not a question of proving that two proteins have a similar function--that can be shown by simple chemistry. This is, however, a question of showing that, by virtue of having closely related proteins, two groups of organisms can be shown to be related. You've got things entirely backwards.
Further, the very definition of a scientific theory mandates that said explanation be useful for predictions. An evolutionary explanation can predict how bacteria will become drug-resistant over time; there are no alternative theories that will allow such a prediction.
In addition, "evolutionism" is an outdated and discredited notion from the early 1900s, back when people were under the misconception that evolution was directed towards a goal. It belongs in the same place as the Lamarkian hypothesis and philogiston--in history books, filed under "naive mistakes brought on by incomplete understandings." You do yourself a distinct disservice by even using the word.
tl;dr:
Evolutionary theory makes plenty of predictions that can be (and are!) tested. No other "alternative" is capable at present of doing so. Therefore, evolution is scientific; the alternatives are not.