Iraq was a safe haven for terrorist organizations whose main goal is to kill Americans.
Would you like to site the source for this idea of yours?
It is a well known fact that Al Queda did not like the secular Iraqi government and had no real ties with Saddam.
My source? Oh, just the 9/11 Commission Report...
He is the one who has mandated this schrade to be deployed before the end of the year.
Would you hold a CEO responsible for marketing and selling a product that does not work even though he may not have personally developed it?
Look, I think most people on this board would be fine with some small amount being spent on this Quixotic quest by "Hawks". What people object to is the all the lying ("this works") and the amount of money spent on something that ALL scientists agree is far from being useful.
The WHOLE FREAKIN' MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM RELIES ON THE HONOR SYSTEM!!!
The Missil (non)Defense System relies on our enemies to use only long range missiles. It also relies on our enemies not to develop missiles that flies low. It also relies on our enemies honor system to make sure that they don't use decoys. It also requires our enemy to send one missile at time. It also relies on enemy to not knock out our silos first. It also relies on enemy not to bring a nuclear weapon in a briefcase. It also relies on...
Shall I roll the dice or you do you want to do the honor?
5 days each on a two week trip. Loved it.
Best meal I had was the one I had in Rome (the name escapes me, though in was near Piaza della Republica). Fabulous five course meal. The fried zucchini flowers with Turbo was sublime.
P.S. Probably the most disappointing culinary experience in London was the afternoon tea at the Ritz (not cheap). We were really looking forward to that one, but it ended up being mediocre and inferior to the afternoon tea we had at Empress Hotel in B.C. Canada.
As an American who has traveled around Europe, Brits' culinary reputation is well deserved.
Even the meals I had at "tourist rip-off joints" in Paris, Rome, and Florence were INFINITELY better than any food I had in London (sans Indian and Chinese places in London, which were fabulous).
Sorry to have to break it to you guys, but it is not just because France spreading false rumors (and you know how much Americans LOVE French...)
Wow... that is so wrong I don't even know where to start.
From FindLaw.com...
The CTEA extended the term of protection by 20 years for works copyrighted after January 1, 1923. Works copyrighted by individuals since 1978 got "life plus 70" rather than the existing "life plus 50". Works made by or for corporations (referred to as "works made for hire") got 95 years. Works copyrighted before 1978 were shielded for 95 years, regardless of how they were produced.
Any other thought that need to be straightened out?
I was involved in producing one of the first classic arcade collection for PC.
It was a NIGHTMARE!!!
Since many of the titles we were interested were produced by defunct companies, it was impossible to track down proper copyright owners to license the game. We were able to finally track down copyright owners for the titles we really wanted, but some of the titles had to be abandoned because we could not verify who had the proper copyright.
Even with identified copyright holders we had problems with other people challenging their ownership. Very, very confusing.
Again, if a copyright is valuable enough, then the owner should protect it and license it accordingly. But there are numerous copyrights that are hopelessly lost or disputed (where no one can prove clear ownership) that should become public domain by default.
That would all depend on whether or not you or your company owned the copyright.
If your company owned the copyright, and that company ceases to exist, then now that copyright is in limbo - which is exactly what this lawsuit is trying to address.
If you owned the copyright and not the company, then nothing has happened to the copyright and you can sell your wares as before under any new arrangement.
Even if company goes bankrupt, its IP (copyright) can be sold off and the new buyer would own the copyright.
So your scenario is already covered. It makes no sense to protect abandoned copyrights. It makes about as much sense as protecting abandoned cars on the highway.
which involves "converged devices that integrate video, audio and computer technology". He's pretty much ripped off Steve Jobs' digital hub strategy from two years ago...
Sorry, dude. Microsoft has been on this path for more than 10 years.
In fact, they have a "advanced technology demonstration home" on campus that is COMPLETELY wired with integrated technology down to every appliance. And it is more than 6 years old.
If you are going to attack the man, at least attack him on stuff he deserves. Steve Jobs has never come up with an original idea of his own. He does an AMAZING job of developing and marketing ideas that other have overlooked (starting with PARC research) , but he never has been the original inventor.
I don't understand how this important research got lumped with bunch of useless crap...
This is a very important research showing how unreliable physical eye witnesses are. There are thousands and thousands of people who are incarcerated (or worse) based on nothing more than a testimony from an eyewitness.
This research combined with research done on false memory has clearly proven that an eye witness alone without corroborating evidence should not pass the hurdle of "without reasonable doubt".
How could something that could possibly save a falsely accuesed could be labeled IgNobel?
MOND is just another way to explain the current structure of the universe without resorting to dark matter and energy by introducing variation in fundamental constants (mainly, strength of gravity).
While it is a new way of looking at things, it is still very inconsistent with visible data (can't find the difference further back we look), and is entirely backward looking (no predictions that have been verified).
Scientifically speaking, it is not much more valid then ID.
Newtonian Dynamics still used today, because it is perfectly valid as long as things are not too big or fast (relativity starts dominating), or small (quantum mechanics take over). For most everyday use, ND is perfectly adaquate.
"What would prevent us from discarding General Relativity and building on (expanding) MOND?"
You should actually learn little more about things like MOND before spewing out statements like this.
Only thing that MOND would have any effect on relativity is the cosmological constant (which Einstein never liked anyway). And there are many ideas vying for the replacement, MOND included. However, in no way shape or form, would MOND replace or discard General Relativity.
Triangulation is correct. And the key to the triangulation calculation is that the clocks on each satellite and ground must be in sync to get the most accurate measurements.
There are two relativistic effects when it comes to satellite clocks; gravity - further you go into space, faster time goes (relative to earth), and speed - faster you go slower time flies (again relative to earth).
Initially when the GPS satellites were builts, many engineers did not believe the relativistic effects and they put two different timing methods on the satellites (one calculating relativity, one ignoring it).
Shortly after satellites went into the orbit, it was clear relativistic adjustments were needed.
And with that, I think it is time to say good night and adieu.
I am sorry, that your theology is in conflict with the current understanding of our world. I don't think it has to be that way, but I know how fundamental our belief in God can be.
I just hope you can keep your good humor and enjoy your journey through lifetime of learning - as much as I enjoy my journey through discovering my spirituality.
Actually, the red shift and the background cosmic radiation are two different things.
The red shift of visible star lights first suggested that universe may be expanding. Since it was first discovered by Edwin Hubble in the beginning of the last century, finer and finer telescopes (inclding Hubble telescope) and measurements have conclusively proven that yes, indeed universe is expanding (in fact, it is accelerating - which is a puzzle).
When the scientists first learned of this red shift expansion, most thought it was just an error. But when observatories around the world came to the same conclusion, the scientist started thinking that if the universe is expanding (in all direction), if we go back in time, conversely, the universe must have started from a single point in space. But that could not be!!! Most scientists dismissed it as impossibility.
To prove whether or not Big Bang was true, scientists started creating models and proposed theorems and equations to describe the process. It was during this time that scientist figured if Big Bang did occur, at the very beginning, the universe must have been a very very hot place. The scientists figured out how hot it might have been when the microwaves first started forming in the universe. Based on that equation, they calculated how cool it must be now based on how much it has expanded (not unlike knowing how cool the boiling water is after sitting around for an hour).
When they computed all this, they all came up with a single number - 3 degrees Kelvin (3 degrees above absolute zero). And amazingly enough, a couple of scientists working at Bell-Labratory measured exactly that number doing something totally independent of the Big Bang hunt (and with that the Nobel Prize).
Why is this so significant? Because there is no other way to explain how that 3' radiation got there without the universe at one point being smaller than the size of a marble (because only if they are that small, can you generate the kind of unfathomable temperature required).
Thus, the Big Bang theory became the fundamental tenet of astrophysics.
This is what I don't get. Why does believing in Big Bang preclude you from being a good Christian?
Big Bang was a WONDROUS event, something miraculous. Science may know what happened during Big Bang, but science may never explain why it ever occurred at all. In fact, science will probably never explain EVERYTHING about thw world around us (they will certainly try though).
There is nothing that stops from people like you to accept that Big Bang happened and it was GOD who made it happen, that it was the touch of his hand that made the first matter explode into the universe that we see today.
What could be more faith affirming or spiritually beautiful then that?
The thing I like about the science most of all is learning about how AMAZING nature and universe is. To me, that makes me even more spiritual, not less.
Science is anti-religion only if you let it. If you let your mind open, science can be the most spiritually affirming tool you can have.
Again, you try to validate your point by using specious logic.
Just because you cannot see, does not mean that it is not there. For the same reason, just because it cannot be replicated, that does not mean that it is not proven.
The structure of the atom and molecules were long proven before we were able to observe it. Much of sub-atomic structure is not viewable but based on indirect evidence, we know exactly what they are.
By your hopelessly limited view of science, anything that happens beyond our lifetime cannot be proven. That is just stupid.
Have you ever met Jesus? How do you know he even existed? Isn't Jesus and the whole religion around it just a "theory"? How do you know Georget Washington is a real person? Did you meet him as well? Since we cannot "prove" that they are real by meeting them and seeing them, it cannot be proven conclusively that they existed at all!!!
Of course, that is just silly. There are CONCLUSIVE evidence through out history that both Jesus and George Washington were both real people and they existed long before we were born.
Well, that is how we know Big Bang theory is real. The universe around us has telltale historic markers that point to its existence. It is consistent and it is as every bit as real as the portraits of George Washington.
I'm certainly not a creation scientist
Don't sell yourself so short. You are every bit as obtuse and "scientifically-challenged" as any creation "scientists" I have ever met.
The theory of relativity has been proven with physical tests, as you say. Now, give me an honest answer to this: has the big bang theory been proven conclusively?
You are either deliberately ignoring what the facts are, or you are particularly stubborn when it comes to admitting you have no cae.
I GAVE you the most CONCLUSIVE test that PROVED the Big Bang theory - the general cosmic radiation temperature (this was the watershed moment in Astrophysics). This test (event) is on par with the most CONCLUSIVE tests on theory of relativity - 1922 solar eclipse that proved that theory of relativity is indeed a valid theory.
There are other tests since then that have solidified the theory relativity since that conclusive test, including the ratio of basic elements in the universe, distribution of matter in the universe, conclusive observation of expansion of universe.
As in every scientific theory, there are still open questions; such as why is the expansion accelerating? What was the world like within the very instance after Big Bang, etc. These are all questions that science is trying to answer. But the fact that universe expanded from a infinitesimal concentration of matter/energy is not in doubt - by ANY serious scientist.
If predicting AND measuring the general cosmic radiation is not a conclusive proof, then the fact that the Sun bended the light from stars behind it (which was what proved the theory of general relativity in 1922) is just another nice story - proving nothing.
You obviously think the theory of relativity is more valid than the theory of big bang. Why? they both went through the same scientific process. And they are both viewed with absolute certainty (as much as it can be with scientitst who are naturally skeptical - yes, even more than you). Why is one more valid then the other?
What part of "the most CONCLUSIVE evidence" do you not understand?
By following your illogical reasoning, I guess theory of relativity is "just a theory" with evidence that supports this theory like time dialation and warping of space time (both proven with physical tests, by the way) is not very impressive.
And I guess the fact that GPS systems in almost all new cars woudln't work correctly without applying the theory of relativity wouldn't fool a sharp tool like you...
Pathetic, end of story.
Do you even realize how stupid you sound? Did you EVER take a science course or did you grow up in some back water town where the word science is forbidden?
First a little science lesson. In the world of science there are Laws, Theories, and Conjectures. Laws only apply to fundamental rules of physics, like the laws of thermodynamics (conservation of energy, flow of entropy). Only special class of rules can be described as a natural law.
Almost everything else in science that is proven to be true is labeled as theory, evolution included. That is why you have theories like theory of gravity, theory of relativity, theory of quantum mechanics, theory of big bang, electro-magnetic theory (need I go on?).
All of these physical phenomena have been proven to be true (or do you believe that some little alien writes the letters on your monitor), and fruits of these theories are applied in everyday appliances like refrigerators, TV's, computers, etc. Just because they are "theories" does not equate them to guesses. These are thing that have been SCIENTIFICALLY proven (i.e. independently reproduced and results support each other).
Then you have conjectures. Which are no more than educated guesses. They have not been proven, and have not produced any predictions or theorems that is challengeable and reproducible.
Intelligent Design and every other wild ass ideas all fall into this area (don't worry, you are not alone. Even respected ideas like String Theory is really nothing more than a conjecture).
And sadly for you, yes, Big Bang used to be a conjecture, but it became a proven theory. The discovery of cosmic background radiation as predicted by the Big Bang theory was one of the watershed moment of the last century. And the discoverers of this important scientific proof earned Nobel Prize for it (http://www.bell-labs.com/user/apenzias/nobel.html ).
And countless findings since that discovery has conclusively proven the validity of Big Bang. There are many questions about Big Bang, but that does not make it any less of a scientific fact.
Pick up an encyclopedia or a book, read it every now and then. Get out of that cold, dark, cave that your mind is shackled to. Not all answers to life is in the bible...
Big Bang theory predicted 3' Kelvin background cosmic radiation. And what do you know, when they measured background radiation of the universe, it turned out to be 3' Kelvin.
That, my ignorant friend, is how a conjecture becomes a theory and how science works. Just because you call it a theory, does not make it a theory. In science, theory is something that is proven by the facts.
Come back to me Intelligent Design predict something and it is proven to be true.
Arguing that because something is complex it must have been created by "intelligent being" (i.e. God) is not an acceptable scientific argument and would disqualify him in "pursuite of knowledge using accepted scientific principle".
It is like saying "because I don't understand how rain forms, it must be God's tears" - no difference in fundamental logic.
Just pointing out weanknesses in evolution won't do it either because its strength so overwhelming (how it fits with almost every scientific field from Astronomy to Geology to Zoology) that minor discrepancies (if you could even call it that), does nothing to devalue it.
That my friend is how science works - truth prevails (after many years of trials and tribulations and proofs). Not by some wackos who submit conjectures (unproven) and call it a theory (proven).
Correction,
Your tax dollars have long been spent (this year's deficit: $455 billion). It's more like borrowing even more money from our money lenders (Japan and China).
The bill is not just to further punish currently outlawed activity, it is to criminalize what is a civil offense.
If you trade on-line and get caught, all you are going to lose is money (could be alot, but still just money), unless you are a large scale illegal distributor (with clear monetary gains).
This law make is possible now to JAIL people who are sharing on-line!!! That is not just bad, it is friggin' CRAZY!!!
I can't believe naive Californians are going to take it up in the a@# like this...
Slashdot Mirror
Iraq was a safe haven for terrorist organizations whose main goal is to kill Americans. Would you like to site the source for this idea of yours? It is a well known fact that Al Queda did not like the secular Iraqi government and had no real ties with Saddam. My source? Oh, just the 9/11 Commission Report...
He is the one who has mandated this schrade to be deployed before the end of the year. Would you hold a CEO responsible for marketing and selling a product that does not work even though he may not have personally developed it? Look, I think most people on this board would be fine with some small amount being spent on this Quixotic quest by "Hawks". What people object to is the all the lying ("this works") and the amount of money spent on something that ALL scientists agree is far from being useful.
Got some news for ya...
The WHOLE FREAKIN' MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM RELIES ON THE HONOR SYSTEM!!!
The Missil (non)Defense System relies on our enemies to use only long range missiles. It also relies on our enemies not to develop missiles that flies low. It also relies on our enemies honor system to make sure that they don't use decoys. It also requires our enemy to send one missile at time. It also relies on enemy to not knock out our silos first. It also relies on enemy not to bring a nuclear weapon in a briefcase. It also relies on...
Shall I roll the dice or you do you want to do the honor?
5 days each on a two week trip. Loved it. Best meal I had was the one I had in Rome (the name escapes me, though in was near Piaza della Republica). Fabulous five course meal. The fried zucchini flowers with Turbo was sublime. P.S. Probably the most disappointing culinary experience in London was the afternoon tea at the Ritz (not cheap). We were really looking forward to that one, but it ended up being mediocre and inferior to the afternoon tea we had at Empress Hotel in B.C. Canada.
As an American who has traveled around Europe, Brits' culinary reputation is well deserved.
Even the meals I had at "tourist rip-off joints" in Paris, Rome, and Florence were INFINITELY better than any food I had in London (sans Indian and Chinese places in London, which were fabulous).
Sorry to have to break it to you guys, but it is not just because France spreading false rumors (and you know how much Americans LOVE French...)
It CAN record HDTV stuff off DVB streams perfectly
You forgot a little fact... it CAN'T PLAY HDTV SIGNALS!!! What good is recording something if you cannot view it?
What channels are available UNENCRYPTED on Dish Network? Last time I checked, it was NOTHING (except DN commercials).
Let me get this straight...
It DOES NOT handle analog signals - No cable/OTA analog channels.
It DOES NOT handle HDTV signals.
AND it DOES NOT decrypt encrypted signals - No DirecTV, Dish, etc.
Okay, what is this software for??? Seems to me this is DOA for US.
From FindLaw.com...
The CTEA extended the term of protection by 20 years for works copyrighted after January 1, 1923. Works copyrighted by individuals since 1978 got "life plus 70" rather than the existing "life plus 50". Works made by or for corporations (referred to as "works made for hire") got 95 years. Works copyrighted before 1978 were shielded for 95 years, regardless of how they were produced.
Any other thought that need to be straightened out?
I was involved in producing one of the first classic arcade collection for PC.
It was a NIGHTMARE!!!
Since many of the titles we were interested were produced by defunct companies, it was impossible to track down proper copyright owners to license the game. We were able to finally track down copyright owners for the titles we really wanted, but some of the titles had to be abandoned because we could not verify who had the proper copyright.
Even with identified copyright holders we had problems with other people challenging their ownership. Very, very confusing.
Again, if a copyright is valuable enough, then the owner should protect it and license it accordingly. But there are numerous copyrights that are hopelessly lost or disputed (where no one can prove clear ownership) that should become public domain by default.
That would all depend on whether or not you or your company owned the copyright.
If your company owned the copyright, and that company ceases to exist, then now that copyright is in limbo - which is exactly what this lawsuit is trying to address.
If you owned the copyright and not the company, then nothing has happened to the copyright and you can sell your wares as before under any new arrangement.
Even if company goes bankrupt, its IP (copyright) can be sold off and the new buyer would own the copyright.
So your scenario is already covered. It makes no sense to protect abandoned copyrights. It makes about as much sense as protecting abandoned cars on the highway.
Sorry, dude. Microsoft has been on this path for more than 10 years.
In fact, they have a "advanced technology demonstration home" on campus that is COMPLETELY wired with integrated technology down to every appliance. And it is more than 6 years old.
If you are going to attack the man, at least attack him on stuff he deserves. Steve Jobs has never come up with an original idea of his own. He does an AMAZING job of developing and marketing ideas that other have overlooked (starting with PARC research) , but he never has been the original inventor.
I don't understand how this important research got lumped with bunch of useless crap...
This is a very important research showing how unreliable physical eye witnesses are. There are thousands and thousands of people who are incarcerated (or worse) based on nothing more than a testimony from an eyewitness.
This research combined with research done on false memory has clearly proven that an eye witness alone without corroborating evidence should not pass the hurdle of "without reasonable doubt".
How could something that could possibly save a falsely accuesed could be labeled IgNobel?
MOND is just another way to explain the current structure of the universe without resorting to dark matter and energy by introducing variation in fundamental constants (mainly, strength of gravity).
While it is a new way of looking at things, it is still very inconsistent with visible data (can't find the difference further back we look), and is entirely backward looking (no predictions that have been verified).
Scientifically speaking, it is not much more valid then ID.
Newtonian Dynamics still used today, because it is perfectly valid as long as things are not too big or fast (relativity starts dominating), or small (quantum mechanics take over). For most everyday use, ND is perfectly adaquate.
"What would prevent us from discarding General Relativity and building on (expanding) MOND?"
You should actually learn little more about things like MOND before spewing out statements like this.
Only thing that MOND would have any effect on relativity is the cosmological constant (which Einstein never liked anyway). And there are many ideas vying for the replacement, MOND included. However, in no way shape or form, would MOND replace or discard General Relativity.
There are two relativistic effects when it comes to satellite clocks; gravity - further you go into space, faster time goes (relative to earth), and speed - faster you go slower time flies (again relative to earth).
Initially when the GPS satellites were builts, many engineers did not believe the relativistic effects and they put two different timing methods on the satellites (one calculating relativity, one ignoring it).
Shortly after satellites went into the orbit, it was clear relativistic adjustments were needed.
I am sorry, that your theology is in conflict with the current understanding of our world. I don't think it has to be that way, but I know how fundamental our belief in God can be.
I just hope you can keep your good humor and enjoy your journey through lifetime of learning - as much as I enjoy my journey through discovering my spirituality.
The red shift of visible star lights first suggested that universe may be expanding. Since it was first discovered by Edwin Hubble in the beginning of the last century, finer and finer telescopes (inclding Hubble telescope) and measurements have conclusively proven that yes, indeed universe is expanding (in fact, it is accelerating - which is a puzzle).
When the scientists first learned of this red shift expansion, most thought it was just an error. But when observatories around the world came to the same conclusion, the scientist started thinking that if the universe is expanding (in all direction), if we go back in time, conversely, the universe must have started from a single point in space. But that could not be!!! Most scientists dismissed it as impossibility.
To prove whether or not Big Bang was true, scientists started creating models and proposed theorems and equations to describe the process. It was during this time that scientist figured if Big Bang did occur, at the very beginning, the universe must have been a very very hot place. The scientists figured out how hot it might have been when the microwaves first started forming in the universe. Based on that equation, they calculated how cool it must be now based on how much it has expanded (not unlike knowing how cool the boiling water is after sitting around for an hour).
When they computed all this, they all came up with a single number - 3 degrees Kelvin (3 degrees above absolute zero). And amazingly enough, a couple of scientists working at Bell-Labratory measured exactly that number doing something totally independent of the Big Bang hunt (and with that the Nobel Prize).
Why is this so significant? Because there is no other way to explain how that 3' radiation got there without the universe at one point being smaller than the size of a marble (because only if they are that small, can you generate the kind of unfathomable temperature required).
Thus, the Big Bang theory became the fundamental tenet of astrophysics.
Big Bang was a WONDROUS event, something miraculous. Science may know what happened during Big Bang, but science may never explain why it ever occurred at all. In fact, science will probably never explain EVERYTHING about thw world around us (they will certainly try though).
There is nothing that stops from people like you to accept that Big Bang happened and it was GOD who made it happen, that it was the touch of his hand that made the first matter explode into the universe that we see today.
What could be more faith affirming or spiritually beautiful then that?
The thing I like about the science most of all is learning about how AMAZING nature and universe is. To me, that makes me even more spiritual, not less.
Science is anti-religion only if you let it. If you let your mind open, science can be the most spiritually affirming tool you can have.
The choice is up to you.
Just because you cannot see, does not mean that it is not there. For the same reason, just because it cannot be replicated, that does not mean that it is not proven.
The structure of the atom and molecules were long proven before we were able to observe it. Much of sub-atomic structure is not viewable but based on indirect evidence, we know exactly what they are.
By your hopelessly limited view of science, anything that happens beyond our lifetime cannot be proven. That is just stupid.
Have you ever met Jesus? How do you know he even existed? Isn't Jesus and the whole religion around it just a "theory"? How do you know Georget Washington is a real person? Did you meet him as well? Since we cannot "prove" that they are real by meeting them and seeing them, it cannot be proven conclusively that they existed at all!!!
Of course, that is just silly. There are CONCLUSIVE evidence through out history that both Jesus and George Washington were both real people and they existed long before we were born.
Well, that is how we know Big Bang theory is real. The universe around us has telltale historic markers that point to its existence. It is consistent and it is as every bit as real as the portraits of George Washington.
I'm certainly not a creation scientist Don't sell yourself so short. You are every bit as obtuse and "scientifically-challenged" as any creation "scientists" I have ever met.
The theory of relativity has been proven with physical tests, as you say. Now, give me an honest answer to this: has the big bang theory been proven conclusively? You are either deliberately ignoring what the facts are, or you are particularly stubborn when it comes to admitting you have no cae. I GAVE you the most CONCLUSIVE test that PROVED the Big Bang theory - the general cosmic radiation temperature (this was the watershed moment in Astrophysics). This test (event) is on par with the most CONCLUSIVE tests on theory of relativity - 1922 solar eclipse that proved that theory of relativity is indeed a valid theory. There are other tests since then that have solidified the theory relativity since that conclusive test, including the ratio of basic elements in the universe, distribution of matter in the universe, conclusive observation of expansion of universe. As in every scientific theory, there are still open questions; such as why is the expansion accelerating? What was the world like within the very instance after Big Bang, etc. These are all questions that science is trying to answer. But the fact that universe expanded from a infinitesimal concentration of matter/energy is not in doubt - by ANY serious scientist. If predicting AND measuring the general cosmic radiation is not a conclusive proof, then the fact that the Sun bended the light from stars behind it (which was what proved the theory of general relativity in 1922) is just another nice story - proving nothing. You obviously think the theory of relativity is more valid than the theory of big bang. Why? they both went through the same scientific process. And they are both viewed with absolute certainty (as much as it can be with scientitst who are naturally skeptical - yes, even more than you). Why is one more valid then the other?
What part of "the most CONCLUSIVE evidence" do you not understand? By following your illogical reasoning, I guess theory of relativity is "just a theory" with evidence that supports this theory like time dialation and warping of space time (both proven with physical tests, by the way) is not very impressive. And I guess the fact that GPS systems in almost all new cars woudln't work correctly without applying the theory of relativity wouldn't fool a sharp tool like you... Pathetic, end of story.
Oh my Gawd...
l ).
Do you even realize how stupid you sound? Did you EVER take a science course or did you grow up in some back water town where the word science is forbidden?
First a little science lesson. In the world of science there are Laws, Theories, and Conjectures. Laws only apply to fundamental rules of physics, like the laws of thermodynamics (conservation of energy, flow of entropy). Only special class of rules can be described as a natural law.
Almost everything else in science that is proven to be true is labeled as theory, evolution included. That is why you have theories like theory of gravity, theory of relativity, theory of quantum mechanics, theory of big bang, electro-magnetic theory (need I go on?).
All of these physical phenomena have been proven to be true (or do you believe that some little alien writes the letters on your monitor), and fruits of these theories are applied in everyday appliances like refrigerators, TV's, computers, etc. Just because they are "theories" does not equate them to guesses. These are thing that have been SCIENTIFICALLY proven (i.e. independently reproduced and results support each other).
Then you have conjectures. Which are no more than educated guesses. They have not been proven, and have not produced any predictions or theorems that is challengeable and reproducible.
Intelligent Design and every other wild ass ideas all fall into this area (don't worry, you are not alone. Even respected ideas like String Theory is really nothing more than a conjecture).
And sadly for you, yes, Big Bang used to be a conjecture, but it became a proven theory. The discovery of cosmic background radiation as predicted by the Big Bang theory was one of the watershed moment of the last century. And the discoverers of this important scientific proof earned Nobel Prize for it (http://www.bell-labs.com/user/apenzias/nobel.htm
And countless findings since that discovery has conclusively proven the validity of Big Bang. There are many questions about Big Bang, but that does not make it any less of a scientific fact.
Pick up an encyclopedia or a book, read it every now and then. Get out of that cold, dark, cave that your mind is shackled to. Not all answers to life is in the bible...
Big Bang theory predicted 3' Kelvin background cosmic radiation. And what do you know, when they measured background radiation of the universe, it turned out to be 3' Kelvin. That, my ignorant friend, is how a conjecture becomes a theory and how science works. Just because you call it a theory, does not make it a theory. In science, theory is something that is proven by the facts. Come back to me Intelligent Design predict something and it is proven to be true.
Arguing that because something is complex it must have been created by "intelligent being" (i.e. God) is not an acceptable scientific argument and would disqualify him in "pursuite of knowledge using accepted scientific principle". It is like saying "because I don't understand how rain forms, it must be God's tears" - no difference in fundamental logic. Just pointing out weanknesses in evolution won't do it either because its strength so overwhelming (how it fits with almost every scientific field from Astronomy to Geology to Zoology) that minor discrepancies (if you could even call it that), does nothing to devalue it. That my friend is how science works - truth prevails (after many years of trials and tribulations and proofs). Not by some wackos who submit conjectures (unproven) and call it a theory (proven).
Correction, Your tax dollars have long been spent (this year's deficit: $455 billion). It's more like borrowing even more money from our money lenders (Japan and China).
If you trade on-line and get caught, all you are going to lose is money (could be alot, but still just money), unless you are a large scale illegal distributor (with clear monetary gains).
This law make is possible now to JAIL people who are sharing on-line!!! That is not just bad, it is friggin' CRAZY!!!
I can't believe naive Californians are going to take it up in the a@# like this...