DSL and Cable modem penetration are increasing dramatically, and all indications is that they will continue to do so - I don't see bandwidth being a long term problem at all.
Rubbish. There are plenty of people who cannot and will not be able to afford broadband. There are millions who have no net connection. There are billions round the world who would laugh in your face if you suggested they should get all their music off the net.
The 128-quality mp3 is pretty much tradable now. That's below CD quality, but most people don't care enough.
There are plenty of people here who whinge about 128 ACC not being good enough, so MP3 is hardly going to satisfy them. I certainly don't think going to a low quality lossy compression is an idea with any merit.
Secondly, I'd point to a company like Red Hat, that manages to stay in business offering a completely free product. How? Because people will pay for extra features, packaging, convenience of not downloading it, better sound quality, etc.
No-one is going to pay for a support contract for their music, so say goodbye to most of RedHat's income.
In most cases, this won't be enough to live on, but it'll be enough to buy decent equipment. Hell, I know people who have bought high quality equipment while they were in college and graduate school - if it's really what you want to focus on, you can find the money.
If it's not enough to live on, then you're going to need another job, which means less time, less freedom and less energy to work on that next track, practise your music or perform. And it also means you're probably going ot have to choose between a family and your music.
As for tours... if you want to do a grueling 2-weeker, most jobs will offer you that much vacation.
So when do you suggest a member of a band ever actually has a proper holiday?
Yeah, it's not a massive world tour,
Which kinda sucks since you're probably not going to break into the music scene in other countries in any sort of big way and a lot of people are going to miss out on your music.
but bands that can do massive world tours can probably survive, if not make a killing, on people who will buy their music on CD for the quality, who will buy swag, and with promotional and and sponsorship-related income.
You can't go on a tour unless somebody bankrolls it. You're not going to get people financing tours unless you've demonstrated that you can earn money with your music. You can't show that without successful tours (Catch-22) or selling albums. in the proposed world where music is free and available for download without penalty, how many people are going to pay for an album? Not enough.
The proposed business model sucks because it would decimate the music industry and completely localise markets, vastly restricting your choice. Much as I like U2, Ash, Van Morisson and Benzine Headset, I do not want to be restricted to Irish bands and artists.
Bandwidth tends to be localized. So are musicians. You can not go to your local bar and see my friend's band play any more than I can see your local musicians at my local pub
There are plenty of bands that aren't localised. And surely a system where music is available globally is better than a system where music is only available locally? What if you had to be in the north of England to hear the Beetles? Or near Dublin to hear U2? That would kinda suck. Massive chunks of my music collection would vanish if I had to be near the band to get their stuff.
With the advent of wireless, fat cheap bandwidth is set to become ubiquitous. Wireless PCI and laptop cards are now often cheaper than a 56K modem, and intel's initiative to embed the "gateway" right in the motherboard will drive that nail to the head.
That's like saying with the advent of Ethernet, fat cheap bandwidth is set to become ubiquitous. It's not true. You can have all the fancy WiFi stuff at home you want, but if the pipe to your ISP is only giving you 512kbps downstream, then it's not going to help. And ISPs have limits on the amount of bandwidth they have available or are willing to pay for. Downloading single AIFF-encoded album would take hours and the bandwidth consumed by everyone doing this for all their music purchases would massively impact the speed of the Internet in general, while pushing up the cost of connecting to the net because your ISP is having to fork out for more bandwidth.
If you're a student relying on a uni connection to the net, you'll have great difficulty getting music because universities won't want to pay for the bandwidth required to download albums.
And then there's the millions of people who don't have an Internet connection or are still on dialup. It's a small minority of people in the world who have access to broadband.
This means neighborhoods now can enjoy tens of megabits in a peering environment. The conneciton further out may be substantially lessened, but "close to home" file sharing networks can hav real power. This means it's even easier for my friend to hype his band, because those people who might otherwise never go to the local pub can now hear him play entirely at their convenience.
While the rest of the world loses out because most of them can't access the music and the band can't afford to go on tour.
Harder for bands to get quality equipment? dude.. I just put together a machine with six channel audio and a 1.6GHz CPU and 7200RPM HD that could easily handle two dozen tracks and it cost the end user all of $320.00! Thirty years ago you could barely find a quality cassette deck for that, and today that one box can be an entire fucking studio and media distribution point and CD production facility.
'Dude' a band doesn't make music on a computer, it make sit on drums, guitars, keyboards, pianos, saxophones, etc. That's where the big money is going to be. Same goes for a decent recording studio where you can make album quality tracks.
The fact is we no longer need Hollywood, although Hollywood needs us. Unfortunately, too many people on both sides of the fence have yet to realize this.
The fact is that this is music we're talking about, not movies and the idea of us not needing film studios to make most of our movies is also ridiculous. You haven't thought this through properly.
MP3 is lossy compression so you're losing data there, which some people are going to be able to notice and will cause problems if you re-encode at a lower bitrate compared to encoding to that lower bitrate from a superior source.
Did copyright exist when they were making music? Yes.
Did people pay for albums when they were making music? Yes.
Do thos epeople work other jobs while they make music? No, they don't.
You think it's just people who after the money that we'd lose? If there was no money in albums, they wouldn't be produced, so unless you can find a track on p2p or live near enough to a concert venue, you're never going to hear a lot of bands. Given the current bandwidth limitations of the net, you're not going to be able to download CD quality music easily. Quite frankly, I like being able to go out and by a physical CD with high quality music on it.
Oh and without being able to wrk full time on music, you're going to see a lot less of it and the quality is likely to suffer.It'll be harder for bands to get quality equipment. And as for going on big tours, well how are you going to get the time off work for that?
In that case, someone's freedom is being unreasonably restricted. In this case, no-one's is. You are free to buy an album. You just aren't free to 'buy' it at the price you chose. That's not unreasonable. You don't need music. You have no right to music. It's a luxury that you should have to pay for if people want to charge for it.
So even if the TCO is mostly developing costs; if the system is operational more than three years, the cost of MS.NET will sooner or later exceed the cost of Linux/Sun-J2EE.
Where did you get that from? The quotes you produced suggest that over time, the advantage for.NET will actually increase. Nowhere does it say that eventually the Linux/Sun-J2EE TCO will fall below that of.NET.
Looks to me like they're levelling off to a stable level. Of course sales were going to be much higher at the start. Everyone, Apple included, will have been expecting this. From the looks of things, it has levelled off around the 75,000 per whatever your rate is. If you had filled in the numbers from June to September, rather than leaving a curiously large gap, I'm sure that would show through even more clearly.
It apparently traces back to old common law among the Germanic tribes, where if someone killed your brother you'd try to kill them or one of their kin under the old and probabably universal rule of talion ("an eye for an eye")
Just to clarify, "an eye for an eye," was actually introduced to reduce revenge attacks. It was a concept of limitation. The Punishment should be proportional to the crime, not in excess of it.
Most laptop users/buyers aren't purchasing for schools. And the dame thing could be said of any laptop seeing as no single laptop has a majority marketshare. iBooks are sturdy, easy to use, easy to maintain, relatively immune to virii, have a low power requirement (electricity bills start to mount up once you've got a few dozen computers sitting round) and are reasonably cheap.
Maybe it's you that should STFU. Nobody wanted BeOS, that's why they crumbled. You said it yourself, they couldn't even give it away for free. If you make a product that you can't even give away for free, it friggin' sucks bad.
Yeah, the situation did suck, but not because of Be. Read the various articles above yours. Be couldn't give it away for free because Microsoft wouldn't let them. PC manufacturers were forbidden to have another OS visibly installed, on pain of major financial hurt re: Windows licensing.
The link doesn't give a source for the claim. There are a few numbers around that give share of sales, but IIRC they don't account for all sales made and of course give no indication of the installed user base, which is more relevant than the sales share. Could be anywhere between 3% and 10% for Apple.
The author of that article doesn't seem to be too bright either since he thinks initial purchase cost = TCO.
b) no EV-Edit/.rsrc types for the Nova pilots! After playing the game a few times, it became repetitive; I got most of my play time out of the game by modifying it... making my own ships, planets, weapons, and outfits. the customizability of EV was endless and made the game fun for a long time... The ported versions save Nova-type pilot files which have to editing tools yet.
Are you complaining about lack of editting tools for the data files, or for the pilots? Nova is just as customisable as EV Classic, if not more so. Just use ResEdit, MissionComputer, etc if you want to change ships, planets, outfits etc. Check the addons page on the Ambrosia site in fact for editors and plugins.
It's debatable if a majority of North Americans believe in prayer
The majority of them claim to be Christian or believe in some sort of God..
but it's certainly not true that a majority or even a significant minority believe that prayer is more effective than medical treatment.
That was never my claim. My point is that most of them think that prayer is to some extent effective and that there is someone up there who might be listening. To say that it definitely doesn't work and people who put their trust in prayer should be held accountable as negligent under the law would be to force your opinion on the majority, which is unacceptable in a democracy.
Let's say it's my religious belief (prove otherwise) that god wants me to make this right (by taking your things for myself)... Ditto if the example was that I thought someone needed to be killed. Clearly our laws don't allow for this, no matter how much I believe I'm in the right.
However, laws are formed by the majority and the majority feel that what you are (hypothetically) doing is wrong, therefore in a democracy, it be appropriate for your actions to be against the law. What we're really talking about is individual freedom vs. protection of other people's individual freedom. Should someone be allowed to pray in their house and not seek attention if they are ill? Yes, they are not forcing their belief on anyone else. What if their child is ill however? That's where the issue gets difficult because the child is part of their family and will have been brought up with those beliefs. Do you decide you know better and pull the child out, thereby possibly going against its wishes and certainly overruling the freedom of religion for the family, but possibly saving the child's life in the process?
Put yourself in the position of a parent who believes what they believe and ask whether taking the child away seems right. I imagine what it would be like if I had a responsibility to send children to boarding school, where they would never hear about God, except in terms of ridicule and I would only be able to see them for a weekend every couple of months. I would feel obliged to keep them at home and educate them in some other way, allowing them the opportunity to hear about God, breaking the law and giving my children an undoubtedly inferior education, but letting them know about God, which I deem more important. Perhaps in your case, the situation would be the other way round. You would be acting as you feel a responsible parent should act. They are acting as they feel a responsible parent should act. Should they therefore be charged with something as extreme as murder? There is no hate or malice in what they do. No intention for anyone to die. Rather, it is done with the best of intentions. The very worst I can imagine them being charged with is manslaughter, but that seems far too extreme to me. Do you understand why.
Seeing as I'm not willing to hold more stock in religious beliefs that other beliefs I don't think actions based on religious beliefs deserve special protection. It would be unfair if you could claim to be religious and your ideas would be protected but I'm an athiest so the same idea when I have it wouldn't be protected.
But they would be. Let's say that it was deemed necessary that you bring your child up with a good sense of morals and society as a whole decides that means going to church every week. As an atheist, you want nothing to do with it and refuse to go, instead discussing morality at home with your child. In your mind, you are doing what is best for your child and expressing your right to freedom of religion. If your child was taken away and you were charged with abuse, you would see that as unjust.
Actions based on religious belief or lack thereof already have special protection. I could not be forced to sit an exam on a Sund
Sure, a lot of people would disagree but I challenge them to provide evidence to support their views. Suggesting that I'm wrong simply because a lot of people do not agree with me is the fallacy of the majority.
And enforcing the law on the assumption that someone's beliefs are wrong, particularly in a democracy where the majority believe in prayer of some kind, would be a 'tyranny of the minority'.
As for their guilt, the law says that it is a crime to watch someone die and not give them reasonable aid. This can pretty obviously be seen to cover not taking your children to the hospital.
The seperation of church and state means that the government won't tell you which religion you may belong to, and that laws that discriminate against a specific religion.
Note that this does not mean the law will let religious people do whatever they claim their religion requires. If your religion requires killing non-believers you'll still be charged with murder for doing so. The key here is that people's beliefs aren't being legislated, but their actions are
But actions are motivated by belief. They believe that they are rendering useful aid to the child by praying. To charge them with murder would therefore be putting their beliefs on trial. I'm not debating protecting the children here, as that is another matter entirely, but rather what kind of charges (if any) should be brought against the parents. Sorry, I probably should have made that clearer last time.
Mozilla has a composition component, too. If you're writing code, why not use a program that's designed for it, anyway? One app for one job.
Mozilla is bulky and slow and a full web page designer is overkill sometimes. If all I want to do is change a link or update some text, which makes up the majority of what I've needed to do the last wee while, then OmniWeb is perfect for the job.
Sorry, I should have assumed you'd done no research into other browsers before declaring all the things I need to pay for in a browser
When did I declare you needed to pay for all these things? Perhaps you should check the author of comments. Then you'll see that the original list of 17 was not by me. I merely disagreed (with good reason) with some of your points. Please stop making assumptions before you even think about starting them.
Little, if anything, OW does can't be had by other, less costly or free, and at least as easy to use programs.
There are things it does better and the point is that it can do all of them - you don't need a dozen different programs. And in my experience, the UI is considerably better than most apps. Though that is of course a matter of opinion.
TextEdit isn't overkill. It's fast and small. BBEdit isn't really overkill if you're just typing, and if you suddenly need to add a line break or closing P to the end of a line, it takes two seconds.
Let's say you're only typing one or two sentences - does it really make sense to switch to another app? Especially just to stick a line break in?
Hydra is relevant because it does syntax highlighting just like OW does. It does everything OW does, I think.
But then you need to open another program. With OmniWeb, you don't have to. Al the functionality is already there. If a browser will let you look at source code, it should do it well and allow you to save your changes. That's the great thing about OmniWeb. Once again, another app is overkill sometimes.
Mozilla can block banner ads with a right-click, if you're not into/etc/hosts modification.
So wouldn't it have been a good idea to mention it instead?
I have not actually seen the nice requests for inserting disks that AmigaOS has
What do you mean? When are these requests supposed to occur?
However it might be, that if the Mac had a button on the drive to activate the software eject feature, and if I had the chance to use it a litle more, I might have ended up liking it as much as the AmigaOS implementation.
You might like it now:^) Macs have had eject buttons for years. They're on every keyboard as well at the moment.
I have also heard that Mac would have trouble shutting down, if a previously seen floppy was no longer in the drive.
You mean if a floppy that was put away, but not ejected was still on the desktop? Well, you can't just put them away now, so that potential problem has gone and it was easily overcome by simply telling the ghosted out mount to eject. A second's work.
AmigaOS is a system you can just turn out without having to shut down first. Just ensure no process is accessing your media as you turn off the power.
To be fair now, that was at least a decade ago when computers were a lot simpler and there weren't things like hard drives to worry about. That was more a function of computer complexity than OS code.
Actually, it's natural selection which has been overwhelming proved. It's the addition of genetic material to the gene-pool which is an iffy thing. Nobody disagrees that it can be lost. The media's popularisation of the term 'evolution' when 'natural selection' is actually the correct one is partly to blame for this whole misconception.
There are plenty of people who would disagree with that.
Thus, doing nothing for your child but praying is the same as doing nothing for your child.
If that was law, then the law would be taking sounds on the issue of religion. IIRC, there's supposed to be separation of church and state, so surely the law has no business in saying whether or not prayer is ineffective? To do so would be to legislate against a massive block of people, based on their religious beliefs.
Note: I think what those people did with their kids is wrong, but they are hardly murderers.
Slashdot Mirror
Rubbish. There are plenty of people who cannot and will not be able to afford broadband. There are millions who have no net connection. There are billions round the world who would laugh in your face if you suggested they should get all their music off the net.
There are plenty of people here who whinge about 128 ACC not being good enough, so MP3 is hardly going to satisfy them. I certainly don't think going to a low quality lossy compression is an idea with any merit.
No-one is going to pay for a support contract for their music, so say goodbye to most of RedHat's income.
If it's not enough to live on, then you're going to need another job, which means less time, less freedom and less energy to work on that next track, practise your music or perform. And it also means you're probably going ot have to choose between a family and your music.
So when do you suggest a member of a band ever actually has a proper holiday?
Which kinda sucks since you're probably not going to break into the music scene in other countries in any sort of big way and a lot of people are going to miss out on your music.
You can't go on a tour unless somebody bankrolls it. You're not going to get people financing tours unless you've demonstrated that you can earn money with your music. You can't show that without successful tours (Catch-22) or selling albums. in the proposed world where music is free and available for download without penalty, how many people are going to pay for an album? Not enough.
The proposed business model sucks because it would decimate the music industry and completely localise markets, vastly restricting your choice. Much as I like U2, Ash, Van Morisson and Benzine Headset, I do not want to be restricted to Irish bands and artists.
There are plenty of bands that aren't localised. And surely a system where music is available globally is better than a system where music is only available locally? What if you had to be in the north of England to hear the Beetles? Or near Dublin to hear U2? That would kinda suck. Massive chunks of my music collection would vanish if I had to be near the band to get their stuff.
That's like saying with the advent of Ethernet, fat cheap bandwidth is set to become ubiquitous. It's not true. You can have all the fancy WiFi stuff at home you want, but if the pipe to your ISP is only giving you 512kbps downstream, then it's not going to help. And ISPs have limits on the amount of bandwidth they have available or are willing to pay for. Downloading single AIFF-encoded album would take hours and the bandwidth consumed by everyone doing this for all their music purchases would massively impact the speed of the Internet in general, while pushing up the cost of connecting to the net because your ISP is having to fork out for more bandwidth.
If you're a student relying on a uni connection to the net, you'll have great difficulty getting music because universities won't want to pay for the bandwidth required to download albums.
And then there's the millions of people who don't have an Internet connection or are still on dialup. It's a small minority of people in the world who have access to broadband .
While the rest of the world loses out because most of them can't access the music and the band can't afford to go on tour.
'Dude' a band doesn't make music on a computer, it make sit on drums, guitars, keyboards, pianos, saxophones, etc. That's where the big money is going to be. Same goes for a decent recording studio where you can make album quality tracks.
The fact is that this is music we're talking about, not movies and the idea of us not needing film studios to make most of our movies is also ridiculous. You haven't thought this through properly.
MP3 is lossy compression so you're losing data there, which some people are going to be able to notice and will cause problems if you re-encode at a lower bitrate compared to encoding to that lower bitrate from a superior source.
Did copyright exist when they were making music? Yes.
Did people pay for albums when they were making music? Yes.
Do thos epeople work other jobs while they make music? No, they don't.
Is your reply therefore relevant? No.
You think it's just people who after the money that we'd lose? If there was no money in albums, they wouldn't be produced, so unless you can find a track on p2p or live near enough to a concert venue, you're never going to hear a lot of bands. Given the current bandwidth limitations of the net, you're not going to be able to download CD quality music easily. Quite frankly, I like being able to go out and by a physical CD with high quality music on it. Oh and without being able to wrk full time on music, you're going to see a lot less of it and the quality is likely to suffer.It'll be harder for bands to get quality equipment. And as for going on big tours, well how are you going to get the time off work for that?
In that case, someone's freedom is being unreasonably restricted. In this case, no-one's is. You are free to buy an album. You just aren't free to 'buy' it at the price you chose. That's not unreasonable. You don't need music. You have no right to music. It's a luxury that you should have to pay for if people want to charge for it.
Where did you get that from? The quotes you produced suggest that over time, the advantage for .NET will actually increase. Nowhere does it say that eventually the Linux/Sun-J2EE TCO will fall below that of .NET.
Looks to me like they're levelling off to a stable level. Of course sales were going to be much higher at the start. Everyone, Apple included, will have been expecting this. From the looks of things, it has levelled off around the 75,000 per whatever your rate is. If you had filled in the numbers from June to September, rather than leaving a curiously large gap, I'm sure that would show through even more clearly.
There is DRM and you can't trade iTMS files. Hence people trying to grab the raw audio output and trade that. There's no need to lie to support Apple.
Just to clarify, "an eye for an eye," was actually introduced to reduce revenge attacks. It was a concept of limitation. The Punishment should be proportional to the crime, not in excess of it.
Most laptop users/buyers aren't purchasing for schools. And the dame thing could be said of any laptop seeing as no single laptop has a majority marketshare. iBooks are sturdy, easy to use, easy to maintain, relatively immune to virii, have a low power requirement (electricity bills start to mount up once you've got a few dozen computers sitting round) and are reasonably cheap.
Yeah, the situation did suck, but not because of Be. Read the various articles above yours. Be couldn't give it away for free because Microsoft wouldn't let them. PC manufacturers were forbidden to have another OS visibly installed, on pain of major financial hurt re: Windows licensing.
The link doesn't give a source for the claim. There are a few numbers around that give share of sales, but IIRC they don't account for all sales made and of course give no indication of the installed user base, which is more relevant than the sales share. Could be anywhere between 3% and 10% for Apple.
The author of that article doesn't seem to be too bright either since he thinks initial purchase cost = TCO.
U.S. law isn't deciding what services Indians may receive; it is deciding what services a U.S. company can provide. Very significant difference.
I don't have the developer tools, but I do have emacs installed, ergo you are wrong.
Are you complaining about lack of editting tools for the data files, or for the pilots? Nova is just as customisable as EV Classic, if not more so. Just use ResEdit, MissionComputer, etc if you want to change ships, planets, outfits etc. Check the addons page on the Ambrosia site in fact for editors and plugins.
The majority of them claim to be Christian or believe in some sort of God..
That was never my claim. My point is that most of them think that prayer is to some extent effective and that there is someone up there who might be listening. To say that it definitely doesn't work and people who put their trust in prayer should be held accountable as negligent under the law would be to force your opinion on the majority, which is unacceptable in a democracy.
However, laws are formed by the majority and the majority feel that what you are (hypothetically) doing is wrong, therefore in a democracy, it be appropriate for your actions to be against the law. What we're really talking about is individual freedom vs. protection of other people's individual freedom. Should someone be allowed to pray in their house and not seek attention if they are ill? Yes, they are not forcing their belief on anyone else. What if their child is ill however? That's where the issue gets difficult because the child is part of their family and will have been brought up with those beliefs. Do you decide you know better and pull the child out, thereby possibly going against its wishes and certainly overruling the freedom of religion for the family, but possibly saving the child's life in the process?
Put yourself in the position of a parent who believes what they believe and ask whether taking the child away seems right. I imagine what it would be like if I had a responsibility to send children to boarding school, where they would never hear about God, except in terms of ridicule and I would only be able to see them for a weekend every couple of months. I would feel obliged to keep them at home and educate them in some other way, allowing them the opportunity to hear about God, breaking the law and giving my children an undoubtedly inferior education, but letting them know about God, which I deem more important. Perhaps in your case, the situation would be the other way round. You would be acting as you feel a responsible parent should act. They are acting as they feel a responsible parent should act. Should they therefore be charged with something as extreme as murder? There is no hate or malice in what they do. No intention for anyone to die. Rather, it is done with the best of intentions. The very worst I can imagine them being charged with is manslaughter, but that seems far too extreme to me. Do you understand why.
But they would be. Let's say that it was deemed necessary that you bring your child up with a good sense of morals and society as a whole decides that means going to church every week. As an atheist, you want nothing to do with it and refuse to go, instead discussing morality at home with your child. In your mind, you are doing what is best for your child and expressing your right to freedom of religion. If your child was taken away and you were charged with abuse, you would see that as unjust.
Actions based on religious belief or lack thereof already have special protection. I could not be forced to sit an exam on a Sund
And enforcing the law on the assumption that someone's beliefs are wrong, particularly in a democracy where the majority believe in prayer of some kind, would be a 'tyranny of the minority'.
But actions are motivated by belief. They believe that they are rendering useful aid to the child by praying. To charge them with murder would therefore be putting their beliefs on trial. I'm not debating protecting the children here, as that is another matter entirely, but rather what kind of charges (if any) should be brought against the parents. Sorry, I probably should have made that clearer last time.
Mozilla is bulky and slow and a full web page designer is overkill sometimes. If all I want to do is change a link or update some text, which makes up the majority of what I've needed to do the last wee while, then OmniWeb is perfect for the job.
When did I declare you needed to pay for all these things? Perhaps you should check the author of comments. Then you'll see that the original list of 17 was not by me. I merely disagreed (with good reason) with some of your points. Please stop making assumptions before you even think about starting them.
There are things it does better and the point is that it can do all of them - you don't need a dozen different programs. And in my experience, the UI is considerably better than most apps. Though that is of course a matter of opinion.
Ah, the auto-complete uses the history as well, so I assumed that was what he meant. What did he mean then?
and in the future, please try to be a little less condescending.
Let's say you're only typing one or two sentences - does it really make sense to switch to another app? Especially just to stick a line break in?
But then you need to open another program. With OmniWeb, you don't have to. Al the functionality is already there. If a browser will let you look at source code, it should do it well and allow you to save your changes. That's the great thing about OmniWeb. Once again, another app is overkill sometimes.
So wouldn't it have been a good idea to mention it instead?
In that case, I stand corrected.
What do you mean? When are these requests supposed to occur?
You might like it now :^) Macs have had eject buttons for years. They're on every keyboard as well at the moment.
You mean if a floppy that was put away, but not ejected was still on the desktop? Well, you can't just put them away now, so that potential problem has gone and it was easily overcome by simply telling the ghosted out mount to eject. A second's work.
To be fair now, that was at least a decade ago when computers were a lot simpler and there weren't things like hard drives to worry about. That was more a function of computer complexity than OS code.
Actually, it's natural selection which has been overwhelming proved. It's the addition of genetic material to the gene-pool which is an iffy thing. Nobody disagrees that it can be lost. The media's popularisation of the term 'evolution' when 'natural selection' is actually the correct one is partly to blame for this whole misconception.
There are plenty of people who would disagree with that.
If that was law, then the law would be taking sounds on the issue of religion. IIRC, there's supposed to be separation of church and state, so surely the law has no business in saying whether or not prayer is ineffective? To do so would be to legislate against a massive block of people, based on their religious beliefs. Note: I think what those people did with their kids is wrong, but they are hardly murderers.