Wrong. There are several cases recently where the first amendment and religious freedom was ignored and state protections of gays were upheld. As sad as it sounds, this law is meant to avoid that.
Its more than just freedom of association. In many respects, it is freedom of religion too which is supposed to be protected from government interference due to the bar of the first anendment. You don't have to patronize them, but the government should be barred from making themviolate their religious beliefs just like the government is barred from telling CNN it cannot run a story about the president comming in last when people picked their favorite president and names from movies and tv show presidents were listed.
And before anyone chimes in with how it doesn't apply to business, any reading like that would also mean free press and free spech in the first amendment would not apy to businesses either. We already know that is not the case so its a dead argument.
You forgot an important thing. If the airfair covered ghe cost of security, i would only be paying for it when i used it. I would also have the option of not paying which would also decrease the costs by not molesting me and grandma.
I keep seeing people say that and i have to wonder, if they did such a great job, why do they need to fix it. Its like health care and evil HMOs. The government pushed them to drop the cost of Medicare then had to fix that too.
You may not like what was said, but that just means reality sucks.
There been reports of them killing people when they got the wrong address too. Nothing has happened that I know of about this either so I am not too confident anything would be making them think twice on a tip.
What I am confused about is why isn't universal getting the same cut for paid or free streaming? Or if they are, why the fuck do they care who is paying the bill. Free streaming should have adds involved and those adds should pay the same cut to universal as the paid streaming does. Or am I missing something here?
It seems to me that if Universal doesn't like the free streaming, they likely wouldn't like the paid streaming either. Maybe it's the premium version of spotify that allows you to save songs and play lists to your devices to offline listening they have a problem with. But then again, all the got to do is price it correctly and make the same cash for essentially renting music to idiots with too much money.
There likely aren't enough people capable of participating in a plan around stopping paying taxes. Most everyone has their taxes deducted from their pay before they even receive it. I think the income tax system was set up purposely for this effect.
In general, in morality and aesthetics we are not asked to believe against the evidence and reasoning, and I consider religions that want people to believe against the evidence to be anti-scientific and bad.
No one said you have to go against the evidence to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. I laid out a perfectly easy to understand explanation of how they both could exist- the creation made it look that way. In fact, anything you find in nature would be created to look that way by the creation (or an antagonist like Satan) to anyone who believes in creation. In that environment, the earth and universe appearing to be billions of years old or old would be intentional, the claim it was created that was is just not scientific.
In your example, either you intend to think or do something on a belief that's against the evidence, or you are asking a meaningless question.
Here is your problem. you simply are not paying attention to what was said. The evidence can exist, be completely weighed, just valued differently. It can be the product of the creation just as easily as independent of the creation and science does not and never has showed there can be only one way. It only purports to show the scientific or natural way which is devoid of unscientific claims.
Now I am not asking any questions, I am saying as a statement of fact that science does not address unscientific explanations and unscientific explanations are unscientific not anti science and Unscientific explanations can completely encompass scientific explanations along with it. But it simple is not anti science, it is unscientific.
The second is anti-scientific in that it's a waste of time. It's anti-everything to entertain such a view as anything other than an intellectual curiosity.
what a load of manure. Philosophy exists on many different levels and makes many different claims that are not anti science- just not scientific.
You really do have a problem with this "with us or against us" mentality. Science does not operate that way and the problem is you, not science itself. unscientific does not mean anti science. It never has and never will.
Most of the boards I am familiar with wouldn't allow a full boot if the jumper was enabled to flash. The nice thing was a recovery option where you could rename a bios extension, and it would load it automatically from the FDD. But as far as I know, it would stop the boot process if you left either setting jumped.
Governments create their own laws and rules on enforcing those laws. of course it can be illegal with them doing it specifically.
Try it on your own though, go to a bar and try to talk the people with short haircuts into killing someone for you. I will wait the several years it will likely take for you to tell me how it worked out.
No, I'm just wondering why you have this bizarre viewpoint.
Evidently, you do not understand the viewpoint or for some deep seeded reason cannot allow it to be understood.
The evidence that the Sun came up yesterday is stronger than that it will come up tomorrow. If there is no evidence that the Sun came up yesterday, science simply doesn't work. A scientist looks at experiments in his or her field - and suddenly realizes he or she has no evidence that they ever happened.
Here is the problem, science cannot be used to rule out a non scientific argument. All it can do it present an argument that does not need to be unscientific. Mixing yellow and blue together to make green is scientific, some supernatural being willing something to be the color green is not. All science can say is that there is a natural reason why it is green, not that no supernatural being was involved. In short, science does not disprove religion or religious claims, it can only show they are not needed. The idea that the world is less than 10,000 years old is likely wrong, but science does nothing to prove it is wrong, only that it appears much older.
There is no evidence for the creation of the Universe. There is evidence that the Universe evolved over time. Therefore, believing in any creation significantly after the big bang is believing against the evidence, and is anti-scientific.
FFS, do you even understand what an unscientific argument is? There are parts of life that have nothing to do with science. That does not make it anti science, it only makes it unscientific. Science is not, I REPEAT- NOT a with us or against us field of study.
Maybe I should just allow some other people to explain this to you. It's such a simple concept yet I am failing in getting you to understand it. This is geared more to children than adults, maybe you should start from the beginning and go through the entire thing. It seems you have missed a few things throughout the years.
I agree that feminist have went beyond equality into some I'm special silly reality but this simply is not part of it.
Someone saying nice legs, whistling, and crap is something that should be blown off. However, that object of the cat call should have the ability to retreat if they are not comfortable. Because these apps shared personal information with specific business transactions, that personal information should not be used to remove portions of that retreat. A cab driver giving a wolf whistle is one thing, borderline stalking by repeatedly communicating the same but through other avenues only possible because of that business transaction is completely another.
Look at it this way, if your mom, sister, girlfriend, you neighbor or even yourself dressed as prudish as you think women should, acted like you think they should, and her bank keeps calling her to say he wishes he was her undergarment or messages her to talk about his sexual quirks and keeps asking to meet up- would you think it was appropriate? I would hope not and I would hope you would expect it to stop. Now if the same was walking down the street and people said the same, it would be different if it ended when they walked away.
lol.. What an idiot. Whether a woman looks like a whore or not does not give anyone the right to violate her just as it doesn't give anyone the right to kick your ass- even though we might think you deserve it. When she says bugger off creep, you need to move on.
Rape statistics have little to do with it. For one, a lot of the rapes were unreported, for two, there was a level of social justice the simply is not tolerated today so rapists don't really have to worry about being hunted down a killed by her kin, three, in the 50s and 60s we institutionalize mentally ill people a lot earlier and a lot longer on a lot less grounds, and finally, and finally, we changed the laws on what was rape in the 60's including the reporting for record keeping to include more acts and again later in the 70s and 80s to include yet more activities.
If you look at the statistics which only include what was reported, you will see a jump in all violent, property, rape, robbery, assault, burglary and, motor vehicle theft crimes too. It seems the murder and larceny rates stayed about the same. Is that all because of how a woman started dressing or could there be other issues involved?
but hey, this has nothing to do with rapes as near as I can tell. None of the articles listed mention it. It is literally as I said, professional disclosure of personal information being used for non professional uses and behavior that would get most people fired from their jobs.
This isn't about big girl panties or sucking it. It's about a transaction and the details of which being used for nonprofessional uses.
It's like you getting a phone and then all the sudden getting obscene and harassing phone calls from the phone company itself and it's employees stalking you. Anyone should enjoy the right to not be pestered by indecent calls or texts just because they did business with someone.
Imagine for a minute what it would take to make a world wide commitment to shut down 100% of all fossil fuel power within 30 years. A few small measures aren't going to do it, it will have to become priority one, and not just in the US or Europe, but worldwide.
That's how you know there isn't really a problem. In all the political solutions offered to date, not one of them has actually created a task force devoted specifically to developing technology to make that possible. Instead, they go with the concept of distribution of wealth under the guise that someone will eventually get upset with paying more and eventually find something cleaner and more viable than existing technology. Hell, Kyoto was that way, of the 157 or so countries that signed it (not necessarily ratifying it), only 37 had limits the had to reduce to (the developed world), 14 of the annex 1 countries were considered economies in transition and got future limits along with commitments of aid in monetary and technological support from the developed countries. The annex 2 countries had no limits but agreed to think about it. The benefit for them was that the first world countries would invest in them by off shoring their production needs which is why China for instance, has seen a 10 fold increase in carbon emissions per capita and India has seen similar rises. Most of Europe only met or came close to meeting their commitments due this this increased importation of goods and a global recession. Germany, the darling of the green movement got great benefits from the reunification of East Germany and they could get rid of redundant system while replacing them with more efficient systems but now they seem to be increasing their Carbon output instead of further decreasing. Back in the late 1980s and 1990s there was a political movement to forgive the third world debt incurred by the oil embargo of the 1970s and one of their goals was to either erase the debt completely or extend development and trade into these countries making it easier for them to repay it. This disappeared with the Kyoto accords. One of them I remember was Jubilee2000 and they specifically tied environmental issues into their campaigns and pushed for ratification of the Kyoto protocols before they split into different groups and almost disappeared.
Climate change is real, it might be a problem, but it doesn't appear like anyone wanting to do something about it thinks so more than lip service in order to get their other goals implanted. Look at the space race, we didn't leave it up to the private sector to put a man on the moon even though it was more or less showcasing out technological superiority. We wanted something done, we got something done. Now, do we want something done with global warming? If we did, there would be an international organization or at least a government organizations, devoted to developing technology that could be cost competitive, clean, reliable, and safe to phase out carbon emissions and it would offer this technology to anyone wanting to use it. In 2005, the world IEA member countries spent 9586 million dollars in developing energy. That's over 9.5 trillion dollars in one year. For renewables, they spent 1113 million or 1.1 trillion dollars in one year. How much money would it take to have a lab with a couple dozen or more scientists working to find clean, safe, reliable and cost effective ways- strategies- to meet those needs and tackle the problem of climate change they claim is there?
I'm sorry, but nobody seems serious enough to care about it and we shouldn't either. At least not until the solutions become about finding ways to mitigate it, about finding ways to make this cost effective and possible including sequestration as well as other sources of energy instead of being about ways to tax more and spend more and control over people's lives.
I'm thinking that the police department thought because facebook was involves, if they screwed up and the guy offed himself, they would famously look bad. Someone was just trying to cover their ass and put the hold on him due to the potential publicity blowback.
We have to remember that all physical access is not equal. Certainly if you had uncontrolled, unmonitored access it doesn't matter. But if your access is limited to 9-5 or whatever and people are always in the room when you are, a magnet is more viable then cracking the case open for stealth concerns.
Bur you are probably correct for the majoriy of situations.
Years ago, this was a common mistake by people trying to touch type to fast for their skill level that actually became sort of a fad when talking about computers. Your boxen or my boxen actually refered to our computer hardware. Its also the reason we have lulz insted of lols.its now considered plural for lol but it was really just people trying to keep up with chat in busy chat rooms- where the originsl shorthand started before texting.
Wouldn't it just be easier to have a dip switch and require cracking the case open to flash the bios? At least then, a switch can detect the case opening and send a signal to something or tick a counter that can be checked every once in a while easily.
A magnet would likely not provide the same level of obviousness. For instance, would you be noticed if you opened the case more easily than if you put a magnet on the side of the case? I know that as a kid, i was able to cut a small square of fridge magnet and combine it with a broken rare earth magnet and place on top of the reed switch for our security alarm so i could sneak out and back in without tripping our alarm system or having the record of my code being entered. Of course i had the benifit of being able to experiment by looking at the alarm pannel until the door read closed while it was open and testing it. But i do not think someone smarter than me with physical access couldn't do something similar with other tools availible. But magnets are common in the office (paperclip holders, speakers, phone parts) and not too dificult to conceal.
I was thinking about condensation dripping and possibly breaking waterlines. Being next to a cool conditioned space in the summer could present condensation issues. But you are probably correct.
Believing in something against the evidence is anti-science.
Against what evidence? Where is the evidence that a creator did not make the world look the way it does leading people to think it is older than it is? It's unscientific but it is not anti science.
That water can flow up, when under pressure, is pretty basic , and your idea that science might recognize only 2+2 is bizarre
Only because they are established principles. That was not always the case which you seem to ignore. Basic hydraulics had to start somewhere and some how. Before it was known, under your interpretation, it would have been anti science for the original discoverers to find these principles out.
So, what do you mean by believing that the world was created earlier today?
What I mean is if you can only look at natural explanations, you cannot rule out or even examine supernatural explanations. IT does not make it anti, it just makes it not. No amount of wiggle wording will change that.
If you mean belief of the sort that would change your actions or thoughts, it's anti-scientific.
Not at all. It's not any more anti science than your insistence that is is anti science. It just is not scientific and no more. No one is working against science simply because of an unscientific belief. And no BTW, the belief in creation or the age of the earth alone does not change a person's actions. The entirety of the cult or religion would shape a person's actions, but no one in their right mind would all the sudden realize the earth was created today and do something specific because of it and only it.
If you mean belief that doesn't change your actions or thoughts, it isn't even wrong.
I believe the term you were looking for is "Not Even Wrong". But it is severely lacking because no one ever claimed the argument was scientific. That must be a failing on your part or something because I was specifically saying it is unscientific and science cannot address it because it is unscientific.
It appears you are trying to hard to keep grasp of some deep belief you hold and are frustrated that no one is buying it. It's ironic because it seems that every time this is brought up, people with those same deep beliefs end up action like the guy who holds on to the earth being created less than 10,000 years ago. Science does not disprove any supernatural claims, all it can do is show they are not needed. Evidence of the earth being old does not prove that it could not have been created with that appearance 10 million years ago, or 10 minutes ago and it does not in any way change the functional relationship of the evidence of age. All science does is gives us a useful path to building information and understanding from natural occurrences and observations. You claiming that anything unscientific is anti science is the essence of not even wrong.
NAh.. The cops always search the crawl space too. It's likely the number one place to hid crap from people inside the house and people think it's more secure than it is. Well, I guess it depends on what they are looking for but it's almost like searching a house but not opening a closet or going into the basement if they didn't look there.
If you wanted to hide it, find an old security alarm enclosure. It should have more than enough room to configure a small form factor computer.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. There are several cases recently where the first amendment and religious freedom was ignored and state protections of gays were upheld. As sad as it sounds, this law is meant to avoid that.
Its more than just freedom of association. In many respects, it is freedom of religion too which is supposed to be protected from government interference due to the bar of the first anendment. You don't have to patronize them, but the government should be barred from making themviolate their religious beliefs just like the government is barred from telling CNN it cannot run a story about the president comming in last when people picked their favorite president and names from movies and tv show presidents were listed.
And before anyone chimes in with how it doesn't apply to business, any reading like that would also mean free press and free spech in the first amendment would not apy to businesses either. We already know that is not the case so its a dead argument.
You forgot an important thing. If the airfair covered ghe cost of security, i would only be paying for it when i used it. I would also have the option of not paying which would also decrease the costs by not molesting me and grandma.
I keep seeing people say that and i have to wonder, if they did such a great job, why do they need to fix it. Its like health care and evil HMOs. The government pushed them to drop the cost of Medicare then had to fix that too.
You may not like what was said, but that just means reality sucks.
There been reports of them killing people when they got the wrong address too. Nothing has happened that I know of about this either so I am not too confident anything would be making them think twice on a tip.
What I am confused about is why isn't universal getting the same cut for paid or free streaming? Or if they are, why the fuck do they care who is paying the bill. Free streaming should have adds involved and those adds should pay the same cut to universal as the paid streaming does. Or am I missing something here?
It seems to me that if Universal doesn't like the free streaming, they likely wouldn't like the paid streaming either. Maybe it's the premium version of spotify that allows you to save songs and play lists to your devices to offline listening they have a problem with. But then again, all the got to do is price it correctly and make the same cash for essentially renting music to idiots with too much money.
There likely aren't enough people capable of participating in a plan around stopping paying taxes. Most everyone has their taxes deducted from their pay before they even receive it. I think the income tax system was set up purposely for this effect.
No one said you have to go against the evidence to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. I laid out a perfectly easy to understand explanation of how they both could exist- the creation made it look that way. In fact, anything you find in nature would be created to look that way by the creation (or an antagonist like Satan) to anyone who believes in creation. In that environment, the earth and universe appearing to be billions of years old or old would be intentional, the claim it was created that was is just not scientific.
Here is your problem. you simply are not paying attention to what was said. The evidence can exist, be completely weighed, just valued differently. It can be the product of the creation just as easily as independent of the creation and science does not and never has showed there can be only one way. It only purports to show the scientific or natural way which is devoid of unscientific claims.
Now I am not asking any questions, I am saying as a statement of fact that science does not address unscientific explanations and unscientific explanations are unscientific not anti science and Unscientific explanations can completely encompass scientific explanations along with it. But it simple is not anti science, it is unscientific.
what a load of manure. Philosophy exists on many different levels and makes many different claims that are not anti science- just not scientific.
You really do have a problem with this "with us or against us" mentality. Science does not operate that way and the problem is you, not science itself. unscientific does not mean anti science. It never has and never will.
Most of the boards I am familiar with wouldn't allow a full boot if the jumper was enabled to flash. The nice thing was a recovery option where you could rename a bios extension, and it would load it automatically from the FDD. But as far as I know, it would stop the boot process if you left either setting jumped.
Governments create their own laws and rules on enforcing those laws. of course it can be illegal with them doing it specifically.
Try it on your own though, go to a bar and try to talk the people with short haircuts into killing someone for you. I will wait the several years it will likely take for you to tell me how it worked out.
Evidently, you do not understand the viewpoint or for some deep seeded reason cannot allow it to be understood.
Here is the problem, science cannot be used to rule out a non scientific argument. All it can do it present an argument that does not need to be unscientific. Mixing yellow and blue together to make green is scientific, some supernatural being willing something to be the color green is not. All science can say is that there is a natural reason why it is green, not that no supernatural being was involved. In short, science does not disprove religion or religious claims, it can only show they are not needed. The idea that the world is less than 10,000 years old is likely wrong, but science does nothing to prove it is wrong, only that it appears much older.
FFS, do you even understand what an unscientific argument is? There are parts of life that have nothing to do with science. That does not make it anti science, it only makes it unscientific. Science is not, I REPEAT- NOT a with us or against us field of study.
Maybe I should just allow some other people to explain this to you. It's such a simple concept yet I am failing in getting you to understand it. This is geared more to children than adults, maybe you should start from the beginning and go through the entire thing. It seems you have missed a few things throughout the years.
I agree that feminist have went beyond equality into some I'm special silly reality but this simply is not part of it.
Someone saying nice legs, whistling, and crap is something that should be blown off. However, that object of the cat call should have the ability to retreat if they are not comfortable. Because these apps shared personal information with specific business transactions, that personal information should not be used to remove portions of that retreat. A cab driver giving a wolf whistle is one thing, borderline stalking by repeatedly communicating the same but through other avenues only possible because of that business transaction is completely another.
Look at it this way, if your mom, sister, girlfriend, you neighbor or even yourself dressed as prudish as you think women should, acted like you think they should, and her bank keeps calling her to say he wishes he was her undergarment or messages her to talk about his sexual quirks and keeps asking to meet up- would you think it was appropriate? I would hope not and I would hope you would expect it to stop. Now if the same was walking down the street and people said the same, it would be different if it ended when they walked away.
lol.. What an idiot. Whether a woman looks like a whore or not does not give anyone the right to violate her just as it doesn't give anyone the right to kick your ass- even though we might think you deserve it. When she says bugger off creep, you need to move on.
Rape statistics have little to do with it. For one, a lot of the rapes were unreported, for two, there was a level of social justice the simply is not tolerated today so rapists don't really have to worry about being hunted down a killed by her kin, three, in the 50s and 60s we institutionalize mentally ill people a lot earlier and a lot longer on a lot less grounds, and finally, and finally, we changed the laws on what was rape in the 60's including the reporting for record keeping to include more acts and again later in the 70s and 80s to include yet more activities.
If you look at the statistics which only include what was reported, you will see a jump in all violent, property, rape, robbery, assault, burglary and, motor vehicle theft crimes too. It seems the murder and larceny rates stayed about the same. Is that all because of how a woman started dressing or could there be other issues involved?
but hey, this has nothing to do with rapes as near as I can tell. None of the articles listed mention it. It is literally as I said, professional disclosure of personal information being used for non professional uses and behavior that would get most people fired from their jobs.
This isn't about big girl panties or sucking it. It's about a transaction and the details of which being used for nonprofessional uses.
It's like you getting a phone and then all the sudden getting obscene and harassing phone calls from the phone company itself and it's employees stalking you. Anyone should enjoy the right to not be pestered by indecent calls or texts just because they did business with someone.
Why can't the solution be making the stuff cheaper and cost less?
I'm not sure there is ever an only solution.
That's how you know there isn't really a problem. In all the political solutions offered to date, not one of them has actually created a task force devoted specifically to developing technology to make that possible. Instead, they go with the concept of distribution of wealth under the guise that someone will eventually get upset with paying more and eventually find something cleaner and more viable than existing technology. Hell, Kyoto was that way, of the 157 or so countries that signed it (not necessarily ratifying it), only 37 had limits the had to reduce to (the developed world), 14 of the annex 1 countries were considered economies in transition and got future limits along with commitments of aid in monetary and technological support from the developed countries. The annex 2 countries had no limits but agreed to think about it. The benefit for them was that the first world countries would invest in them by off shoring their production needs which is why China for instance, has seen a 10 fold increase in carbon emissions per capita and India has seen similar rises. Most of Europe only met or came close to meeting their commitments due this this increased importation of goods and a global recession. Germany, the darling of the green movement got great benefits from the reunification of East Germany and they could get rid of redundant system while replacing them with more efficient systems but now they seem to be increasing their Carbon output instead of further decreasing. Back in the late 1980s and 1990s there was a political movement to forgive the third world debt incurred by the oil embargo of the 1970s and one of their goals was to either erase the debt completely or extend development and trade into these countries making it easier for them to repay it. This disappeared with the Kyoto accords. One of them I remember was Jubilee2000 and they specifically tied environmental issues into their campaigns and pushed for ratification of the Kyoto protocols before they split into different groups and almost disappeared.
Climate change is real, it might be a problem, but it doesn't appear like anyone wanting to do something about it thinks so more than lip service in order to get their other goals implanted. Look at the space race, we didn't leave it up to the private sector to put a man on the moon even though it was more or less showcasing out technological superiority. We wanted something done, we got something done. Now, do we want something done with global warming? If we did, there would be an international organization or at least a government organizations, devoted to developing technology that could be cost competitive, clean, reliable, and safe to phase out carbon emissions and it would offer this technology to anyone wanting to use it. In 2005, the world IEA member countries spent 9586 million dollars in developing energy. That's over 9.5 trillion dollars in one year. For renewables, they spent 1113 million or 1.1 trillion dollars in one year. How much money would it take to have a lab with a couple dozen or more scientists working to find clean, safe, reliable and cost effective ways- strategies- to meet those needs and tackle the problem of climate change they claim is there?
I'm sorry, but nobody seems serious enough to care about it and we shouldn't either. At least not until the solutions become about finding ways to mitigate it, about finding ways to make this cost effective and possible including sequestration as well as other sources of energy instead of being about ways to tax more and spend more and control over people's lives.
Which law is in violation that google would be in court over?
I'm thinking that the police department thought because facebook was involves, if they screwed up and the guy offed himself, they would famously look bad. Someone was just trying to cover their ass and put the hold on him due to the potential publicity blowback.
Thats right.. the ESRB is a trade group rating put in place to head off government regulation attempts after colunbine. Its purely voluntary.
We have to remember that all physical access is not equal. Certainly if you had uncontrolled, unmonitored access it doesn't matter. But if your access is limited to 9-5 or whatever and people are always in the room when you are, a magnet is more viable then cracking the case open for stealth concerns.
Bur you are probably correct for the majoriy of situations.
Years ago, this was a common mistake by people trying to touch type to fast for their skill level that actually became sort of a fad when talking about computers. Your boxen or my boxen actually refered to our computer hardware. Its also the reason we have lulz insted of lols.its now considered plural for lol but it was really just people trying to keep up with chat in busy chat rooms- where the originsl shorthand started before texting.
Wouldn't it just be easier to have a dip switch and require cracking the case open to flash the bios? At least then, a switch can detect the case opening and send a signal to something or tick a counter that can be checked every once in a while easily.
A magnet would likely not provide the same level of obviousness. For instance, would you be noticed if you opened the case more easily than if you put a magnet on the side of the case? I know that as a kid, i was able to cut a small square of fridge magnet and combine it with a broken rare earth magnet and place on top of the reed switch for our security alarm so i could sneak out and back in without tripping our alarm system or having the record of my code being entered. Of course i had the benifit of being able to experiment by looking at the alarm pannel until the door read closed while it was open and testing it. But i do not think someone smarter than me with physical access couldn't do something similar with other tools availible. But magnets are common in the office (paperclip holders, speakers, phone parts) and not too dificult to conceal.
I was thinking about condensation dripping and possibly breaking waterlines. Being next to a cool conditioned space in the summer could present condensation issues. But you are probably correct.
Against what evidence? Where is the evidence that a creator did not make the world look the way it does leading people to think it is older than it is? It's unscientific but it is not anti science.
Only because they are established principles. That was not always the case which you seem to ignore. Basic hydraulics had to start somewhere and some how. Before it was known, under your interpretation, it would have been anti science for the original discoverers to find these principles out.
What I mean is if you can only look at natural explanations, you cannot rule out or even examine supernatural explanations. IT does not make it anti, it just makes it not. No amount of wiggle wording will change that.
Not at all. It's not any more anti science than your insistence that is is anti science. It just is not scientific and no more. No one is working against science simply because of an unscientific belief. And no BTW, the belief in creation or the age of the earth alone does not change a person's actions. The entirety of the cult or religion would shape a person's actions, but no one in their right mind would all the sudden realize the earth was created today and do something specific because of it and only it.
I believe the term you were looking for is "Not Even Wrong". But it is severely lacking because no one ever claimed the argument was scientific. That must be a failing on your part or something because I was specifically saying it is unscientific and science cannot address it because it is unscientific.
It appears you are trying to hard to keep grasp of some deep belief you hold and are frustrated that no one is buying it. It's ironic because it seems that every time this is brought up, people with those same deep beliefs end up action like the guy who holds on to the earth being created less than 10,000 years ago. Science does not disprove any supernatural claims, all it can do is show they are not needed. Evidence of the earth being old does not prove that it could not have been created with that appearance 10 million years ago, or 10 minutes ago and it does not in any way change the functional relationship of the evidence of age. All science does is gives us a useful path to building information and understanding from natural occurrences and observations. You claiming that anything unscientific is anti science is the essence of not even wrong.
NAh.. The cops always search the crawl space too. It's likely the number one place to hid crap from people inside the house and people think it's more secure than it is. Well, I guess it depends on what they are looking for but it's almost like searching a house but not opening a closet or going into the basement if they didn't look there.
If you wanted to hide it, find an old security alarm enclosure. It should have more than enough room to configure a small form factor computer.