What makes you say that? Remember, supply and demand still applies. You will have even more, even better qualified people competing for the same number of jobs. They would work in finance before but now they can't. So more demand, same supply. Wages go down even more. Enjoy.
What do you find so odd about that? Granted, it was probably about how the soviet people perceived the government as well although the west was likely a big source of information on that even inside the soviet union.
In other words if not for the west there would have been little care for the people impacted precisely the same reason, appearances. Except this time it'd have been to show how small of a failure it was and that there was nothing to worry about (all reports to the contrary being censored, of course).
You're stuck in a non-vm mentality it seems so I'm not sure why you're talking about things you don't understand.
However, that just makes things more expensive and negates the cost effectiveness of using cloud services in terms of more servers and increased complexity.
How so? Why do you need that many more servers, you're either splitting traffic (so roughly the same number of servers) or simply having enough servers to pick up backups. Now data storage of duplicate backups may add some costs but that's neither servers nor complexity.
And as I said before and you seem to not understand, this is a cloud. If you main servers go down you don't need to have an identical copy of those servers running somewhere else 24/7. You simply create those copies on the fly. They cost you nothing until they're needed and when they are you're not paying for your main servers anyway.
Will most businesses really need to do that given that they could afford to put their stuff in a single data centre somewhere and when a sever fails simply restore from a backup and not be down for two days?
You're assuming they can restore from backup, often companies don't want to lose the data since the last backup unless there is no choice. They also need to get a new server, image it, test it and actually put it in the data center. Sure they can automate it all but that, to quote your own words, that negates cost effectiveness.
It's also nothing that you can't do even more easily with amazon. My server was down at amazon for maybe 12 hours, that's when I noticed and simply reloaded it from backup in a different working availability zone. Took a few minutes. Had I cared enough to keep backups in a different region then I could have simply reloaded it instantly over there.
Life isn't easy. Non-cloud server backups also aren't easy to do but you'd be called an utter fool for not doing so.
If you're so lazy or incompetent that you can't do what can't be done in a nice pretty GUI with three clicks then you shouldn't be in charge of servers. Cloud or otherwise.
The amount of energy available is independent of the number of stars. Two colder suns or further away would easily provide less energy than one hotter or closer sun. Not to mention that having too much energy means the planet is a hot sterile rock (at least in terms of earth like biology).
You've never looked at a map of China have you? Hint: it's not further north than the US.
The in progress Wenchang Satellite Launch Center is in fact further south than Cape Canaveral by a decent amount. Xichang Satellite Launch Center is at roughly the same latitude as Cape Canaveral . That said, historically China has built it's launch facilities deep inside the country which puts them further north but also away from prying eyes. Which is likely a politically motivated limitation rather than any geographic or technical limitation.
No, it seems you're the one who doesn't. When a bank lends money they do in fact possess that money. No one else can use that money and they can do all the usual things you do with money. They also owe that money to someone else, usually, but at the moment the bank is the one who possess it.
You are confusing what happens during the transaction of lending with the ever building layers of debt and assets that result from it. You can sell or trade those assets and debt but that's a different concept from lending.
By the very definition of the term you cannot loan money you do not have. However you can loan money that you in turn borrowed from someone else. Which can become rather bad when that someone else wants their money back. That's how all finance and banking works. It has worked that way for a long time and works that way everywhere.
And I could have said "have a a self-aware AI that provides me with all the data I need at my beck and call." It could have been just as realistic, it'd have scaled like crap, looked like crap and never gotten very far before getting abandoned. I'm not even sure if one could implement some of those rules in any sane way.
In essence it's a system designed 50 years ago by a person who has never worked on a complex data rich infrastructure in their life (which makes sense 50 years ago). It's some some guy preaching about the glory of communism or laissez-faire capitalism. The sane thing to do is to admit that it was all one giant mistake and move on.
It's no wonder that the thing has been dead for 50 years, having myself actually worked on giant data infrastructures involving multiple entities I can only laugh.
The web has long ago moved beyond a collection of book pages or encyclopedia entries. Forcing it into that mold would have severely least stunted it through sheer cumbersomeness.
Micro payments would have resulted in a giant set of embedded links for anything with each one doing nothing but providing transclusions with an added fee. Not to mention, micro payments would requires some way to verify the quality of the content (see previous point) which is likely impossible. You need to know how much a page costs before you view it and not after you are charged. Then there's public web access terminals, kids and so on. Just, see the disaster that iphones are having with kids buying $200 worth of stuff inside of apps.
Then there's the fun part of how security isn't secure unless you have a real life dictator enforcing it in the back end. The fun that would happen when some hacker steals the keys behind a large entity and proceeds to abuse it for their own ends. Or someone forgetting their password or creating a new username.
Then there's the mess of having multiple storage providers either raping users or somehow trying to organize the mess together. Who gets the data, how much latency is extra money worth, how much latency is added to the negotiation for this, etc.
Then there's a latency hit and sheer logistics of how you assign payments and whop gets paid. Is there a central server, does each user have their own server, is there an entity that controls the payment system?
Also, if you cannot figure out what the Russian government wants by explicitly banning encrypted applications rather than applications that store data in the US then you're an idiot. Your argument is about the later while the former is what's happening (and among other things the later is actually easier for the US to spy on).
There are more people in the world who distrust the US government than there are people who distrust the Russian government - and if the choice was between a system secured from Russia and a system secured from the US, many would choose the latter.
So you're saying that people should be educated on just how bad the Russian government is?
Recall also that a determined Russian official would use the physical presence of a suspect to keylog / warrant search / otherwise anyway, so the value of protection against some form of snooping from one's own government is diminished vs the value of protection against snooping from foreigners.
They don't want to spy on one person, they want to spy on all people, at the same time. Then they find anyone interesting, gather evidence on them (or plant it) and remove them from being a future problem (permanently if need be). The US may if they really care enough take you to court, the Russians will simply kill you. And there's a lot more things a Russian does that interest the Russian government than there are thing they do that interest the US government.
And this is why the MBAs are raking it in and you're not. After all, their scheme worked well enough for the company to survive for many years and eventually led to a $500 million sale.
There will always be things that will not yield to the scientific method, because the confounding factors in the experiment overwhelm the methodology.
Then you make a better experiment, that's the point of science. You pick away at the problem till you have enough evidence to explain it.
I do not claim miracles cannot exist, I claim that there is no evidence for them and one cannot ignore that fact without being delusional.
We may never know why flight 447 lies at the bottom of the Atlantic, but we still need to investigate, to apply science to the evidence we have to rule out some ideas and to choose more certainly between what remains. Just the pictures of the engines have ruled out about 20 or so possibilities, since it is clear from their condition that they were generating thrust until something interfered with that from outside the engine. That leaves us able to put our resources into examining the remaining ideas.
I seriously have no idea what your point is with this since science (or rather logic) is how they're figuring this out. They put out a hypothesis and then they test it with evidence and experiments. They may even subject identical parts to stresses to further test their hypothesis. In the end however everything is based on rigorous experiments and tests. Any claim that is made must be justified either through historical experiments, simulations (which count as experiments in a way) or other such rational means.
If a bit of evidence can equally well support either view, then it cannot be cited to support one or the other.
Yes it can, there are infinite theories to explain anything. A unicorn did it. A wizard did it. Flying green man did it. Infinite theories just by adding some unprovable piece to them. Do you accept all these theories as valid? Do you accept the Hindu explanation of the universe? The Buddhist one?
Which version of ID do you accept? God as the clockmaker that did nothing afterward? God who only modified things occasionally? God who tinkers constantly? How much evolution do you accept in the process? Bacteria clearly evolve or are you saying god is the reason we have anti-biotic resistant bacteria?
The Roman Catholic Church, btw, which covers quite a few Christians has no problems with evolution.
Of course, your belief that evolution does not predict anything shows how little you know of evolution or problems you have with it. You parrot talking points you do not even comprehend. Nor do you even seek to learn more, a 10 second google search leads to things like this:
* http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience
* http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
So please, shut up for your own good and let the grown ups talk till you've learned enough not to make yourself look like an uneducated intellectually lazy hick.
Your own delusions about the lack of evidence and belief in a 150 year old conspiracy do not change the quality of the evidence. It has shown time and time again to both explain existing evidence and provide testable predictions on new discoveries. It can in fact be tested with nothing more than some bacteria, chemicals and a petridish. And what is this amazing funding that evolution gets, please do cite the funding.
Contrary to whatever delusions you need to sleep at night science has shown itself perfectly amicable to drastic changes. Physics and astronomy are perfect examples where the whole foundations of the disciples have changes multiple times. Evolution itself has won out because it has shown itself better than the multitudes of competing theories that have cropped up since even before natural selection itself.
Of course, you fail utterly to cite any concrete evidence for why evolution is wrong, what competing theories are or anything like that. In other words you utterly fail the tests I have shown.
If it is as invalid as you claim than it should be trivial to show irrefutable evidence in such a quantity that even the Bayesian test is satisfied. Yet you fail at it utterly.
I answered your questions in my posts but to repeat, sigh. He provides no rigorous evidence or experiments to prove his point. Anecdotes, which is all he notes, do not count because they are inherently flawed just as the people who observe them are. All rigorous experiments in the area have failed and his posts do not cite any new experiments.
And yes that is the norm in evolutionary sciences - accept anything as long as it does not contradict evolution; anything that does gets tossed out.
Ah right, so that's your beef. You're peeved that science doesn't agree with you and will come up with any rationalization to justify being right. Boring.
Evolution has over a century of very strong evidence behind it, in Bayesian terms the prior is very strongly biased towards evolution being generally accurate. A contradictory claim would have like any other scientific theory challenging a mainstream one: -Conform to the rigors of a science theory, including data, hypothesis, dis-provability and so on -Explain everything that the existing theory it's trying to replace explains just as well or at least not have any large unexplainable flaws itself in what is covered. -Show extremely compelling data to justify the new theory not being a fluke of a specific data set. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. -Not fail the test of Occam's Razor if it provides no additional explanatory power over the existing theory
Those are just off hand so I probably missed some things or wrote them wrong. Anyway, these sorts of tests are required for science to function as a data driven entity. Like any human based entity there is flexibility in these things however the basic structure of such tests is still used. That contradictory theories fail these tests means the theories are very likely wrong and not the other way around.
Most importantly contradictory theories are not discarded out of hand but are explicitly shown to fail tests such as the ones listed above. Whole bloody books and webpages have been written to do just that. Generally at least if it's pushed enough, there's so many downright nutjobs out there that science couldn't function if the most insane ones weren't simply ignored.
In science that's the minority and a failure of the established protocols. In religion it's the majority and the defining characteristic of how the system works.
If you want to really expand faith to that level, the everything except self-existence is a leap of faith.
I'm sure there's an argument somewhere that even self-existence is an act of faith. I mean, that I existed a second ago and will exist a second from now are obviously just acts of faith. So I'm sure some nihilistic philosopher somewhere has managed to disprove their own existence.
How do you know? I have personally experienced dozens of miracles of that nature. Surely I am not unique? My wife and her family, my own family and extended family, friends and other fellow church-goers have related similar experiences. It may be anecdotal, but as compelling as a particle physicist in Switzerland claiming to find the Higgs Boson or something equally unfathomable to me.
That just means you're delusional, which is the baseline state of any human being so don't feel too bad. We see what we want to see irrespective of what is actually happening. We ignore data that says otherwise and believe we remember things that never happened. If nothing happens a million times and something happens once then we'll forget the million times nothing happened. Our brains are neither rational nor infallible. They are absurdly good learning and pattern finding engines but far from infallible. Seriously, you can write volumes on all the ways our minds irrationally interpret reality. All this has been rigorously shown by psychology and put into practice by many people who wish to manipulate others for their own gain.
That is why scientific experiments are based on rigorous statistical tests that remove human judgment from the analysis as much as possible. Otherwise nearly every scientist would claim the data supports their theory (and believe it too) and it'd all implode. And despite all that those scientific tests are still done wrongly very often because even scientists want to believe they're right.
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. "Unexpected exception" to what? Miracles are not exceptions. Judeo-Christian religious texts frequently talk about miracles and Jesus even said (I'm paraphrasing) "Miracles will follow them that believe in me". Why do miracles have to be rare?
Because otherwise they don't exist, period. Every attempt to test miracles, including the use of people who believe in them has failed. Now you can argue that means miracles don't work if you ever attempt to show that they exist but then you're little better than the schizophrenic who says invisible aliens live in his teeth.
If the "Awesome New Idea" has already been patented by someone else, it's not technically a new idea anymore - it's a clone.
That patent is also a clone of someone's idea, except the patent holder had enough money to file his claim on paper. And since most patent lawsuits take place in a specific small Texas town whose sole industry is patent lawsuits there's a certain conflict of interest, in favor of the patent holder, in any such lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
Oddly enough, wealth beyond the upper middle class level has not been found to be correlated with happiness.
What makes you say that? Remember, supply and demand still applies. You will have even more, even better qualified people competing for the same number of jobs. They would work in finance before but now they can't. So more demand, same supply. Wages go down even more. Enjoy.
What do you find so odd about that? Granted, it was probably about how the soviet people perceived the government as well although the west was likely a big source of information on that even inside the soviet union.
In other words if not for the west there would have been little care for the people impacted precisely the same reason, appearances. Except this time it'd have been to show how small of a failure it was and that there was nothing to worry about (all reports to the contrary being censored, of course).
You're stuck in a non-vm mentality it seems so I'm not sure why you're talking about things you don't understand.
However, that just makes things more expensive and negates the cost effectiveness of using cloud services in terms of more servers and increased complexity.
How so? Why do you need that many more servers, you're either splitting traffic (so roughly the same number of servers) or simply having enough servers to pick up backups. Now data storage of duplicate backups may add some costs but that's neither servers nor complexity.
And as I said before and you seem to not understand, this is a cloud. If you main servers go down you don't need to have an identical copy of those servers running somewhere else 24/7. You simply create those copies on the fly. They cost you nothing until they're needed and when they are you're not paying for your main servers anyway.
Will most businesses really need to do that given that they could afford to put their stuff in a single data centre somewhere and when a sever fails simply restore from a backup and not be down for two days?
You're assuming they can restore from backup, often companies don't want to lose the data since the last backup unless there is no choice. They also need to get a new server, image it, test it and actually put it in the data center. Sure they can automate it all but that, to quote your own words, that negates cost effectiveness.
It's also nothing that you can't do even more easily with amazon. My server was down at amazon for maybe 12 hours, that's when I noticed and simply reloaded it from backup in a different working availability zone. Took a few minutes. Had I cared enough to keep backups in a different region then I could have simply reloaded it instantly over there.
Life isn't easy. Non-cloud server backups also aren't easy to do but you'd be called an utter fool for not doing so.
If you're so lazy or incompetent that you can't do what can't be done in a nice pretty GUI with three clicks then you shouldn't be in charge of servers. Cloud or otherwise.
The amount of energy available is independent of the number of stars. Two colder suns or further away would easily provide less energy than one hotter or closer sun. Not to mention that having too much energy means the planet is a hot sterile rock (at least in terms of earth like biology).
You've never looked at a map of China have you? Hint: it's not further north than the US.
The in progress Wenchang Satellite Launch Center is in fact further south than Cape Canaveral by a decent amount. Xichang Satellite Launch Center is at roughly the same latitude as Cape Canaveral . That said, historically China has built it's launch facilities deep inside the country which puts them further north but also away from prying eyes. Which is likely a politically motivated limitation rather than any geographic or technical limitation.
No, it seems you're the one who doesn't. When a bank lends money they do in fact possess that money. No one else can use that money and they can do all the usual things you do with money. They also owe that money to someone else, usually, but at the moment the bank is the one who possess it.
You are confusing what happens during the transaction of lending with the ever building layers of debt and assets that result from it. You can sell or trade those assets and debt but that's a different concept from lending.
By the very definition of the term you cannot loan money you do not have. However you can loan money that you in turn borrowed from someone else. Which can become rather bad when that someone else wants their money back. That's how all finance and banking works. It has worked that way for a long time and works that way everywhere.
And I could have said "have a a self-aware AI that provides me with all the data I need at my beck and call." It could have been just as realistic, it'd have scaled like crap, looked like crap and never gotten very far before getting abandoned. I'm not even sure if one could implement some of those rules in any sane way.
In essence it's a system designed 50 years ago by a person who has never worked on a complex data rich infrastructure in their life (which makes sense 50 years ago). It's some some guy preaching about the glory of communism or laissez-faire capitalism. The sane thing to do is to admit that it was all one giant mistake and move on.
It's no wonder that the thing has been dead for 50 years, having myself actually worked on giant data infrastructures involving multiple entities I can only laugh.
The web has long ago moved beyond a collection of book pages or encyclopedia entries. Forcing it into that mold would have severely least stunted it through sheer cumbersomeness.
Micro payments would have resulted in a giant set of embedded links for anything with each one doing nothing but providing transclusions with an added fee. Not to mention, micro payments would requires some way to verify the quality of the content (see previous point) which is likely impossible. You need to know how much a page costs before you view it and not after you are charged. Then there's public web access terminals, kids and so on. Just, see the disaster that iphones are having with kids buying $200 worth of stuff inside of apps.
Then there's the fun part of how security isn't secure unless you have a real life dictator enforcing it in the back end. The fun that would happen when some hacker steals the keys behind a large entity and proceeds to abuse it for their own ends. Or someone forgetting their password or creating a new username.
Then there's the mess of having multiple storage providers either raping users or somehow trying to organize the mess together. Who gets the data, how much latency is extra money worth, how much latency is added to the negotiation for this, etc.
Then there's a latency hit and sheer logistics of how you assign payments and whop gets paid. Is there a central server, does each user have their own server, is there an entity that controls the payment system?
Also, if you cannot figure out what the Russian government wants by explicitly banning encrypted applications rather than applications that store data in the US then you're an idiot. Your argument is about the later while the former is what's happening (and among other things the later is actually easier for the US to spy on).
There are more people in the world who distrust the US government than there are people who distrust the Russian government - and if the choice was between a system secured from Russia and a system secured from the US, many would choose the latter.
So you're saying that people should be educated on just how bad the Russian government is?
Recall also that a determined Russian official would use the physical presence of a suspect to keylog / warrant search / otherwise anyway, so the value of protection against some form of snooping from one's own government is diminished vs the value of protection against snooping from foreigners.
They don't want to spy on one person, they want to spy on all people, at the same time. Then they find anyone interesting, gather evidence on them (or plant it) and remove them from being a future problem (permanently if need be). The US may if they really care enough take you to court, the Russians will simply kill you. And there's a lot more things a Russian does that interest the Russian government than there are thing they do that interest the US government.
And this is why the MBAs are raking it in and you're not. After all, their scheme worked well enough for the company to survive for many years and eventually led to a $500 million sale.
There will always be things that will not yield to the scientific method, because the confounding factors in the experiment overwhelm the methodology.
Then you make a better experiment, that's the point of science. You pick away at the problem till you have enough evidence to explain it.
I do not claim miracles cannot exist, I claim that there is no evidence for them and one cannot ignore that fact without being delusional.
We may never know why flight 447 lies at the bottom of the Atlantic, but we still need to investigate, to apply science to the evidence we have to rule out some ideas and to choose more certainly between what remains. Just the pictures of the engines have ruled out about 20 or so possibilities, since it is clear from their condition that they were generating thrust until something interfered with that from outside the engine. That leaves us able to put our resources into examining the remaining ideas.
I seriously have no idea what your point is with this since science (or rather logic) is how they're figuring this out. They put out a hypothesis and then they test it with evidence and experiments. They may even subject identical parts to stresses to further test their hypothesis. In the end however everything is based on rigorous experiments and tests. Any claim that is made must be justified either through historical experiments, simulations (which count as experiments in a way) or other such rational means.
If a bit of evidence can equally well support either view, then it cannot be cited to support one or the other.
Yes it can, there are infinite theories to explain anything. A unicorn did it. A wizard did it. Flying green man did it. Infinite theories just by adding some unprovable piece to them. Do you accept all these theories as valid? Do you accept the Hindu explanation of the universe? The Buddhist one?
Which version of ID do you accept? God as the clockmaker that did nothing afterward? God who only modified things occasionally? God who tinkers constantly? How much evolution do you accept in the process? Bacteria clearly evolve or are you saying god is the reason we have anti-biotic resistant bacteria?
The Roman Catholic Church, btw, which covers quite a few Christians has no problems with evolution.
Of course, your belief that evolution does not predict anything shows how little you know of evolution or problems you have with it. You parrot talking points you do not even comprehend. Nor do you even seek to learn more, a 10 second google search leads to things like this:
* http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience
* http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html
So please, shut up for your own good and let the grown ups talk till you've learned enough not to make yourself look like an uneducated intellectually lazy hick.
Your own delusions about the lack of evidence and belief in a 150 year old conspiracy do not change the quality of the evidence. It has shown time and time again to both explain existing evidence and provide testable predictions on new discoveries. It can in fact be tested with nothing more than some bacteria, chemicals and a petridish. And what is this amazing funding that evolution gets, please do cite the funding.
Contrary to whatever delusions you need to sleep at night science has shown itself perfectly amicable to drastic changes. Physics and astronomy are perfect examples where the whole foundations of the disciples have changes multiple times. Evolution itself has won out because it has shown itself better than the multitudes of competing theories that have cropped up since even before natural selection itself.
Of course, you fail utterly to cite any concrete evidence for why evolution is wrong, what competing theories are or anything like that. In other words you utterly fail the tests I have shown.
If it is as invalid as you claim than it should be trivial to show irrefutable evidence in such a quantity that even the Bayesian test is satisfied. Yet you fail at it utterly.
Well, apparently you can't read. Lovely.
I answered your questions in my posts but to repeat, sigh. He provides no rigorous evidence or experiments to prove his point. Anecdotes, which is all he notes, do not count because they are inherently flawed just as the people who observe them are. All rigorous experiments in the area have failed and his posts do not cite any new experiments.
Well thank you for proving me right.
And yes that is the norm in evolutionary sciences - accept anything as long as it does not contradict evolution; anything that does gets tossed out.
Ah right, so that's your beef. You're peeved that science doesn't agree with you and will come up with any rationalization to justify being right. Boring.
Evolution has over a century of very strong evidence behind it, in Bayesian terms the prior is very strongly biased towards evolution being generally accurate. A contradictory claim would have like any other scientific theory challenging a mainstream one:
-Conform to the rigors of a science theory, including data, hypothesis, dis-provability and so on
-Explain everything that the existing theory it's trying to replace explains just as well or at least not have any large unexplainable flaws itself in what is covered.
-Show extremely compelling data to justify the new theory not being a fluke of a specific data set. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-Not fail the test of Occam's Razor if it provides no additional explanatory power over the existing theory
Those are just off hand so I probably missed some things or wrote them wrong. Anyway, these sorts of tests are required for science to function as a data driven entity. Like any human based entity there is flexibility in these things however the basic structure of such tests is still used. That contradictory theories fail these tests means the theories are very likely wrong and not the other way around.
Most importantly contradictory theories are not discarded out of hand but are explicitly shown to fail tests such as the ones listed above. Whole bloody books and webpages have been written to do just that. Generally at least if it's pushed enough, there's so many downright nutjobs out there that science couldn't function if the most insane ones weren't simply ignored.
Yes it is.
In science that's the minority and a failure of the established protocols. In religion it's the majority and the defining characteristic of how the system works.
If you want to really expand faith to that level, the everything except self-existence is a leap of faith.
I'm sure there's an argument somewhere that even self-existence is an act of faith. I mean, that I existed a second ago and will exist a second from now are obviously just acts of faith. So I'm sure some nihilistic philosopher somewhere has managed to disprove their own existence.
How do you know? I have personally experienced dozens of miracles of that nature. Surely I am not unique? My wife and her family, my own family and extended family, friends and other fellow church-goers have related similar experiences. It may be anecdotal, but as compelling as a particle physicist in Switzerland claiming to find the Higgs Boson or something equally unfathomable to me.
That just means you're delusional, which is the baseline state of any human being so don't feel too bad. We see what we want to see irrespective of what is actually happening. We ignore data that says otherwise and believe we remember things that never happened. If nothing happens a million times and something happens once then we'll forget the million times nothing happened. Our brains are neither rational nor infallible. They are absurdly good learning and pattern finding engines but far from infallible. Seriously, you can write volumes on all the ways our minds irrationally interpret reality. All this has been rigorously shown by psychology and put into practice by many people who wish to manipulate others for their own gain.
That is why scientific experiments are based on rigorous statistical tests that remove human judgment from the analysis as much as possible. Otherwise nearly every scientist would claim the data supports their theory (and believe it too) and it'd all implode. And despite all that those scientific tests are still done wrongly very often because even scientists want to believe they're right.
I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here. "Unexpected exception" to what? Miracles are not exceptions. Judeo-Christian religious texts frequently talk about miracles and Jesus even said (I'm paraphrasing) "Miracles will follow them that believe in me". Why do miracles have to be rare?
Because otherwise they don't exist, period. Every attempt to test miracles, including the use of people who believe in them has failed. Now you can argue that means miracles don't work if you ever attempt to show that they exist but then you're little better than the schizophrenic who says invisible aliens live in his teeth.
Useless if you're lucky, what if your version of the script now wipes out all your data because it interacts badly with the new apis put in place?
God, you conspiracy nuts are utter bloody morons:
http://www.snopes.com/computer/internet/dellbug.asp
If the "Awesome New Idea" has already been patented by someone else, it's not technically a new idea anymore - it's a clone.
That patent is also a clone of someone's idea, except the patent holder had enough money to file his claim on paper. And since most patent lawsuits take place in a specific small Texas town whose sole industry is patent lawsuits there's a certain conflict of interest, in favor of the patent holder, in any such lawsuit.