he patent covers the way files are organised and navigated on a player using a using a hierarchy of menus
So, this could be extended to covering DOSSHELL, FIle Manager, the Macintosh Finder, really anythign that shows things in a hierarchical menu.
Re:Jonathan Zdziarski is out of his mind.
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
There is nothing "apparently top secret" about my evidence. It's all right there in the Biblical account, if you take the time to read it.
Using the records provided in Genesis 5:3 and following, the timelime to the birth of Noah can be calculated: Adam to Seth's birth, 130 years; Seth to Enosh 105y; Enosh to Kenan, 90y; Kenan to Mahalalel, 70y; Mahalalel to Jared, 65y; Jared to Enoch, 162y; Enoch to Methuselah, 65y; Methuselah to Lamech, 187y; Lamech to Noah, 182y. Going off this data, the age of the earth at this point in history was now 1056 years.
Continuing on from Noah to Abraham (continuing from the end of Genesis 5): by the time Noah was 500y old, he had his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. From Noah's birth to the Flood, 600y, with the Flood being over 1 year later. Moving to Genesis 11:10, from Shem to Arpachshad, 100y, 2 years after the flood. Arpachshad to Shelah, 35y; Shelah to Eber, 30y; Eber to Peleg, 34; Peleg to Reu, 30y; Reu to Serug, 32y; Serug to Nahor, 30y; Nahor to Terah, 29y; Terah to Abram (later changed by God to Abraham), 70y. At this juncture, we have a continuous genealogy from Adam to Abram extending over 1946 years.
Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born to him [Gen 21:5]. The age of the earth at Isaac's birth was 2046 years.
The genealogical records after this are quite complete, showing up in different points in the Old Testament narrative, and being rehearsed by both Matthew and Luke. Matthew starts his gospel account with the genealogy of Jesus with Abraham, and lists the total number of generations between Abraham and Jesus. Matthew 1:17, "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations." The total number of people between Christ and Abraham is 41. Even if you decide to be remarkably generous and say that none of those men had children until they were 100 (which is unreasonable), the total age of the earth at the time of Jesus' birth can't be more that 6146 years. Using a more realistic average time between births of 50 years, the total age of the earth by Jesus' birth was approximately 3996 years.
Since Christ's birth, which is acknowledged as the balance point of our date system, there have been about 2005 years elapsed. This gives the total age of the earth today at only approximately 6001 years, which is considerably less than 10,000, let alone the 'billions' quoted by naturalistic scientists.
Presuming, as I and myriad others do, that the creation account in Genesis occurred in 6 real days -- not figurative days, or really, really long days -- then you have Adam being created only 6 days into the life of the earth, and all of my math works.
If you're unwilling to accept the evidence provided in the Bible of the creation account and the lifespans of those recorded, then sure, believing in a 10,000-year-old earth doesn't make much sense. But when you believe that God recorded for us what He wanted us to know, then there is no other possible conclusion to draw from the available evidence.
Re:Jonathan Zdziarski is out of his mind.
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
sorry about the chopped post, my browser had some issues just there.
Re:Jonathan Zdziarski is out of his mind.
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
That is true, the "heaven entrace exam" doesn't check exact beliefs on a lot of small issues. However, since the Bible claims to be the inerrant Word of God (which is why believeing in Jesus as your savior works), then the record of the creation of the world, contained in that self-same inerrant work, must be understood to be accurate. If it's not, then neither can the rest of the Bible claim to be.
With the creation of Adam, God did record for us the beginning of time. With the recorded genealogies in Matthew and Luke, going all the way back to Adam, a very close approximation of the Earth's age can be garnered. If you're willing to throw out the conclusion that the Earth is young, and that life on the earth is liekwise young, then you're throwing out all of the rest of the conclusions of the Bible.
Calling Jonathan "insane" is hostile. And, since Jonathan and I belive the same things aboutt he age of the Earth, then you are having a conversation, if not about me, then about what I believe, and therefore one that I feel obligated to respond to.
You appear to be dancing around and shying away from the valid points I have raised, which makes it difficult to talk to you. I'm sorry that you feel that I'm the one throwing out the 'strawmen', but you haven't done anything to respond to those points, except to say that they're not worth responding to.
Re:Jonathan Zdziarski is out of his mind.
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
That is true, the "heaven entrace exam" doesn't check exact beliefs on a lot of small issues. However, since the Bible claims to be the inerrant Word of God (which is why believeing in Jesus as your savior works), then the record of the creation of the world, contained in that self-same inerrant work, must be understood to be accurate. If it's not, then neither can the rest of the Bible claim to be.
With the creation of Adam, God did record for us the beginning of time. With the recorded genealogies
One thing that (in general) a college degree will hold forth about you that a simple certification can not, is your ability to learn and think in a wide variety of fields. Maybe not well in all of them, but you at least made it through the minimum requriements of the school, and did well enough to pass those superfluous classes (I have had a bunch, and more to come).
A certification can easily mean you just crammed well in whatever field it is you've received the cert.
Re:Jonathan Zdziarski is out of his mind.
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
What strawmen am I "constantly throwing around"? What I believe has a great deal to do not only with my religion, but with available evidence: I'm convinced there is enough evidence to support believing in a young earth. Apparently, you do not believe enough evidence exists to support that conclusion.
Upon what basis can you say that you do possess the ability to think rationally and logically? I do quite a bit of thinking, discussing, and writing that is rational and logical. I have several examples of my writing available on my personal website, if you care to take a look, and have been published by the Association for Computing Machinery's Ubiquity. You can see two articles I have published on Rice University's Connexions project here and here.
I would be interested in reading something that you've written and published, that can support an argument or point of view without resorting to name-calling.
There's also the fact that a significant parts of the antarctic ice cap sit on land that is below sea level, so it couldn't affect the world's sea levels much, either. The same can be said of Greenland.
This sounds a lot like what Oracle does (or at least used to do). When I went to community college for CIS in 99-01, Oracle was still in the business of donating their DBMS to colleges to use in the database theory classes. At the end of the classes, you not only knew a decent amount of theory about db design, but you knew how to do it with Oracle.
If places like IBM gave or loaned mainframe machines to colleges, they'd get used, and the students would come out knowing how to think in zOS, and would be ready for businesses to hire with less on-the-job training.
The primary reason the school I am finishing my bachelor's deree from right now is heavily MS is because MS gave a bunch of software to the school, or sold it at deep discount. As CIS major, I can get a copy of VS2003 Pro, MSSQL Server, Project, Visio, XP, and couple other things for free. All of the students at my school may purchase Office at a ridiculous discount... way below the normal academic pricing.
It's a great marketing method for MS to employ: everybody coming out of my university knows Office, Windows, SQL Server, etc, and that's what they'll expect to use in 'real life'.
Re:Jonathan Zdziarski is out of his mind.
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
Clearly you are incapable of reading and comprehending what I am saying, so there is no point in talking to you.
So, why do you keep responding to me if there is no point in talking to me? Obviosuly there must be some point in discussing this further. If people like Jonathan and I have "some form of psychological problem", you should just go about your merry way and ignore us. If it's true, then we cause you no harm.
I believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old because I believe in a literal reading of Genesis 1 with its creation account. People haven't been around long enough to actually know the age of the earth, we can only surmise based on available oservations. Humanistic schools of thought look at current processes and determine that the earth must be X years old because of how long geological activities take today. Theistic schools of thought begin with the assumption that if there is a supreme being who could make the entire earth, He could make it as fast as He wanted, and to appear as old as He desired.
Carrying through my view, with God having made man a full-grown adult on the 6th day of creation, and having made all other creatures ready to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." [Gen 1:22] & "Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind'; and it was so." [Gen 1:24], it is reasonable to conclude that the earth could also have been made to appear 'old'.
If you continue with my understanding of as literal a reading of the Bible as possible, a few chapters later when God sends the flood to cover the earth, it is reasonable to believe that such a world-wide catastrophe could have caused much of the grand expanses of erosion we see today. It is also reasonable to believe that such a world-wide event could cause most of the fossils we have discovered in digging through the layers of the earth.
If you discount a literal understanding of creation and the flood, then it could be resonable to believe that the earth is extremely old.
The beliefs that Jonathan and I share about the age of the earth are apparently in opposition to your own, which is understandable.
My question to you now is, why are you so hostile towards us? As I pointed out above, if we're wrong, there's no point in worrying about it. It's only if we're right that you have something to worry about with your beliefs.
is where is this Public Library? I'd love to go work there, or live there.
Re:Jonathan Zdziarski is out of his mind.
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
I'm going to cite your entire parent post: "Read some of his essays. He genuinely believes that all evidence clearly shows that the earth cannot possibly be more than 10,000 years old.
The contract between being a logical minded person like a programmer, and being so easily brainwashed into believing comeplete nonsense is startling."
There's no twisting going on here, just calling your spade a spade. You referred to him as "so easily brainwashed into believing comeplete nonsense is startling". That's calling him stupid in my book, or anyone else's.
Quoting myself: "Being stupid isn't always a bad thing, it normally just means you're uninformed. Before you go lambasting this guy's belief that the available evidence points to a young earth, maybe you should talk to him. Or to others who belive the same thing." I didn't ignore you or twist what you said. Quoting you again, "People who call me stupid because I don't "accept" nutjobs making up bullshit and trying to pretend its science, without bothering with tedious things like facts, or evidence, or research."
Science can not define origins. Since science is based upon the observable, and no one was around to observe the origin of the universe and life, you can't define it within science. You can define origins only within philosophy, worldview, or religion, but not with science. What Jonathan believes -- along with myself and myriad others -- is that we were specially created by God in His image. I believe that the entire earth was created in 6 days by God, and that we are the crowning glory of creation, having been made in His image.
I fully believe in the fall of Adam, and in the total depravity of the human race since. I believe in the efficacious redemptive work of Jesus Christ's death on the cross and resurrection the morning of the third day to pay for my sins.
Go ahead and call me irrelevant, or even irrational, if you want. I have one question for you: if it doesn't matter whether or not I or you believe in God, why are you bothering to cast aspersions on Jonathan's and my beliefs? Go ahead, don't believe in God if you don't want to. If you're right, then this whole argument doesn't matter, and you have no reason to worry about Jonathan or myself.
But if you're wrong, then you have a lot to worry about. And you're arguing against us to make yourself feel better, because if we're right, you know you're under God's anger right now, and are heading for Hell when you die. If we're right, you have to argue against us to defend your position, so that you can feel good about not having been rescued from damnation.
Don't blast Jonathan and me just because you don't believe in God.
Actually, it's not so much a 'might' be able to make the case. The case is made in several places.
It's also worth while noting that there were two other cities on the list to be bombed if the Japanese did not surrender. We also spent a lot of effort ahead of time 'paper bombing' the cities warning people to leave.
I've done substantial research into this issue for a discussion group in my church, and the parent post about the fire bombings in Europe and Japan is a very good point. Far more people were killed in those attacks than in the two atomic bombings.
You've also forgotten about caching. The aggregator I use on my website caches feeds whenever it can (Magpie RSS), and only refreshes the feed when the expiration for the feed items has been reached. It substantially reduces the external network load to other servers. Magpie also only checks for new versions when the page is refreshed, not on a set schedule like stand-alone RSS aggregators typically do.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than most alternatives I looked at before goign with this system.
Re:Jonathan Zdziarski is out of his mind.
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
I always listen to "hear what people say, instead of twisting what they say". Apparently you wanted to twist what I said, though.
It's really a shame that you don't want to have a sane, reasonable discussion. Then again, this is Slashdot.
I incorporated an RSS aggregator (magpie rss) into my website for subscribing to sites I normally visit heavily. It's reduced my load on several sites, only loading the headlines that interest me, instead of the whole site, then the ehadlines (a la CNN, InfoWorld, Slashdot, etc).
Sure, it's not a perfect fix, but it's a nice start towards finding what I want to see.
And America has only 4.6% of the earth's population (295 million out of 6400 million on earth - CIA World Factbook) compared to the EU's 457 million, or 7.1% of the world's population. The United States, for all oru problems, has figured out how to be remarkably productive per person. Japan has 1/3 the GDP of the US (Wikipedia), but 43% of our population. The EU has 55% more people that the US, but only 12% more GDP. And the EU took 26 independent countries (Wikipedia) to unite to pass us for overall GDP.
Could the US improve on its carbon production? Sure. But everybody else has a long way to go to catch up to our economic production.
Re:Jonathan Zdziarski is out of his mind.
on
Ending Spam
·
· Score: 1
Whether you believe the earth to be <10,000 years or as many as 15 billion has nothing to do with your ability to be intelligent. Lots of stupid people belive the earth is billions of years old. So do lots of smart people. THe same is true of people who belive in a young earth: there are dumb ones and smart ones.
That you think that an understanding based on available evidence and the man's personal religious beliefs is irrational shows that you aren't willing to hear alternative ideas, and that you're probably stupid.
Being stupid isn't always a bad thing, it normally just means you're uninformed. Before you go lambasting this guy's belief that the available evidence points to a young earth, maybe you should talk to him. Or to others who belive the same thing.
But, I guess that since you're dismissing him out of hand, the myriad people who do believe in a young earth are all illogical, brainwashed people.
I would love to talk to you about this off Slashdot, if you're willing to continue the conversation. Unfortunately, most people aren't willing to listen to the other side of the argument.
Form Bruce Schneier's website, the paper about Blowfish: "Many of the other unbroken algorithms in the literature--Khufu [11,12], REDOC II [2,23, 20], and IDEA [7,8,9]--are protected by patents." From the Wikipedia article, Bruce Schneier is again quoted, "In my opinion, it is the best and most secure block algorithm available to the public at this time." (Applied Cryptography, 2nd ed.) However, by 1999 he was no longer recommending IDEA due to the availability of faster algorithms, some progress in its cryptanalysis, and the issue of patents"
I don't really get the whole idea (no pun intended) of patenting a mathematical algorithm. It would be like patenting the recipe for Oreos. You can trademark it, and copyright it, but patenting it doens't make sense to me. Then again, IANAL.
That can't be a case where "it is likely that the majority of that site's users are physically present in Australia". Unless they mean the Australian version of Google. Even so, it's a teeny segment of Google's search engine, so the majority of Google users aren't in Australia.
Slashdot Mirror
So, this could be extended to covering DOSSHELL, FIle Manager, the Macintosh Finder, really anythign that shows things in a hierarchical menu.
Using the records provided in Genesis 5:3 and following, the timelime to the birth of Noah can be calculated: Adam to Seth's birth, 130 years; Seth to Enosh 105y; Enosh to Kenan, 90y; Kenan to Mahalalel, 70y; Mahalalel to Jared, 65y; Jared to Enoch, 162y; Enoch to Methuselah, 65y; Methuselah to Lamech, 187y; Lamech to Noah, 182y. Going off this data, the age of the earth at this point in history was now 1056 years.
Continuing on from Noah to Abraham (continuing from the end of Genesis 5): by the time Noah was 500y old, he had his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. From Noah's birth to the Flood, 600y, with the Flood being over 1 year later. Moving to Genesis 11:10, from Shem to Arpachshad, 100y, 2 years after the flood. Arpachshad to Shelah, 35y; Shelah to Eber, 30y; Eber to Peleg, 34; Peleg to Reu, 30y; Reu to Serug, 32y; Serug to Nahor, 30y; Nahor to Terah, 29y; Terah to Abram (later changed by God to Abraham), 70y. At this juncture, we have a continuous genealogy from Adam to Abram extending over 1946 years.
Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born to him [Gen 21:5]. The age of the earth at Isaac's birth was 2046 years.
The genealogical records after this are quite complete, showing up in different points in the Old Testament narrative, and being rehearsed by both Matthew and Luke. Matthew starts his gospel account with the genealogy of Jesus with Abraham, and lists the total number of generations between Abraham and Jesus. Matthew 1:17, "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations." The total number of people between Christ and Abraham is 41. Even if you decide to be remarkably generous and say that none of those men had children until they were 100 (which is unreasonable), the total age of the earth at the time of Jesus' birth can't be more that 6146 years. Using a more realistic average time between births of 50 years, the total age of the earth by Jesus' birth was approximately 3996 years.
Since Christ's birth, which is acknowledged as the balance point of our date system, there have been about 2005 years elapsed. This gives the total age of the earth today at only approximately 6001 years, which is considerably less than 10,000, let alone the 'billions' quoted by naturalistic scientists.
Presuming, as I and myriad others do, that the creation account in Genesis occurred in 6 real days -- not figurative days, or really, really long days -- then you have Adam being created only 6 days into the life of the earth, and all of my math works.
If you're unwilling to accept the evidence provided in the Bible of the creation account and the lifespans of those recorded, then sure, believing in a 10,000-year-old earth doesn't make much sense. But when you believe that God recorded for us what He wanted us to know, then there is no other possible conclusion to draw from the available evidence.
sorry about the chopped post, my browser had some issues just there.
With the creation of Adam, God did record for us the beginning of time. With the recorded genealogies in Matthew and Luke, going all the way back to Adam, a very close approximation of the Earth's age can be garnered. If you're willing to throw out the conclusion that the Earth is young, and that life on the earth is liekwise young, then you're throwing out all of the rest of the conclusions of the Bible.
Calling Jonathan "insane" is hostile. And, since Jonathan and I belive the same things aboutt he age of the Earth, then you are having a conversation, if not about me, then about what I believe, and therefore one that I feel obligated to respond to.
You appear to be dancing around and shying away from the valid points I have raised, which makes it difficult to talk to you. I'm sorry that you feel that I'm the one throwing out the 'strawmen', but you haven't done anything to respond to those points, except to say that they're not worth responding to.
With the creation of Adam, God did record for us the beginning of time. With the recorded genealogies
A certification can easily mean you just crammed well in whatever field it is you've received the cert.
thanks for the link
Upon what basis can you say that you do possess the ability to think rationally and logically? I do quite a bit of thinking, discussing, and writing that is rational and logical. I have several examples of my writing available on my personal website, if you care to take a look, and have been published by the Association for Computing Machinery's Ubiquity. You can see two articles I have published on Rice University's Connexions project here and here.
I would be interested in reading something that you've written and published, that can support an argument or point of view without resorting to name-calling.
There's also the fact that a significant parts of the antarctic ice cap sit on land that is below sea level, so it couldn't affect the world's sea levels much, either. The same can be said of Greenland.
If places like IBM gave or loaned mainframe machines to colleges, they'd get used, and the students would come out knowing how to think in zOS, and would be ready for businesses to hire with less on-the-job training.
The primary reason the school I am finishing my bachelor's deree from right now is heavily MS is because MS gave a bunch of software to the school, or sold it at deep discount. As CIS major, I can get a copy of VS2003 Pro, MSSQL Server, Project, Visio, XP, and couple other things for free. All of the students at my school may purchase Office at a ridiculous discount... way below the normal academic pricing.
It's a great marketing method for MS to employ: everybody coming out of my university knows Office, Windows, SQL Server, etc, and that's what they'll expect to use in 'real life'.
So, why do you keep responding to me if there is no point in talking to me? Obviosuly there must be some point in discussing this further. If people like Jonathan and I have "some form of psychological problem", you should just go about your merry way and ignore us. If it's true, then we cause you no harm.
I believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old because I believe in a literal reading of Genesis 1 with its creation account. People haven't been around long enough to actually know the age of the earth, we can only surmise based on available oservations. Humanistic schools of thought look at current processes and determine that the earth must be X years old because of how long geological activities take today. Theistic schools of thought begin with the assumption that if there is a supreme being who could make the entire earth, He could make it as fast as He wanted, and to appear as old as He desired.
Carrying through my view, with God having made man a full-grown adult on the 6th day of creation, and having made all other creatures ready to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." [Gen 1:22] & "Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind'; and it was so." [Gen 1:24], it is reasonable to conclude that the earth could also have been made to appear 'old'.
If you continue with my understanding of as literal a reading of the Bible as possible, a few chapters later when God sends the flood to cover the earth, it is reasonable to believe that such a world-wide catastrophe could have caused much of the grand expanses of erosion we see today. It is also reasonable to believe that such a world-wide event could cause most of the fossils we have discovered in digging through the layers of the earth.
If you discount a literal understanding of creation and the flood, then it could be resonable to believe that the earth is extremely old.
The beliefs that Jonathan and I share about the age of the earth are apparently in opposition to your own, which is understandable.
My question to you now is, why are you so hostile towards us? As I pointed out above, if we're wrong, there's no point in worrying about it. It's only if we're right that you have something to worry about with your beliefs.
is where is this Public Library? I'd love to go work there, or live there.
The contract between being a logical minded person like a programmer, and being so easily brainwashed into believing comeplete nonsense is startling."
There's no twisting going on here, just calling your spade a spade. You referred to him as "so easily brainwashed into believing comeplete nonsense is startling". That's calling him stupid in my book, or anyone else's.
Quoting myself: "Being stupid isn't always a bad thing, it normally just means you're uninformed. Before you go lambasting this guy's belief that the available evidence points to a young earth, maybe you should talk to him. Or to others who belive the same thing." I didn't ignore you or twist what you said. Quoting you again, "People who call me stupid because I don't "accept" nutjobs making up bullshit and trying to pretend its science, without bothering with tedious things like facts, or evidence, or research."
Science can not define origins. Since science is based upon the observable, and no one was around to observe the origin of the universe and life, you can't define it within science. You can define origins only within philosophy, worldview, or religion, but not with science. What Jonathan believes -- along with myself and myriad others -- is that we were specially created by God in His image. I believe that the entire earth was created in 6 days by God, and that we are the crowning glory of creation, having been made in His image.
I fully believe in the fall of Adam, and in the total depravity of the human race since. I believe in the efficacious redemptive work of Jesus Christ's death on the cross and resurrection the morning of the third day to pay for my sins.
Go ahead and call me irrelevant, or even irrational, if you want. I have one question for you: if it doesn't matter whether or not I or you believe in God, why are you bothering to cast aspersions on Jonathan's and my beliefs? Go ahead, don't believe in God if you don't want to. If you're right, then this whole argument doesn't matter, and you have no reason to worry about Jonathan or myself.
But if you're wrong, then you have a lot to worry about. And you're arguing against us to make yourself feel better, because if we're right, you know you're under God's anger right now, and are heading for Hell when you die. If we're right, you have to argue against us to defend your position, so that you can feel good about not having been rescued from damnation.
Don't blast Jonathan and me just because you don't believe in God.
I used 7.1 for a while, and that supported virtual memory. Didn't really pay attention in the earlier editions of the system software, though
tying up accords? Didn't know Honda had anything to do with music sales...
It's also worth while noting that there were two other cities on the list to be bombed if the Japanese did not surrender. We also spent a lot of effort ahead of time 'paper bombing' the cities warning people to leave.
I've done substantial research into this issue for a discussion group in my church, and the parent post about the fire bombings in Europe and Japan is a very good point. Far more people were killed in those attacks than in the two atomic bombings.
It's not a perfect solution, but it's better than most alternatives I looked at before goign with this system.
It's really a shame that you don't want to have a sane, reasonable discussion. Then again, this is Slashdot.
Sure, it's not a perfect fix, but it's a nice start towards finding what I want to see.
Could the US improve on its carbon production? Sure. But everybody else has a long way to go to catch up to our economic production.
That you think that an understanding based on available evidence and the man's personal religious beliefs is irrational shows that you aren't willing to hear alternative ideas, and that you're probably stupid.
Being stupid isn't always a bad thing, it normally just means you're uninformed. Before you go lambasting this guy's belief that the available evidence points to a young earth, maybe you should talk to him. Or to others who belive the same thing.
But, I guess that since you're dismissing him out of hand, the myriad people who do believe in a young earth are all illogical, brainwashed people.
I would love to talk to you about this off Slashdot, if you're willing to continue the conversation. Unfortunately, most people aren't willing to listen to the other side of the argument.
a swirl of caramel and chocolate?
I don't really get the whole idea (no pun intended) of patenting a mathematical algorithm. It would be like patenting the recipe for Oreos. You can trademark it, and copyright it, but patenting it doens't make sense to me. Then again, IANAL.
Which sounds a lot like a liquid, albeit a very slow one, to the average Joe on the street.
That can't be a case where "it is likely that the majority of that site's users are physically present in Australia". Unless they mean the Australian version of Google. Even so, it's a teeny segment of Google's search engine, so the majority of Google users aren't in Australia.