Um, no. If you want to be technical, if there's no license attached to the code, then you can't use it. Copyright happens on an original work from the time it's published. There are no notice requirements. Without a license, you don't have permission to use the work.
That's like saying if there's no license attached to a book, you can't read it. Copyright law prohibits you from copying and distributing it, not using it! One could claim you're still making an unauthorized copy, but you made a copy simply by downloading the web page! The copyright owner can not limit the use of an authorized copy, only a patent owner can do that. The downloaded web page, cached in to a file by your browser, is either an authorized copy or not. If it's not, it's a violation by the owner of the web site. If it is, there is nothing to prevent you from running your authorized copy of that code through a compiler without making any additional copies (unless there is a patent, of course). Regardless of that, because of the nature of the work, and because of the lack of an effect on the potential market for the potential work, it should fall under fair use anyway.
Have there been actual cases of people being successfully sued for copyright infringement for using, but not publishing source code? To copy and use source code is like seeing a clever machine and making an exact duplicate of it and using it. Thats what patents exist to prevent, not copyrights. Shouldn't the copyright only be an issue if they were making available copies of the source?
The termination shock fluctuates in distance because it's an interaction between the heliosphere of the sun and the interstellar medium.
Well... the interstellar medium plays a part further out, but the termination shock is the interaction between the areas of supercritical and subcritical flow of the solar wind.
No, it is not. It is the interstellar medium. Read: termination shock.
No it's not. The Wikipedia article is wrong were it implies that, and right where it says "At the termination shock, a standing shock wave, the solar wind falls below its speed of sound and becomes subsonic." Read Hydrolic Jump and Supercritical flow. The termination shock happens when the solar wind transitions from supercritical to subcritical, which is dependent on its own density, and its own wave speed (speed of sound), not the wave speed of the interstellar medium, which is much further out. While the wave speed of the interstellar medium is given by the article as 100km/s, the density and wave speed of the solar wind can't be expressed as a constant, as it is a function of distance from the sun and heliolatitude.
The court decided that the actions did appear to constitute a crime, and that the suit should go forward. As the identity of the person is required for the suit to go forward, why should Google NOT provide it?
Following due process is important and Google should have done so. Releasing info without court demand is as bad as searching without a warrant.
Google isn't the government. Google, like anyone else, should do as they see fit, proper and moral, so far as it is not in violation of their terms of service or the law.
Wow! So I'm to take it that from this one article you now have all the information you need to call anyone that disagrees with you "mindless"! Seems somewhat "narrow minded" to me. You must be a Republican!
Must be. If he were a Democrat, he would skip "mindless" and go straight to "evil."
I think that this is just a case of responsibility, for the individual to be held accountable for what they say.
Then you clearly don't know what anonymous means.
In a civilized society everyone, is held accountable for his actions. Guaranteed and complete anonymity means that one cannot held accountable for his actions. Therefore, such anonymity has no place in a civilized society.
anybody that takes internet 'slander' serious should grow a thicker skin.
You can't sue for slander because someone says something that hurts your feelings. You sue for slander when someone spreads false information about you that causes you actual harm. If someone destroys my livelihood by spreading false information about me, thick skin isn't going to put food on the table.
The moderation system does not exist so that you can squelch opinions that you disagree with. The parent article is clearly not a troll or flaimbait, so anonymous moderator cowards who disagree with it have modded it "overrated" so that no one will read it. It should be modded up so that both sides of the discussion are visible. CmdrTaco says that we should notify him when such abuses take place so he can revoke the moderation privileges of people who abuse the power in that way. I suggest we take him up on it.
And my instinct is that anything said anonymously is automatically not slanderous, because it either contains evidence or it has no weight. That, of course, is my moral opinion, not a legal one.
That doesn't hold water. Anonymous assertions without evidence always have and always will be given weight by the public, regardless of whether the public is smart or stupid for giving them weight. That means you can harm someone... you can destroy someone by making false anonymous statements about them in public. It is not a moral system that doesn't give the victim legal recourse against that kind of attack.
They conclude that ice isn't involved, which I agree with. I also think water is clearly not involved, since the tracks are disturbing the drying pattern. If the track was originally in mud, it wouldn't look like that.
When conditions are right, very dry sand can flow like a drift of snow on a mountain side. It happens in desert dunes all the time. I think when the conditions are right, the thin sand layers become able to slide over one another, and the wind can slowly move these things under the low-friction conditions.
No. If you'd actually been paying attention, by looking at the evidence over the last SEVERAL Ice Ages, we have determined that our climate is way outside the norms.... The issue here is that the evidence shows that we're FAR FAR beyond where we usually peak between Ice Ages.
That is totally wrong. Even the IPCC report correctly state that the peak temperature during the last interglacial was significantly higher than present temperatures. (It blames a difference in orbital factors, which is unfounded.) There is nothing climatic that is outside the normas at all, certainly not temperature. The only thing that is outside the norms is CO2 concentration.
Unlike what is claimed in the summary, the study makes no claims about the "first humans" in the Americas, only about the ancestry of the existing descendants of early settlers.
IMHO, it is a stretch to use the analysis they did for making conclusions about migration routes and so forth. We're talking about an analysis of general DNA diversity after over 10,000 years of empires, wars, and extinctions of many lineages.
1) We know there existed in the south, especially the extreme south, morphological diversity non-existent in the north. Some examples are the "giants" Magellan and others saw in Patagonia -- even if you discount his reports, the most conservative estimates still put them at 6 1/2 feet tall, which is still "giant" by comparison to everything else at the time; There is another extinct race -- whose bones we actually have, not based on reports of others -- from the same region, with thick bones, large vertebrae, and prominent browridge, almost as if they were a cross with neanderthals.
2) Analysis of the Y-chromosome DNA distribution and the mitochondrial DNA distribution, show a much different, and apparently unrelated, distribution between the male ancestry of the current populations, and the female ancestry. As with most of Asia and Europe, the female ancestry in the region is older, which stands to reason as with new invasions, female populations are kept, while male populations are killed off and replaced by the invaders. Except, in the Americas, the last successful invaders seem to have a significantly different genetic history than the original females.
3) Certainly, there were migrations over the Bering Strait. There's lots of evidence for that. But IMHO, the only reasonable conclusion is that there were also migrations by sea to the west coast of South America around the same time. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support it, and the only argument against is that people 10kya were too "primitive" to navigate the ocean -- which is nothing but "cave man" prejudice.
Can you imagine what something that size is going to look like on radar (assuming it reflects radar)? Someone please alert the Russians that we're deploying this sucker.
Yeah it had better be automated. It's pretty easy to fly one of those things into the ocean if you're doing it manually. And at a couple million dollars per kite, that would suck.
The main disadvantage is that it is really only good for downwind propulsion, whereas a conventional sail can make some progress upwind at an angle.
Not true. This type of kite is more effective at steering into the wind than a conventional sail. A conventional sail always has a significant vector of force in the direction of the wind, and relies on the ship's keel to redirect that force. A kite can steer 90 degrees towards the wind, generating lift directly perpendicular to the wind direction. If a kite was attached to the center of a ship with a keel, I'd guess you could get close to 10 degrees of direct upwind. As it is, this is about products for cargo ships and yachts, and the kite pulls from the bow. The SkySails site says you can go within 50 degrees of direct upwind, 70 degrees with full power, which sounds realistic to me.
I don't have any particular opinion about human cloning, except for the fact that I don't see any actual point in it.
It could be pretty darn useful for researching the epigenome. For example if you take a skin cell from an embryo, and freeze it, and then 30 years later take a skin cell from the adult (yeah, it's a long-term experiment), and you clone both cells, you will have the same genome (as far as we know), but 30 years of changes to the epigenome; and we could compare side-by-side how those changes manifest themselves.
Of course, doing that ethically might be challenging.
To get into the question of murder, one has to dig deeply in international policy and the Geneva Convention - which are not very sane or moral. The Geneva Convention says that if you're a big country, you can divide your people up into fighting and non-fighting groups - and when the fighting groups kill people, it's not murder. That system only works for the big countries, and the smaller groups don't buy it. Death is death, killing is killing.
So... you're suggesting that the events of 9/11 didn't count as murder, because small non-governmental groups should be able to kill whoever they want?
If you want to go down the line of "morality" and talk about who has killed whom, the US loses that argument quickly. Do you think what the US has done in Iraq is sane?
Is deposing a cruel tyrant bent on domination of the region, who is determined to produce nuclear weapons, and claimed to his generals that he had already done so, and providing for the foundation of democracy in his place sane? Yes, that is sane.
The military commissions act makes it possible for the US government to designate ANY PERSON an enemy combatant for terrorists acts or (more importantly) aiding or interacting with any other person who acts against the interests of the US. SIC.
That is wildly incorrect. See 928a.1. for the definition. The law provides that the government can only designate those as unlawful enemy combatants who have "engaged in hostilities or who have purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its allies, and who is NOT a member of any regular armed forces or militia of any government, recognized or unrecognized.
Once designated, that person basically loses their rights and enters a kangaroo court system
A designated unlawful combatant has all the rights provided under the military commissions, including a court with a fully qualified and competent judge; a fully qualified and competent defense counsel, either hired by the accused, or else provided by the military; a competent court reporter who makes a verbatim transcript of the proceedings; to be informed of the charges against him, which are to be sworn and signed by a member of the court; the right to not incriminate himself, and any statements obtained by torture are inadmissible; the right to present evidence in his defense; the right to cross-examine the witnesses who testify against him, and to respond to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him; the right to challenge the qualifications of the judge or counsel, including one peremptory challenge; the right to any exculpatory evidence known by the prosecution; the right to a copy of the proceedings; the right to no cruel or unusual punishment; the right of appeal, including appeal of the final judgment to the federal circuit court and to the Supreme Court; etc, etc, etc.
that can include secret evidence, prosecutors talking privately with the judge, sealed testimony from anonymous accusers, etc etc etc. As I said, you have to go read it, carefully.
The only ex parte (talking privately with the judge) that is allowed, is a motion to claim that certain information is classified and should be excluded. No evidence itself is presented ex parte. For national security privilege to be invoked, the head of an executive or military department must find that (1) it is classified, and (2) disclosure would be detrimental to national security. In that event, the judge may delete certain classified items from the document being submitted for evidence, or substitute a portion or a summary of it, to protect sources, methods, or activities. In no case is a defendant tried without knowing the nature of the evidence or without having the opportunity to counter it. Does he have all the rights of a criminal defendant? Of course not. Nor would that be appropriate.
As for habeas corpus (I don't think you mentioned it,
9/11 was a big deal, mostly becuase it was blown way way out of proportion. It was like 20 people. Hardly a hoarde. Hardly even a blip in the mortality of the US. It was the media and opportunistic politicians that made 9/11.
You ought to go actually read the military commisions act. See what the US has come to.
Then think hard about infant mortality in the US and compare what happens with dying infants each year to the 9/11 attack.
Huh? You asked who would want to blow up these reactors. Al Qaeda would. You don't think the membership of Al Qaeda constitutes a horde??? Why does it matter how many of them were needed for 9/11?
What exactly do you think mortality has to do with anything? Everybody dies. Not everybody is murdered. Murder is a big deal under any sane moral or legal system. Death is neutral.
And what the hell is wrong with the Military Commissions Act? It's the codification of the same Law of War that has been used by every common law nation in the last 500 years!
ID arguments fall apart under their own theory. Their theory basically states that some things in nature are too complex to have come about randomly, therefore someone must have designed them. It's notable that this is a logical argument, not a scientific one. There is no testable statement here. The only valid test would be to put an empty jar in a room and wait for "the designer" to place a new form of life in it. I haven't heard of any successful experiments of this type:).
ID is at least as falsifiable as the neodarwinist mechanism that it disputes. Neodarwinism claims that macroevolutionary changes are random; ID claims that macroevolutionary changes are driven by an intelligent purpose. As one of the tenets of ID as that the neodarwinist explanation is impossible, it is very straightforward to falsify: a complete mathematical model of randomly driven macroevolution would prove that neodarwinism is possible, and that the claims of ID concerning "irreducible complexity" are false. The harder task would be to quantifiably prove the neodarwinist mechanism impossible. That's the task of the ID proponents, but mathematically showing some structure to be impossible to form by a route of random changes, may itself be impossible. If it is impossible, then the neodarwinist mechanism is not falsifiable, and thus not scientific.
Their current argument though would look at a tree's cells and all of the complexities that go on and say that there is no way it could have evolved. ID just says evolution is false, it doesn't try to explain anything itself. It's true that the neodarwinist explanation of the mechanism of change is far more complete than the ID explanation, which doesn't have any suggestions for how the intelligent purpose effects changes. However, in terms of specifically how changes created the organs and systems of complex animals, neodarwinism is just as incomplete.
In reality, we've observed DNA mutations and even speciation events. Speciation is an arbitrary concept. It does not imply an increase of complexity. We have never seen an increase of complexity, the addition of a new organ or system, or an existing species with a new organ or system being in the process of being formed.
My favorite is when an atheist in a debate claimed that our large brain size was proof of evolution because prior to modern medicine, 20% of women died in childbirth due to the size of the babies' heads. The "true believers" claimed this was proof that natural selection was false because it caused the woman to die. If a larger brain gave even a 10% advantage to survival though, it would prove to be a total benefit to the species, and we can see now it has worked since we've become the dominant species on the planet due largely to our intelligence. If you look at it from a designer's perspective though, there is no plausible reason not to just make the woman's hips a little wider. From an evolutionist's perspective, the change just hasn't happened yet. Now of course there is little selective pressure since we have modern medicine and C-Sections available. This is an interesting argument that I hadn't heard before. I don't follow how a 10% survival advantage is a net benefit if 20% of the women are dying in childbirth. Saying our species' success proves its evolutionary benefit is circular reasoning. It's also ignoring the fact that the vast majority of large-brained hominids have gone extinct, in fact every such species but one. I don't buy the explanation that the change just hasn't happened yet. For neodarwinism to work, such changes should be essentially simultaneous -- the very requirement that leads to the charges of "irreducible complexity." Besides, it didn't take the neanderthal women any 300kyears to develop wide hips -- even the earliest examples of their skeletons have this feature.
(Of course, the Bible says that women were changed to bear children in pain as a consequence of eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. One of many biblical reference to the change of supremacy from the Neanderthals to the H. sapiens?)
This is going to be interesting...lawyer mill vs the number 1 law school in the country. Not only that but the poster above makes an interesting point about fair use (although I think it was more intended as flaimbait). Probably not fair use in this case though as they didn't "comment on" the movie,they simply took a part of it and worked it into their own creation, derivative work if I understand correctly. Being the number 1 law school and all, there's probably someone there that knows that non-profit educational use is one of the primary statutory cases of fair use.
The problem is that the theory of Intelligent Design* is not science.
Pray tell, what makes the theory that macroevolutionary changes are caused by random mutations "science", and the theory that macroevolutionary changes are driven by some non-random intelligence "not science"?
Note that this statement does not say anything about the truth of ID. It merely states that ID as a proposed explanation of the origin of life does not satisfy fundamental criteria necessary to be called science. I cannot tell you whether ID is true or false, because I DO NOT KNOW. But I can tell you that it isn't a scientific theory.
The problem with your statement is that (at least as I defined them in the above), if neodarwinism is true, then ID is false, and if ID is true, then neodarwinism is false. Thus they are equally falsifiable theories. If neodarwinism is a scientific theory, then so necessarily is ID.
I am perfectly willing to entertain the notion that the universe had a divine creator, as I am also willing to entertain the notion of a supernatural origin of life, as are many scientists. But as scientists, none of us can rationally place those notions in a scientific framework.
I certainly agree that the supernatural cannot be a subject of what we normally consider "science." However, the work in ID that I've seen, such as that attempting to show "irreducible complexity," is an attempt to show the impossibility of the neodarwinist mechanism of macroevolution. That is certainly a legitimate goal of science. Saying that falsifying the neodarwinist mechanism is unscientific is saying that the neodarwinist mechanism is unscientific. Trying to prove that the actual, non-neodarwinist, mechanism is of a divine or supernatural nature, is, as I'm sure you'll agree, beyond the scope of science; and to the degree that ID proponents take it to that extreme, they shouldn't. That's probably why they called it "intelligent design" instead of "divine design." That the intelligence is divine will obviously be assumed by theists, while others will form their own theories on the source of the intelligence.
Slashdot Mirror
Hm, maybe Britons are just lazy.
That's like saying if there's no license attached to a book, you can't read it. Copyright law prohibits you from copying and distributing it, not using it! One could claim you're still making an unauthorized copy, but you made a copy simply by downloading the web page! The copyright owner can not limit the use of an authorized copy, only a patent owner can do that. The downloaded web page, cached in to a file by your browser, is either an authorized copy or not. If it's not, it's a violation by the owner of the web site. If it is, there is nothing to prevent you from running your authorized copy of that code through a compiler without making any additional copies (unless there is a patent, of course). Regardless of that, because of the nature of the work, and because of the lack of an effect on the potential market for the potential work, it should fall under fair use anyway.
Have there been actual cases of people being successfully sued for copyright infringement for using, but not publishing source code? To copy and use source code is like seeing a clever machine and making an exact duplicate of it and using it. Thats what patents exist to prevent, not copyrights. Shouldn't the copyright only be an issue if they were making available copies of the source?
Well... the interstellar medium plays a part further out, but the termination shock is the interaction between the areas of supercritical and subcritical flow of the solar wind.
No it's not. The Wikipedia article is wrong were it implies that, and right where it says "At the termination shock, a standing shock wave, the solar wind falls below its speed of sound and becomes subsonic." Read Hydrolic Jump and Supercritical flow. The termination shock happens when the solar wind transitions from supercritical to subcritical, which is dependent on its own density, and its own wave speed (speed of sound), not the wave speed of the interstellar medium, which is much further out. While the wave speed of the interstellar medium is given by the article as 100km/s, the density and wave speed of the solar wind can't be expressed as a constant, as it is a function of distance from the sun and heliolatitude.
The court decided that the actions did appear to constitute a crime, and that the suit should go forward. As the identity of the person is required for the suit to go forward, why should Google NOT provide it?
Google isn't the government. Google, like anyone else, should do as they see fit, proper and moral, so far as it is not in violation of their terms of service or the law.
Must be. If he were a Democrat, he would skip "mindless" and go straight to "evil."
In a civilized society everyone, is held accountable for his actions. Guaranteed and complete anonymity means that one cannot held accountable for his actions. Therefore, such anonymity has no place in a civilized society.
You can't sue for slander because someone says something that hurts your feelings. You sue for slander when someone spreads false information about you that causes you actual harm. If someone destroys my livelihood by spreading false information about me, thick skin isn't going to put food on the table.
The moderation system does not exist so that you can squelch opinions that you disagree with. The parent article is clearly not a troll or flaimbait, so anonymous moderator cowards who disagree with it have modded it "overrated" so that no one will read it. It should be modded up so that both sides of the discussion are visible. CmdrTaco says that we should notify him when such abuses take place so he can revoke the moderation privileges of people who abuse the power in that way. I suggest we take him up on it.
That doesn't hold water. Anonymous assertions without evidence always have and always will be given weight by the public, regardless of whether the public is smart or stupid for giving them weight. That means you can harm someone... you can destroy someone by making false anonymous statements about them in public. It is not a moral system that doesn't give the victim legal recourse against that kind of attack.
They conclude that ice isn't involved, which I agree with. I also think water is clearly not involved, since the tracks are disturbing the drying pattern. If the track was originally in mud, it wouldn't look like that.
When conditions are right, very dry sand can flow like a drift of snow on a mountain side. It happens in desert dunes all the time. I think when the conditions are right, the thin sand layers become able to slide over one another, and the wind can slowly move these things under the low-friction conditions.
Er, I didn't see any rocks moving in that video. Just some water moving and a guy who says he knows why the rocks move.
That is totally wrong. Even the IPCC report correctly state that the peak temperature during the last interglacial was significantly higher than present temperatures. (It blames a difference in orbital factors, which is unfounded.) There is nothing climatic that is outside the normas at all, certainly not temperature. The only thing that is outside the norms is CO2 concentration.
Unlike what is claimed in the summary, the study makes no claims about the "first humans" in the Americas, only about the ancestry of the existing descendants of early settlers.
IMHO, it is a stretch to use the analysis they did for making conclusions about migration routes and so forth. We're talking about an analysis of general DNA diversity after over 10,000 years of empires, wars, and extinctions of many lineages.
1) We know there existed in the south, especially the extreme south, morphological diversity non-existent in the north. Some examples are the "giants" Magellan and others saw in Patagonia -- even if you discount his reports, the most conservative estimates still put them at 6 1/2 feet tall, which is still "giant" by comparison to everything else at the time; There is another extinct race -- whose bones we actually have, not based on reports of others -- from the same region, with thick bones, large vertebrae, and prominent browridge, almost as if they were a cross with neanderthals.
2) Analysis of the Y-chromosome DNA distribution and the mitochondrial DNA distribution, show a much different, and apparently unrelated, distribution between the male ancestry of the current populations, and the female ancestry. As with most of Asia and Europe, the female ancestry in the region is older, which stands to reason as with new invasions, female populations are kept, while male populations are killed off and replaced by the invaders. Except, in the Americas, the last successful invaders seem to have a significantly different genetic history than the original females.
3) Certainly, there were migrations over the Bering Strait. There's lots of evidence for that. But IMHO, the only reasonable conclusion is that there were also migrations by sea to the west coast of South America around the same time. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to support it, and the only argument against is that people 10kya were too "primitive" to navigate the ocean -- which is nothing but "cave man" prejudice.
Can you imagine what something that size is going to look like on radar (assuming it reflects radar)? Someone please alert the Russians that we're deploying this sucker.
Yeah it had better be automated. It's pretty easy to fly one of those things into the ocean if you're doing it manually. And at a couple million dollars per kite, that would suck.
Not true. This type of kite is more effective at steering into the wind than a conventional sail. A conventional sail always has a significant vector of force in the direction of the wind, and relies on the ship's keel to redirect that force. A kite can steer 90 degrees towards the wind, generating lift directly perpendicular to the wind direction. If a kite was attached to the center of a ship with a keel, I'd guess you could get close to 10 degrees of direct upwind. As it is, this is about products for cargo ships and yachts, and the kite pulls from the bow. The SkySails site says you can go within 50 degrees of direct upwind, 70 degrees with full power, which sounds realistic to me.
It could be pretty darn useful for researching the epigenome. For example if you take a skin cell from an embryo, and freeze it, and then 30 years later take a skin cell from the adult (yeah, it's a long-term experiment), and you clone both cells, you will have the same genome (as far as we know), but 30 years of changes to the epigenome; and we could compare side-by-side how those changes manifest themselves.
Of course, doing that ethically might be challenging.
So... you're suggesting that the events of 9/11 didn't count as murder, because small non-governmental groups should be able to kill whoever they want?
Is deposing a cruel tyrant bent on domination of the region, who is determined to produce nuclear weapons, and claimed to his generals that he had already done so, and providing for the foundation of democracy in his place sane? Yes, that is sane.
The military commissions act makes it possible for the US government to designate ANY PERSON an enemy combatant for terrorists acts or (more importantly) aiding or interacting with any other person who acts against the interests of the US. SIC.
That is wildly incorrect. See 928a.1. for the definition. The law provides that the government can only designate those as unlawful enemy combatants who have "engaged in hostilities or who have purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its allies, and who is NOT a member of any regular armed forces or militia of any government, recognized or unrecognized.
Once designated, that person basically loses their rights and enters a kangaroo court system
A designated unlawful combatant has all the rights provided under the military commissions, including a court with a fully qualified and competent judge; a fully qualified and competent defense counsel, either hired by the accused, or else provided by the military; a competent court reporter who makes a verbatim transcript of the proceedings; to be informed of the charges against him, which are to be sworn and signed by a member of the court; the right to not incriminate himself, and any statements obtained by torture are inadmissible; the right to present evidence in his defense; the right to cross-examine the witnesses who testify against him, and to respond to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him; the right to challenge the qualifications of the judge or counsel, including one peremptory challenge; the right to any exculpatory evidence known by the prosecution; the right to a copy of the proceedings; the right to no cruel or unusual punishment; the right of appeal, including appeal of the final judgment to the federal circuit court and to the Supreme Court; etc, etc, etc.
that can include secret evidence, prosecutors talking privately with the judge, sealed testimony from anonymous accusers, etc etc etc. As I said, you have to go read it, carefully.
The only ex parte (talking privately with the judge) that is allowed, is a motion to claim that certain information is classified and should be excluded. No evidence itself is presented ex parte. For national security privilege to be invoked, the head of an executive or military department must find that (1) it is classified, and (2) disclosure would be detrimental to national security. In that event, the judge may delete certain classified items from the document being submitted for evidence, or substitute a portion or a summary of it, to protect sources, methods, or activities. In no case is a defendant tried without knowing the nature of the evidence or without having the opportunity to counter it. Does he have all the rights of a criminal defendant? Of course not. Nor would that be appropriate.
As for habeas corpus (I don't think you mentioned it,
Huh? You asked who would want to blow up these reactors. Al Qaeda would. You don't think the membership of Al Qaeda constitutes a horde??? Why does it matter how many of them were needed for 9/11?
What exactly do you think mortality has to do with anything? Everybody dies. Not everybody is murdered. Murder is a big deal under any sane moral or legal system. Death is neutral.
And what the hell is wrong with the Military Commissions Act? It's the codification of the same Law of War that has been used by every common law nation in the last 500 years!
ID is at least as falsifiable as the neodarwinist mechanism that it disputes. Neodarwinism claims that macroevolutionary changes are random; ID claims that macroevolutionary changes are driven by an intelligent purpose. As one of the tenets of ID as that the neodarwinist explanation is impossible, it is very straightforward to falsify: a complete mathematical model of randomly driven macroevolution would prove that neodarwinism is possible, and that the claims of ID concerning "irreducible complexity" are false. The harder task would be to quantifiably prove the neodarwinist mechanism impossible. That's the task of the ID proponents, but mathematically showing some structure to be impossible to form by a route of random changes, may itself be impossible. If it is impossible, then the neodarwinist mechanism is not falsifiable, and thus not scientific. Their current argument though would look at a tree's cells and all of the complexities that go on and say that there is no way it could have evolved. ID just says evolution is false, it doesn't try to explain anything itself. It's true that the neodarwinist explanation of the mechanism of change is far more complete than the ID explanation, which doesn't have any suggestions for how the intelligent purpose effects changes. However, in terms of specifically how changes created the organs and systems of complex animals, neodarwinism is just as incomplete. In reality, we've observed DNA mutations and even speciation events. Speciation is an arbitrary concept. It does not imply an increase of complexity. We have never seen an increase of complexity, the addition of a new organ or system, or an existing species with a new organ or system being in the process of being formed. My favorite is when an atheist in a debate claimed that our large brain size was proof of evolution because prior to modern medicine, 20% of women died in childbirth due to the size of the babies' heads. The "true believers" claimed this was proof that natural selection was false because it caused the woman to die. If a larger brain gave even a 10% advantage to survival though, it would prove to be a total benefit to the species, and we can see now it has worked since we've become the dominant species on the planet due largely to our intelligence. If you look at it from a designer's perspective though, there is no plausible reason not to just make the woman's hips a little wider. From an evolutionist's perspective, the change just hasn't happened yet. Now of course there is little selective pressure since we have modern medicine and C-Sections available. This is an interesting argument that I hadn't heard before. I don't follow how a 10% survival advantage is a net benefit if 20% of the women are dying in childbirth. Saying our species' success proves its evolutionary benefit is circular reasoning. It's also ignoring the fact that the vast majority of large-brained hominids have gone extinct, in fact every such species but one. I don't buy the explanation that the change just hasn't happened yet. For neodarwinism to work, such changes should be essentially simultaneous -- the very requirement that leads to the charges of "irreducible complexity." Besides, it didn't take the neanderthal women any 300kyears to develop wide hips -- even the earliest examples of their skeletons have this feature.
(Of course, the Bible says that women were changed to bear children in pain as a consequence of eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. One of many biblical reference to the change of supremacy from the Neanderthals to the H. sapiens?)
Pray tell, what makes the theory that macroevolutionary changes are caused by random mutations "science", and the theory that macroevolutionary changes are driven by some non-random intelligence "not science"?
The problem with your statement is that (at least as I defined them in the above), if neodarwinism is true, then ID is false, and if ID is true, then neodarwinism is false. Thus they are equally falsifiable theories. If neodarwinism is a scientific theory, then so necessarily is ID.
I certainly agree that the supernatural cannot be a subject of what we normally consider "science." However, the work in ID that I've seen, such as that attempting to show "irreducible complexity," is an attempt to show the impossibility of the neodarwinist mechanism of macroevolution. That is certainly a legitimate goal of science. Saying that falsifying the neodarwinist mechanism is unscientific is saying that the neodarwinist mechanism is unscientific. Trying to prove that the actual, non-neodarwinist, mechanism is of a divine or supernatural nature, is, as I'm sure you'll agree, beyond the scope of science; and to the degree that ID proponents take it to that extreme, they shouldn't. That's probably why they called it "intelligent design" instead of "divine design." That the intelligence is divine will obviously be assumed by theists, while others will form their own theories on the source of the intelligence.