To be fair, RIAA is only interested in recorded music, and the MPAA is only for motion pictures. There really is no collaborative lobby for digital television, at least not in the same monolithic manner.
Forget "acceptable" - website design and development is perhaps the most practical science ever created. Nobody "does things because they can" in web development - people create toolkits, APIs, services, layouts, hacks, and other bits of code for the Web so that other people can use them to *actually build websites.* That means productivity is not only key, but it is desired at the practical exclusivity of knowledge of the code. In fact, if this toolkit means an art student largely ignorant of programming constructs can create a website like Flickr or Slashdot or a smoother looking Gmail, then I applaud that, because too few web designers really have any grasp of the word design.
The other difference between websites and most programs is that a lot of standalone programs are designed for niche users with specific needs, and can't be translated for other uses easily, whereas most website programming is designed out of flexibility. Because the web uses such loose languages (XML, JSON, SOAP, etc) toolkits are a great way to address the flexibility in a more intuitive way.
It's apples to oranges, really. Web design is 100% practicality.
Actually, since we don't have any quorum calls in our electorate, the president could be elected by as few as 10 people.
That is, if only 1 person showed up to vote in California, Texas, New York, Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and North Carolina, and voted for the same person, then that person will receive 271 electoral votes, enough to win the Presidency.
Doing the math (assuming a population of 320 million people), that is.000003125% of the population.
Personally, I think at this point the onus should be on the bank to get in touch with ICANN or VeriSign or whoever and get those cybersquatters off those similarly named sites. Or VeriSign should allow users to complain about clearly illegitimate cybersquatting (a phisher owning bank-of-america.com or wel1s-fargo.com or whatever) and they should be taken down. This seems to be at least one avenue of phishing that can and should be easily stopped. Clearly that's not going to save the universe from spams and scams, but it's a start.
Has anyone here played Warning Forever? It is a fairly simple game, you are a spaceship with some guns, and there is a boss ship you must defeat.
But the neat thing about it is that after you beat it, it learns from your patterns and then a new ship is spawned with ways to flummox you. Does the bosses' shock wave weapon seem to kill you most often? The next boss will have twice as many shock wave weapons. Like to stay closer to the boss to avoid the targeting? It grows slicer arms which slice out to destroy you. And so on. And ultimately the boss created knows all your tricks, and you have to either adapt to new tricks or die because you have no tricks left.
All in all, this is a great game, and it really challenges you to play an old stand-by (Asteroids/Galaga) in a new and different way. I think this is definitely one AI model to consider...
But the pragmatist in me goes, "Yeah, but they can make it burn a VW Golf in the quarter-mile for under $10,000?" Because that is the Goose that lays the Golden Egg, my friends.
Simply untrue. Walmart is convincing various local governments to use eminent domain (which I can, at least, spell) to take land, where they can. Walmart does not have the power of emminent domain, not being a government branch.
But in this case the 330,000 kids are stealing, and the popularity of this form of theft won't ever make it right.
To which I simply say that a) this is not a form of theft, and b) the laws surrounding copyright in this country are so ludicrous (and clearly, as evidenced by this Slashdot article, are growing more so day by day) as to easily merit civil disobedience regarding them.
So Mr. Perens may be right, but I think the ultimate effect is that people like my savvy father-in-law, who uses bitTorrent to download That 70s Show every week, and my mother, who was reintroduced to I Love Lucy when I bought her a DVR, are not going to tolerate these increasingly stupid and asinine intrusions into civil liberties.
Ironically, it may be that great idiot box (and the generation who grew up on it) that finally causes a revolution against the media companies. When people my parents' age start hearing they can't record shows, can't copy media, can't fully embrace the content they have embraced through low-tech all these years, political heads will roll. Count on it.
While I agree completely with your comment, there seems to a point you're missing, which is that more and more games are incorporating complex sociological and psychological paradigms into the game. Adding female minds (since they DOMINATED your social science classes) to the gaming industry could aid in this.
I think one avenue that has clearly not been approached and promoted enough is combining sociology and psychology successfully with game programming. Will Wright seems to get it - I bet The Sims family of games are most popular among female games - and if we could encourage some of those psych/education/sociology-driven female students who view Comp Sci and game design with disdain and/or trepidation to take on the challenges of AI, in-game character psychology, and the other less technical aspects of gaming, we could make huge new inroads into things like MMORPGS, adventure and real-time strategy games, and even sports games, FPSes, stealth/action games, etc.
And of course if a girl wants to get involved in the technical side, creating player graphics or collision detection modules, the more power to her.
Seriously, is putting on a suit that much of a subversion of your "self-respect"? That's pretty pitiful, that you've placed so much of your self-respect on your refusal and pride in not wearing a suit and tie for a meeting that involves your expertise. To sacrifice a victory for that kind of "self-respect" - that just smacks of stubbornness.
In fact, you will "lose" more people by underdressing because they themselves will feel disrespected by your appearance - by the fact that you feel you don't need to offer them a nice appearance when delivering your message. Very few people will be thoughtful enough to think that "Hey, he's underdressed, his message must really be worthwhile."
People will judge you more by the decision to underdress than the actual underdressing. They'll view the process as disrespectful, arrogant, and more than a little contrived. *That* is how they judge you. They don't think you're stupid or lazy or untrustworthy: they think you're coming to the table insincerely, and they will treat you in kind.
Because nobody could possibly like a shaved face and nice clothes. You know, nobody's idol could be Cary Grant or James Bond.
You know, that whole metrosexual thing doesn't exist. Nobody wants to be a suave pretty boy.
Everyone wants to be a freak, and wear sandals and have long ponytail hair. Everybody, seriously, look it up. Everybody was like, "man, it sucks that I have to wear a suit in business." Nobody ever says, "Gee, this suit makes me feel like a powerful and attractive person" and means it. They're all just posturing, right? They're just lying to themselves. That's the machine for you, self-delusional and everything.
Wow. So true. I never thought of it like that. When I was dressing slick in high school and getting all the ladies, I was actually rejecting my freedom! And in college, when I looked at the Goths and didn't pity them, but felt absolutely no desire to dress like that, or like a surfer, or a geek, or an emo kid, or a punk - I had no idea I was playing right into The Man's hands!
This whole conversation has crushed me. I'm gonna go lay down with my beautiful wife and ponder this moment.
Yes, but he was just referring to the fact that abortions are legal acts in this country. It's like driving: there are restrictions, but it is legal, and to outright prevent someone from doing it is illegal.
Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.
on
US Plans Lunar Motel
·
· Score: 1
To add to this, RICO is designed to go after organizations that have IRS filings, be they corporate or NPO. So the users of Slashdot would not constitute a RICO act, because we are merely a loose affiliation of (possible) confederates. And since Slashdot site owners are pretty much hands-off on any sort of endorsements of activity on the site, they will never be charged with RICO for encouraging piracy or civil disobedience or what have you.
If the PETA officially sanctioned or condoned civil disobedience (or outright wanton criminal activity), they would be charged under the RICO. But the official front of PETA is very much just "don't you feel sorry for the animals?", and rarely extends into the "do something about it" beyond "stop buying the following companies' products." They never suggest that illegal activities which result in increased animal freedom or animal rights are a good thing. They never applaud ALF (officially and publicly), because to do so would constitute a RICO violation.
Whereas Operation Rescue actively promotes civil disobedience and the illegal protests of abortion clinics (and uses funds to do so, in the form of printing literature and maintaining websites), so they are a RICO violator. End of discussion.
Skype would have to do the same thing under an official front. There would have to be evidence that the corporate officers - acting as such (and not as rogue agents) - encouraged some illegal activity and that Skype, directly or indirectly, provided the money to do so through corporate channels, and that this activity directly hurts StreamCast's business ventures.
My guess here is that Skype will be able to demonstate enough plausible deniability to avoid a RICO conviction. With most criminal RICO stuff, the money trails and the linking evidence (phone calls, emails, meetings) are all recorded and filed under valid search warrants, and the cases are usually very clear-cut before they go to trial. With civil RICO, you are essentially accusing first based on gut instinct (and perhaps you "know" that they did it, but you don't know the gory details), and then attempting through legal discovery to prove it. Which, needless to say, is hard to do.
Actually, radio is great for healthy competition, in broad strokes. Here in Austin we have at least 5 or 6 all-Spanish-speaking stations. I imagine there are quite fewer of those types of stations in North Dakota.
Of course, due to the limited spectrum of radio, our choices within whatever tastes we may have (rock, hip hop, jazz, etc) are fairly limited, and limited markets tend to reward major players over independent labels. LUCKILY digital distribution doesn't have this limit, and thus every possible flavor of content provider is possible in a distribute first model.
The key is that in a distribute first model, where any song can be played by any radio station, competition becomes less about content and more about the model of providing content (i.e. do you like the DJs on this or that station, which station has better promotions, which station skews slightly older/younger/harder).
The same is true about online music distribution models - Napster gives you access but you don't own, Rhapsody and eMusic offer more indie label stuff, iTunes has the iPod, Yahoo! Music is like your personal radio station, etc etc the list goes on. And, if a true distribute first model were enacted, hopefully some more competitors could spring up, because they wouldn't be beholden to the specific burdens of any given label. More models, more choice, better market.
Just FYI: correlation does in fact imply correlation. There are links between playing violent video games and violent attitudes and actions. Just because we can't prove one does not cause the other does not mean that there is no "link" between the two.
And just to make my point clear, there is also a link between playing video games not catching malaria. The link, of course, is that you live in a First World country, and have access to state-of-the-art technology in both medicine and entertainment.
There may not be a causal relationship at hand, but do deny the correlative relationship between violence and any number of factors (socioeconomic status, race, and yes, the playing of violent video games) is just as equally statistically ignorant.
Actually, pretty much all freedoms that have been denied American citizens during wartimes have been given back without much of a fight. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Acts during World War I, Japanese interment - all of these were reversed and undone within a few months of the end of those respective wars, and with relatively little fanfare or defiance required.
That may not hold true in every scenario of every country ever to appear on this planet, but yes, many times the act of sacrificing and regaining freedoms is a fairly transitory and bureaucratic one.
In the late 1930s, Gerald Nye of North Dakota and Martin Dies of Texas were outright for the Nazi party practically right up until the bombing of Pearl Harbor. They were unabashedly anti-Semitic, pro-fascist, and anti-Roosevelt.
People forget that the Nazi party was probably the most political party in the world during the 1930s. The American Bund (a group formed to promote Nazism in the states, and to encourage neutrality while Hitler invaded the rest of Europe) was not a fringe group - they had among their members Congressmen, Senators, judges, and governors.
Even after World War II had begun in earnest for America in 1942, members of Congress gave classified information to Nazi agents, spoke out for the extermination of "the Jew" on the floor of Congress, and continued to spout anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi rhetoric in newsletters sent to their home district.
Luckily for us, Congress is not beholden to respect the opinions of all of its members individually - it only has to respond to the majority opinion, which usually correlates with public opinion. This is also true of corporations - their "public" is just limited to those who own stock in it.
Counterpoint: Oklahoma City is famous for a number of reasons in America, not just the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, but as you can see, it still peppers the search for Oklahoma City.
The same holds true for in searches for "waco" and "kent state university". Even overly broad searches for "new york city", "beirut", and "iraq" bring up images of the WTC attacks, the Beirut embassy bombing, and references to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal on the very first page results. Yet these three places have hundreds if not thousands of years of history.
Whether or not a place holds a certain value to even a large country such as China, does not mean it holds a certain value to the rest of the world.
In America, the Smith Act essentially said the same thing: promoting violent overthrow of the government through literature or speech was a criminal offense. The reason for this is very simple:
A single person or small group promoting anti-government violence will never have the actual military might to begin a rebellion. So instead they choose to act in single acts of massive and wanton destruction (the Oklahoma City bombing, or the Chechens who took over that school, for example) which more often than not hurt large numbers of innocent citizens and civilians.
Whether or not you agree with this argument is why we, of course, have a government in the first place. (The Smith Act was upheld a few times, but was later ruled unconstitutionally excessive.)
I debated about putting it in politics vs. science, but the science section had an "Enlightenment" subsection, which I found particularly appropriate. Unfortunately, it seems that the subsection doesn't get any play when the actual story is published.
Anyway, I figured since it was a discussion about science's place in the world, and the topic discusses the theories and philosophies of Darwinism vs. religion, rather than ID or some actual government policy, that makes it about "science" and not about "politics". YMMV.
Defining a century as the period from year XX00 - XX99 is incorrect. A century is merely 100 years.
I'd like to see a study that compared every century with measurable data, from 864-963 to 1817-1916. All of those are centuries, too, and probably would provide a more meaningful look at the effects of global warming over the past 800 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Answer.
To be fair, RIAA is only interested in recorded music, and the MPAA is only for motion pictures. There really is no collaborative lobby for digital television, at least not in the same monolithic manner.
Forget "acceptable" - website design and development is perhaps the most practical science ever created. Nobody "does things because they can" in web development - people create toolkits, APIs, services, layouts, hacks, and other bits of code for the Web so that other people can use them to *actually build websites.* That means productivity is not only key, but it is desired at the practical exclusivity of knowledge of the code. In fact, if this toolkit means an art student largely ignorant of programming constructs can create a website like Flickr or Slashdot or a smoother looking Gmail, then I applaud that, because too few web designers really have any grasp of the word design.
The other difference between websites and most programs is that a lot of standalone programs are designed for niche users with specific needs, and can't be translated for other uses easily, whereas most website programming is designed out of flexibility. Because the web uses such loose languages (XML, JSON, SOAP, etc) toolkits are a great way to address the flexibility in a more intuitive way.
It's apples to oranges, really. Web design is 100% practicality.
Actually, since we don't have any quorum calls in our electorate, the president could be elected by as few as 10 people.
.000003125% of the population.
That is, if only 1 person showed up to vote in California, Texas, New York, Ohio, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and North Carolina, and voted for the same person, then that person will receive 271 electoral votes, enough to win the Presidency.
Doing the math (assuming a population of 320 million people), that is
Personally, I think at this point the onus should be on the bank to get in touch with ICANN or VeriSign or whoever and get those cybersquatters off those similarly named sites. Or VeriSign should allow users to complain about clearly illegitimate cybersquatting (a phisher owning bank-of-america.com or wel1s-fargo.com or whatever) and they should be taken down. This seems to be at least one avenue of phishing that can and should be easily stopped. Clearly that's not going to save the universe from spams and scams, but it's a start.
Has anyone here played Warning Forever? It is a fairly simple game, you are a spaceship with some guns, and there is a boss ship you must defeat.
But the neat thing about it is that after you beat it, it learns from your patterns and then a new ship is spawned with ways to flummox you. Does the bosses' shock wave weapon seem to kill you most often? The next boss will have twice as many shock wave weapons. Like to stay closer to the boss to avoid the targeting? It grows slicer arms which slice out to destroy you. And so on. And ultimately the boss created knows all your tricks, and you have to either adapt to new tricks or die because you have no tricks left.
All in all, this is a great game, and it really challenges you to play an old stand-by (Asteroids/Galaga) in a new and different way. I think this is definitely one AI model to consider ...
But the pragmatist in me goes, "Yeah, but they can make it burn a VW Golf in the quarter-mile for under $10,000?" Because that is the Goose that lays the Golden Egg, my friends.
Simply untrue. Walmart is convincing various local governments to use eminent domain (which I can, at least, spell) to take land, where they can. Walmart does not have the power of emminent domain, not being a government branch.
Fixed.
In Perens' article, he states:
But in this case the 330,000 kids are stealing, and the popularity of this form of theft won't ever make it right.
To which I simply say that a) this is not a form of theft, and b) the laws surrounding copyright in this country are so ludicrous (and clearly, as evidenced by this Slashdot article, are growing more so day by day) as to easily merit civil disobedience regarding them.
So Mr. Perens may be right, but I think the ultimate effect is that people like my savvy father-in-law, who uses bitTorrent to download That 70s Show every week, and my mother, who was reintroduced to I Love Lucy when I bought her a DVR, are not going to tolerate these increasingly stupid and asinine intrusions into civil liberties.
Ironically, it may be that great idiot box (and the generation who grew up on it) that finally causes a revolution against the media companies. When people my parents' age start hearing they can't record shows, can't copy media, can't fully embrace the content they have embraced through low-tech all these years, political heads will roll. Count on it.
While I agree completely with your comment, there seems to a point you're missing, which is that more and more games are incorporating complex sociological and psychological paradigms into the game. Adding female minds (since they DOMINATED your social science classes) to the gaming industry could aid in this.
I think one avenue that has clearly not been approached and promoted enough is combining sociology and psychology successfully with game programming. Will Wright seems to get it - I bet The Sims family of games are most popular among female games - and if we could encourage some of those psych/education/sociology-driven female students who view Comp Sci and game design with disdain and/or trepidation to take on the challenges of AI, in-game character psychology, and the other less technical aspects of gaming, we could make huge new inroads into things like MMORPGS, adventure and real-time strategy games, and even sports games, FPSes, stealth/action games, etc.
And of course if a girl wants to get involved in the technical side, creating player graphics or collision detection modules, the more power to her.
Seriously, is putting on a suit that much of a subversion of your "self-respect"? That's pretty pitiful, that you've placed so much of your self-respect on your refusal and pride in not wearing a suit and tie for a meeting that involves your expertise. To sacrifice a victory for that kind of "self-respect" - that just smacks of stubbornness.
In fact, you will "lose" more people by underdressing because they themselves will feel disrespected by your appearance - by the fact that you feel you don't need to offer them a nice appearance when delivering your message. Very few people will be thoughtful enough to think that "Hey, he's underdressed, his message must really be worthwhile."
People will judge you more by the decision to underdress than the actual underdressing. They'll view the process as disrespectful, arrogant, and more than a little contrived. *That* is how they judge you. They don't think you're stupid or lazy or untrustworthy: they think you're coming to the table insincerely, and they will treat you in kind.
Because nobody could possibly like a shaved face and nice clothes. You know, nobody's idol could be Cary Grant or James Bond.
You know, that whole metrosexual thing doesn't exist. Nobody wants to be a suave pretty boy.
Everyone wants to be a freak, and wear sandals and have long ponytail hair. Everybody, seriously, look it up. Everybody was like, "man, it sucks that I have to wear a suit in business." Nobody ever says, "Gee, this suit makes me feel like a powerful and attractive person" and means it. They're all just posturing, right? They're just lying to themselves. That's the machine for you, self-delusional and everything.
Wow. So true. I never thought of it like that. When I was dressing slick in high school and getting all the ladies, I was actually rejecting my freedom! And in college, when I looked at the Goths and didn't pity them, but felt absolutely no desire to dress like that, or like a surfer, or a geek, or an emo kid, or a punk - I had no idea I was playing right into The Man's hands!
This whole conversation has crushed me. I'm gonna go lay down with my beautiful wife and ponder this moment.
Yes, but he was just referring to the fact that abortions are legal acts in this country. It's like driving: there are restrictions, but it is legal, and to outright prevent someone from doing it is illegal.
The m stands for micron.
To add to this, RICO is designed to go after organizations that have IRS filings, be they corporate or NPO. So the users of Slashdot would not constitute a RICO act, because we are merely a loose affiliation of (possible) confederates. And since Slashdot site owners are pretty much hands-off on any sort of endorsements of activity on the site, they will never be charged with RICO for encouraging piracy or civil disobedience or what have you.
If the PETA officially sanctioned or condoned civil disobedience (or outright wanton criminal activity), they would be charged under the RICO. But the official front of PETA is very much just "don't you feel sorry for the animals?", and rarely extends into the "do something about it" beyond "stop buying the following companies' products." They never suggest that illegal activities which result in increased animal freedom or animal rights are a good thing. They never applaud ALF (officially and publicly), because to do so would constitute a RICO violation.
Whereas Operation Rescue actively promotes civil disobedience and the illegal protests of abortion clinics (and uses funds to do so, in the form of printing literature and maintaining websites), so they are a RICO violator. End of discussion.
Skype would have to do the same thing under an official front. There would have to be evidence that the corporate officers - acting as such (and not as rogue agents) - encouraged some illegal activity and that Skype, directly or indirectly, provided the money to do so through corporate channels, and that this activity directly hurts StreamCast's business ventures.
My guess here is that Skype will be able to demonstate enough plausible deniability to avoid a RICO conviction. With most criminal RICO stuff, the money trails and the linking evidence (phone calls, emails, meetings) are all recorded and filed under valid search warrants, and the cases are usually very clear-cut before they go to trial. With civil RICO, you are essentially accusing first based on gut instinct (and perhaps you "know" that they did it, but you don't know the gory details), and then attempting through legal discovery to prove it. Which, needless to say, is hard to do.
Slight pedeantry:
Actually, it's 7200rpm, not rps. You get 120rps, so a platter rotation is actually 1/120 second.
Isn't this the reason they bought Writely?
Actually, radio is great for healthy competition, in broad strokes. Here in Austin we have at least 5 or 6 all-Spanish-speaking stations. I imagine there are quite fewer of those types of stations in North Dakota.
Of course, due to the limited spectrum of radio, our choices within whatever tastes we may have (rock, hip hop, jazz, etc) are fairly limited, and limited markets tend to reward major players over independent labels. LUCKILY digital distribution doesn't have this limit, and thus every possible flavor of content provider is possible in a distribute first model.
The key is that in a distribute first model, where any song can be played by any radio station, competition becomes less about content and more about the model of providing content (i.e. do you like the DJs on this or that station, which station has better promotions, which station skews slightly older/younger/harder).
The same is true about online music distribution models - Napster gives you access but you don't own, Rhapsody and eMusic offer more indie label stuff, iTunes has the iPod, Yahoo! Music is like your personal radio station, etc etc the list goes on. And, if a true distribute first model were enacted, hopefully some more competitors could spring up, because they wouldn't be beholden to the specific burdens of any given label. More models, more choice, better market.
Mod the grandparent up.
Just FYI: correlation does in fact imply correlation. There are links between playing violent video games and violent attitudes and actions. Just because we can't prove one does not cause the other does not mean that there is no "link" between the two.
And just to make my point clear, there is also a link between playing video games not catching malaria. The link, of course, is that you live in a First World country, and have access to state-of-the-art technology in both medicine and entertainment.
There may not be a causal relationship at hand, but do deny the correlative relationship between violence and any number of factors (socioeconomic status, race, and yes, the playing of violent video games) is just as equally statistically ignorant.
Actually, pretty much all freedoms that have been denied American citizens during wartimes have been given back without much of a fight. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, Woodrow Wilson's Sedition Acts during World War I, Japanese interment - all of these were reversed and undone within a few months of the end of those respective wars, and with relatively little fanfare or defiance required.
That may not hold true in every scenario of every country ever to appear on this planet, but yes, many times the act of sacrificing and regaining freedoms is a fairly transitory and bureaucratic one.
In the late 1930s, Gerald Nye of North Dakota and Martin Dies of Texas were outright for the Nazi party practically right up until the bombing of Pearl Harbor. They were unabashedly anti-Semitic, pro-fascist, and anti-Roosevelt.
People forget that the Nazi party was probably the most political party in the world during the 1930s. The American Bund (a group formed to promote Nazism in the states, and to encourage neutrality while Hitler invaded the rest of Europe) was not a fringe group - they had among their members Congressmen, Senators, judges, and governors.
Even after World War II had begun in earnest for America in 1942, members of Congress gave classified information to Nazi agents, spoke out for the extermination of "the Jew" on the floor of Congress, and continued to spout anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi rhetoric in newsletters sent to their home district.
Luckily for us, Congress is not beholden to respect the opinions of all of its members individually - it only has to respond to the majority opinion, which usually correlates with public opinion. This is also true of corporations - their "public" is just limited to those who own stock in it.
Counterpoint: Oklahoma City is famous for a number of reasons in America, not just the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, but as you can see, it still peppers the search for Oklahoma City.
The same holds true for in searches for "waco" and "kent state university". Even overly broad searches for "new york city", "beirut", and "iraq" bring up images of the WTC attacks, the Beirut embassy bombing, and references to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal on the very first page results. Yet these three places have hundreds if not thousands of years of history.
Whether or not a place holds a certain value to even a large country such as China, does not mean it holds a certain value to the rest of the world.
In America, the Smith Act essentially said the same thing: promoting violent overthrow of the government through literature or speech was a criminal offense. The reason for this is very simple:
A single person or small group promoting anti-government violence will never have the actual military might to begin a rebellion. So instead they choose to act in single acts of massive and wanton destruction (the Oklahoma City bombing, or the Chechens who took over that school, for example) which more often than not hurt large numbers of innocent citizens and civilians.
Whether or not you agree with this argument is why we, of course, have a government in the first place. (The Smith Act was upheld a few times, but was later ruled unconstitutionally excessive.)
I debated about putting it in politics vs. science, but the science section had an "Enlightenment" subsection, which I found particularly appropriate. Unfortunately, it seems that the subsection doesn't get any play when the actual story is published.
Anyway, I figured since it was a discussion about science's place in the world, and the topic discusses the theories and philosophies of Darwinism vs. religion, rather than ID or some actual government policy, that makes it about "science" and not about "politics". YMMV.
Defining a century as the period from year XX00 - XX99 is incorrect. A century is merely 100 years.
I'd like to see a study that compared every century with measurable data, from 864-963 to 1817-1916. All of those are centuries, too, and probably would provide a more meaningful look at the effects of global warming over the past 800 years.