Based on the transcript, I don't think that's what Bill Nye is saying here. From the video transcript:

He's not really talking about spiritualism, religion, or any other belief systems; he's talking about a small subset of people bent on eschewing very carefully collected, studied, and reviewed data because they perceive it as an attack on their personal belief system. The Science guy is concerned that bad and irrational decisions are being made under the guise of "its my religion". His purpose is not to decry religion, but to defend science, evolution specifically as it is the target of attacks. I think the thought process is less "don't let religion get into science" and more "think rationally about scientific matters." His plea for "...scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future." and "...people that can—we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems" is less about evolution versus religion and more about ensuring that future generations are trained to think logically; to think things through instead of standing on ceremony, that is, actually try to find the best solution, not just one that someone wants.

Does this mean he's against creationism in the classroom? Probably, because it's inconsistent with pretty much every other scientific model out there. But I don't think he's intending to harp on the idea of there being a creator; just people who want to push their agenda at the expense of education

I agree with the first part, but this is about end users, not enterprise managers/users, and it's the silent manner in which it's perform that matters. This is a user instigated change that Windows decides to change without telling the user.

If Defender noted that it was making a change to the hosts file, this would not have exploded to 500+ comments (well, okay maybe there would be enough ms bashing for that), but it would be a different tune altogether.

Maybe this works differently at lower level education, but a Dean in a university setting alone isn't enough to demand specific access rights that go against the agreed upon policy. For the Universities I've done IT for, typically the technology committee has either the Provost themselves or the assistant to the provost sit in on policy meetings which are finalized by the head of IT, the Provost, and select other special interest members who are involved in policy making. While a Dean could certainly raise enough fuss to have the committee to convene, they alone would not be enough to actually move the committee to action.

(Usually) The stereotypical "loud" administrative person doesn't really have much clout in the real world, especially with legal policy. Ultimately, it comes down the what the lawyhttp://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/08/16/2229233/ask-slashdot-how-to-best-setup-a-school-internet-filter#ers say, and if the lawyers fear action, they will almost inevitably side with the perceived safest outcome.

FTFA:

Not if you give them a means to install it. As would appear to be the case based on the number of malware infections that people have willingly installed as well as all the crapware that gets put on machines, put a button that says "download" or "install" in front of them and they will do it. Which is exactly what Apple did.

Apple's position seems to be the upsell for premium storage, not so much the fact that you're taken to the website. A few users on the Dropbox forum discussing the matter even mentioned that they weren't keen on how a lot of services did this. I have to agree with an earlier post that it looks like Dropbox and Apple are already figuring things out. The dev in question is more perturbed than Dropbox seems to be over it.

I would hope the general response by tech journalists to Mac Malware is an inquisitive one. It's certainly my reaction, since it is still a fairly unique occurrence.

Macs and Malware are an annoying thing to read about because you have to dig through so much Pro/Anti Apple uselessness to figure out even the most basic information about the malware, like "what's it doing?" or "how do I know I'm infected?". I think when I read this on /. initially, it wasn't until ~ the 200th comment that someone posted the F-secure update on the malware which was really informative. The original article was a very brief description of what the malware did and then a doomsday prophecy for OS X.

Obviously, this is anecdotal, but the concerns that the users I support have are less "Pfft, My mac is invulnerable" and more "Does this affect us?". There was so little actual data on the malware that most of my users just heard second-hand from the few vocal anti-Apple folk on our campus about how the OS X sky was falling.

Apple does have some growing to do with security, but I think that the security community and the tech community in general needs to grow up a little when reporting on OS X. I get it -- Apple's old marketing is coming back to bite them in the ass, and it's an embarrassment that makes for a phenomenal opportunity to make fun of Apple. But if you're a security firm breaking a story on malware, you should probably start with just the facts, and leave the jabs to an editorial. As it stands, pretty much any Mac malware has a script:
1. Declare something has been found
2. Provide the known number of infections, strongly suggest it's far greater (without any evidence thereof)
3. Declare this a sign of the end of OS X's innocence
4. Say how OS X has enjoyed a period of invulnerability due to marketshare, and that period is now gone as we expect to see more and more malware infections just like this one.
5. Repost the same story 9 months later when another mild infection occurs, update the story to use the new infection name.

6 million is a decent number of Macs, and it's really frustrating to know that they are being targeted now. So let's change the style of reporting to something actually useful instead of the same rehashed doomsday prophecies OS X has been getting for the last 4 years.

And what if that god is inferior to another? Or the antithesis of the true god? What if the true god actually stands for many things you disagree with.

Pascal's wager is a cute little thought, but it doesn't really stand as a foundation for faith.

Have you considered the possibility that you're being stalked by someone with a personal cloaking device?

Yes and no. The PDF exploits that were used in the past were patched by the jailbreak community. There are cydia packages which closed it on your newly jailbroken device, the assumption being you had your SHSH blobs backed up for a restore to a vulnerable vanilla firmware should you need it. I'll admit it's been awhile since I read up on it, but I think that all the Jailbreakme's used a userland exploit to Jailbreak, and then recommended patching immediately, less the exploit be used against them.

Could you imagine though? I know in dormitories people will print to wherever on the network, regardless of whether or not they have a printer. You could probably see some cool stuff.

I kind of get what you're saying here, but that's really weak justification for functions that are difficult to claim that a user consciously opted in or out of. Analogies aside (since there will be no little black dress of an analogy for this), what it comes down to is should Google respect the browser security settings? Whether or not it is part of theToS ( and Privacy), Google is still using a work around to circumvent the security settings determined by the user's browser. As was noted by one of the above posters, I don't think you can have the unread Google policies apply while the unchecked security policies do not, and even if were so, no part of the agreement as listed on their ToS suggests that you offer permission to circumvent your security policy to do so.

IANAL (as all posts should be prefaced), but per Google's own Terms of Service, they should not do anything or discontinue service until you meet the necessary requirements. On top of that, the "you opt in when you use Google's Services" idea, that the cookie is of benefit to the user not detriment, is also not justification for making this a universal process. Perhaps someone really does want the ad services, but another may not. The work around seems to affect both users in that instance, regardless of their stance.

Should they put it up our of charity and the good of their hearts? No, absolutely not, but as consumers, we should have the choice when we do and do not pay, and automatically opting you into payment, whether it's a monetary payment or my privacy, is removing that choice.

There are many websites which openly ask you to please disable your adblocker when you access them, and willing participants should do just that. Ars Technica did something like this last year some time (http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars), and I feel that this is true of most things. Whether it's a news site I like, or a particular streamer for a game, if I find the content useful and I wish to support the person, I disable the blocker on that domain.

What I don't think is that any site I go to automatically deserves the same treatment. It's an assumption that by visiting that I am interested in a long term investment, whether it's via ad networks or subscription.

I don't think it's really a choice if all you know is Google. I'm not meaning to slight or promote Google or any other search engine here, but most consumers just know what's put in front of them, and that's why things like what the default search provider on a piece of software is tend to be really important. At this point, I wouldn't say Google is so much a choice as it is a brand name applied to the process, just like all adhesive bandages are Band-aids to most people.

It's likely an IP shuffle. The site just crawls the same way that the RIAA/MPAA has in the past; it's a non-serious project by some guys with a decent sense of humor. (Okay, it's not that good, but the point is they mean to be funny).