They're setting America on a path to certain destruction. Why how's a good, god-fearing businessman gonna make a buck if he can't do it by reselling publicly funded publications???

I think the businessmen have tried to close public access to NOAA data too.

If this doesn't suggest how hackable hi-tech evidence is then nothing will...

Compulsory religious studies - it'll be part of the fairness doctrine, where all the ideological brainwashers demand access to our children.

1. False, I've met some very bright people from
                    Texas
2. True, but it is only one of the reasons
3. True, more often than not
4. False, Creationism, ID, it's all the same
                    bullcrap
5. Possibly, but I'd need to see a complete
                          sentence first
6. a) True, IDers are certifiable
      b) Deceptive, nobody I know says evolution is
            unassailable, just better supported by
            data than the alternatives offered by
            religious nutballz.
      c) Deceptive, Relativity was not held back by
            dogmatic people, it was held back until
            someone came along who was smart enough to
            see the world differently and express it
            mathematically. Supported by experimental
            evidence, it has become generally accepted.
      d) True, that's why we teach evolution today

Evolution is not "flawed", it is incomplete, a work in progress. It is adjusted as we go to deal with new data. Unlike the the bible which is inherently not factual and really hasn't seen any progress in centuries.

Evolution is not taught as fact, it is only perceived by narrow-minded dingwallies as being taught as fact.

Religion sucks moosebladderthroughahairystraw. All religion.

That concludes this series of disjointed comments and attacks.

I would like to think that, as a lifelong non, un and anti-pious person, my choices in an end of life scenario would be ruled by reason. I would not refuse extreme measures if the likely outcome were acceptable, nor would I greedily demand all measures if the likely outcome were unacceptable.

Define likely, acceptable and unacceptable according to your personal taste.

I have to admit that I do find the implication in the headline that the pious value life more highly than the non/un/anti-pious to be typical religious bullcrap - they're always buying all the tickets to their own show..

Look up "True Names" and "Neuromancer"

They're 10 years earlier than Snow Crash

The earliest virtual worlds I remember were described in Vernor Vinge's "True Names" and William Gibson's "Neuromancer" Don't these count as prior art? How about that silly game Adventure, sure it was only one user when I first saw it but it had other characters and action. How about email lists? Those are multi-user virtual worlds. They have their own community, libraries, written and unwritten rules. Seems like the culture itself has produced sufficient prior art to make the patent absurd.

It was very costly to put all that mass up there - it should be collected and eventually recycled in orbit. Basic physics.

That's like saying you prefer a house that smells like cat piss because you grew up in one or that you prefer your food to be semi-rotten because you didn't have a refrigerator when you were a kid. Gimme a break.

I respectfully disagree. What if I write encrypted documentation on paper? The key is in my memory, only my direct testimony can recover the encrypted contents. The encrypted hard drive case is identical to the encrypted hardcopy document: what you see is what you get. The only physical evidence is the encrypted file, any decrypted content is a product of my testimony, my memory. I think my position is quite solid.

Just as important as the technology will be the legal framework that applies. Myself, I like the Bill of Rights and I want to see data storage be treated as an extension of my memory with all rights that apply to my testimony extended to the digital media that is protected by a key that is in my memory. I know, naive idealism is dumb.

Just say it was the cat, who'll ever know you just committed perjury? Besides, my cat just tacitly agrees with everything I say.

To say that DNA sequencing is good technology because it helps solve crimes may be true but there is a fundamental flaw in the logic used to support their Big Brother style plan: they've already caught their suspect without DNA. They should only be allowed to take a DNA sample of a suspect if they are holding DNA evidence that could link someone to the crime. Apart from that, gathering DNA that is unrelated to a specific crime and conducting random searches trying to match to crimes where there is no suspect could be an illegal search. Sure some bad guys will get away but giving too much leeway to authorities is the greater of two evils.