prove that there is any basis to believe it's only 6,000 years
Such a small age for earth is typically accomplished by biblical reckoning... and it is achieved by adding up all of the time that elapses over the acocunted generations, plus the time it says that certain things took, it appears, by biblical reckoning only, that the world could not have been created any longer ago than in the vicinity of 6,000 to 7,000 years. This reckoning, however, assumes very important things, which one may or may not accept as definitively true. One, it assumes that the bible is valid as a historical document with regards to events of antiquity that are greater than written history itself, and two... and this one is probably even more important, even if one were to accept that the Bible were true, it assumes that the biblical accounting of events of that time is actually exhaustive, and that the chronicle could not possibly have been compressed from what actually happened for the purpose of writing it all down, and since such minutia was not considred important for purposes of conveying the message that the chronicle was intended to tell.
Note, you see... you asked for proof that there is any basis to believe that it only 6,000 years old, not proof that it actually *IS* 6,000 years old, nor proof that the biblical account is necessarily even accurate. If one already believes the Bible to be true, then the accounting in the bible is, in fact, a not wholly unreasonable basis to come to the conclusion that the earth is that old (even if that conclusion is not indisputable).
* idea - (Abstract) Patents deal with ideas, concrete API code does not.
Nice subtle moving of the goalposts there...
An API is not the same thing as API code. API code is an implementation of an API, and not the API itself, even if you describe the API by using a programming language notation as if you were writing code.
Code is obviously copyrightable, regardless if it forms part of an API or not... But the API itself is only the interface, and does not actually contain any code, and such an interface is ultimately only an idea... there's nothing concrete about it like there is with code.
Of course, a particular expression of any idea may be entirely copyrightable, but even that doesn't give one a license to exclude other people from expressing the same idea on their own... especially when the idea is narrow enough in scope that there aren't many unique ways to express it in the first place.
Doesn't this give any nation-state the permission to hack the servers of any other nation-state if they are deemed to hold "criminal" content?
Yes... as long as the former nation state is larger/wealthier/more powerful than the latter.
I suspect I was downmodded by somebody who thinks that by slowing down, I am trying to somehow dare a person behind me to crash into me or to deliberately annoy them. I've met people who actually think that I'm inviting an accident to happen by doing this, but I've utilized this technique in the past and have never been hit because of it (the three times that I have been in a car accident where the vehicle behind me collided with mine was when my vehicle was actually already stopped, and legally required to be so, either because of crossing pedestrians at an intersection or because of signal lights, and there was nothing I could have legally done differently).
Anyways, Obviously I would not slow down as quickly if they were already too close behind me, since they may already not have adequate distance to safely react to my change in speed, but I would still ease off on the accelerator, and give them every opportunity to the best of my ability to permit them to pass me. In general, however, I try to remain observant enough about what is going on around me so that if I notice a speed demon behind me rapidly closing, I can start adjusting my speed to make it easier to pass me *before* they start to pose such danger.
The GEGL core update by itself brings no new features (user functionality).
I don't dispute that point, but I do not think you realize just how much GEGL support being in will enormously accelerate the features that are currently on hold and waiting on it.
The reason things haven't really progressed very far, if at all, on many of the features that are waiting on the GEGL port to be finished is not because they are taking their time with them, it is because any work that might be started before the GEGL port was complete would likely to be entirely a waste of time, and because trying to implement it without GEGL being in would take a lot longer anyways, GEGL support would probably be in before it was complete, so there's no point starting on something that would have to be entirely thrown away before it's done, and can be relatively easily done once the underlying architcture has been modified to be amenable to it.
Consider when building a home, the most amount of time is spent making sure the foundation is properly in place. Once it is, a house can be built on a good foundation comparatively very quickly. Likewise, once the GEGL port is finally in and 2.;10 is out, you will doubtless be witness to vastly accelerated GIMP development of some of the most urgently desired features. Internally, for all intents and purposes, 2.10 will be almost an entirely new program.
First of all, GEGL will definitely be in the next version of GIMP... second of all, once GEGL is complete (which is again slated for the next version of GIMP), virtually all of those additional features will suddenly become feasible to implement where the previous architecture of GIMP made them untenable (and why no progress has been made so far, or often very little), and they will probably come into play quite quickly afterwards, You may be right that not very many may get in for the next version, but because of what GEGL opens up the possibility to do within GIMP, the release cycle between 2,10 and future stable versions that implement such functionality will be much lower than the time frame between 2.8 and 2.10.
In other words, not very far at all.
Quite possibly... I've been driving for 25 years and never received any ticket for going too fast, nor given any kind of ticket or warning for ever going too slow, except in online forums such as slashdot, and only by people who object to those who might diligently pay attention to what the traffic law expects.
If I were ever dinged for going too slow when I was actually traveling the speed limit, I would challenge the ticket, win, and the issuing officer would probably get a reprimand for being an asshole.
Why does everybody assume the solution to threatening vehicles on the road like drunks or an SUV behind you is to speed up?
Honestly, I wonder the same thing.
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?