Well, actually it's the Supreme Judicial Court, or SJC.

Wifi is so totally secure:

I mean... Where would I find someone who knows how to crack the mighty WPA2-PSK you probably use to secure your whole network?

How could you possibly think any wireless communications are secure anywhere? *especially* blue-tooth and WiFi.

Oh yeah. Bring up phones. Those land-lines have REALLY gotten more reliable and useful in the last 60 years haven't they? I mean, look at the horrible phone track records for emergency service and reliability in 1954 after all.

> It's exactly the same calculation for anything anybody calls a 'natural monopoly'. Absent an interfering government, the money flows to the best service provider.

I suppose that's why municipal water is so expensive, unreliable and horrible in the US, whereas such an "incredibly difficult" service as data transfer works cheaply and flawlessly under the wonderfully popular and incredibly excellent Comcat, Verizon et al. "services". </puke>

oh, so I should sit on the magnet and spin?

Oh, so we're clear... you are an upside-down Science is my God nut. Meta-physics (one little branch of philosophy) is responsible for pretty much every branch of scientific inquiry you're fond of... and that's just the philosophical pinky flexing.

Let me know when your experiments are done growing your own brain in a vat with perfect forward predictability and you're able to "prove" the universe is the never changing holographic crystal you always thought it was in the first place...

You know, as opposed to something a bit more chaotic and interesting that us mere mortals can never quite get a complete handle on...

> For some people it is downright emotionally difficult.

Actually... for everyone it ALWAYS is. That's the nature of world-view.

It's just that, it's often very difficult to understand someone else well enough to know enough about their world-view to put it in any kind of real jeopardy. (ie: discomfort)

In fact. It's actually a personal attack to begin tearing apart someone's understanding of the world when they aren't interested and don't want to participate.

Part of why so many folks get fired up about what should/shouldn't be presented to young students and how it should be offered up.

Seems to me the problem is anyone who:

a) wants to push Secularism out of schools in favor of Christianity
b) wants to push Christianity out of schools in favor of Secularism

Most other folks I don't have a problem with.

Want to be Philosophically Naturalistic? Go ahead, don't push it on me when I don't ask for it.
Want to be Christian? Go ahead, don't push it on me when I don't ask for it.

(pushing things on innocent kids goes double, I can actually handle the shoving better than they can)

And while you're at it, be sure to remove that bit about "science must be based on math" in the same law too. All Good Scientists just KNOW that little unimportant disciplines like math and philosophy can never hold any sway over True Science.

Believe it or not, you can't actually formulate the modern scientific method without a concept of god. (An anti-concept actually, as it is strongly atheistic) Some will argue we've rejected that kind of hard atheistic naturalism in science, but... Look around a bit.

Good science is falsifiable (thanks Karl Popper) and, ideally, predictive. It shouldn't require a mountain of apology to get a handle on it. (a mountain of math? surely... language? not so much)

> I know. I know. They are irresponsible for living there.

I was going to say they are irresponsible for not making it a good part of town by living there.