You're talking about designers. The thread is about programming.

HTML is trivial though. There's almost nothing to it, unless you're including JavaScript, which opens up more possibilities.

No, not at all. That's just where your mind went. I did download a copy of one lecturer's book, which he had written himself. I told him about it and gave him $20. It was for a cybercrime subject, so I only did it for the irony. I don't think I more than glanced at it to use a quote or two in an essay, surmising that the lecturer would like seeing himself quoted.

What on earth is unethical about using online resources to study? My university has heaps of online resources for legislation, cases, journals, some text books, etc. You do realise what century it is, right?

A top Australian university.

Pfft. I've done a law degree and I rarely bought the books. When I did, I almost never read them. Still did pretty well. View with your mouse instead of your wallet, because everything's online these days.

By market cap, those numbers are totally wrong. Google is bigger than all those companies, other than Apple.

He can run as long as he hasn't been convicted and gone to jail. If he runs and wins and is unable to take his seat, he can nominate a replacement, though possibly just from his party.

http://pirateparty.org.au/give-no-quarter: They recognise it is impractical, won't adequately protect privacy or due process and is just the ISPs trying to avoid regulation. That's my interpretation of their release, anyway.

I wasn't trying to say that the loopholes are justified or rational. I guess one difference is that if you tried to scientifically disprove the existence of Santa (for what it's worth to "disprove" something's existence), nobody would even argue against you, as long as you didn't do it in front of kids... Personally, I'd probably do it in front of kids.

The Judeo-Christian god isn't even omniscient. It can be seen in Genesis when god asks Cain where Abel is because he knows something is wrong. He doesn't actually know exactly what has happened. Seems pretty straight forward that he's not omniscient... But that's all off-topic.

And actually, Bob is a (non-practicing) Jew who knows quite a lot about it.

Santa's meant to have a physical presence here on Earth, which can effectively be disproved. Plus, his "actions" can all be attributed directly to other causes (with no close examination of causality).
The god thing has far too many loopholes to be refuted so easily. Believers can always say that it's because god isn't in our universe, but merely pulling strings from outside of it, or that god doesn't want to get directly involved, etc. and works "through" people, blah, blah, blah... There's always a new dodge, and god's actions aren't considered predictable.
Santa is really meant to go flying around the world each year, in a physically impossible way, and deliver presents that have never been seen, once you take out all the presents from parents.

I think you can fairly distinguish different supernatural stories from each other, based on what claims are being made. Like leprechauns can be disproved if the assertion is that you can find them at the end of *any* rainbow, and you create a small rainbow in a lab, where both ends can be seen at once.

Time to Godwin this thread: When you live in Nazi Germany and you believe that the fervour, by what seems to be the majority of the populace, over extermination of millions is mentally ill, you should be a coward and keep your mouth shut.