Most libraries that I have seen do not have a current copy of the state law. Granted, in my state that would fill several shelves from floor to ceiling. I've seen one copy of an abridged printing of the corporate law (not current at the time). It filled 4 bookshelves floor to ceiling.

What is being discussed here is not just the state law, but an annotated version, which is pretty much guaranteed to be considerably longer.

???

I'm sorry, the logic of that proposition eludes me. You must be assuming postulates that I am unaware of. (Not one's I reject, that wouldn't confuse me, but perhaps one I have never heard.)

Ok. So a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Because the courts appear to use the annotated version for making decisions...and if your crowdsourced annotated version was the same as the other annotated version it would violate copyright.

FWIW, if the courts use the annotated version to make decisions, IMNSOH opinion, it should be considered the effective law, and therefore not copyrightable.

You are talking about one part of religion, and considering it as if it were the whole. And the part that you are considering is the most dubious part.

I, personally, happen to be a sort of gnostic, though not a gnostic christian. It *is* possible to have direct experience of the holy, which one and easily interpret as superhuman, though I consider that a mistake. I feel the the "gods" are a subset of the Jungian archetypes. Do *NOT* make the mistake of thinking that this renders them ineffective. They are the shared substratum of (almost) all humans. And they act powerfully, though indirectly, in the physical world because of that. Their actions are normally invisible because we don't notice them, not because they aren't present. Without the gods no machine would be built, and no language would be possible. Normally we call the "gods" instinct, if we notice them, but that badly downplays how powerfully they act. We don't tend to notice them because they are almost universal among humans. We are more likely to notice their absence, which we give names to like "sociopath", or "autistic". The eruption of a god into a full encounter with consciousness is quite rare, and generally needs to be managed with great care. It can also be quite destructive, so one should usually avoid this. Of course, it's more destructive if you don't notice that it's happening, and also if you have a great deal of trust in them. Be warned: The gods make mistakes. We do not live in the environment that we evolved for, so even when they act in ways that would be appropriate in that environment, it may be mistaken...and they would even make mistakes in their evolved environment.

If you take it as a compliment, that's fine. But you *do* need to be aware of the full significance of that "symbol". You may find partial enlightenment at the nearest meat packing plant. (You'd find more in raising sheep, but that takes a lot longer.)

This depends extensively on the precise meaning you give to "religion". In my opinion a decent religion would not describe the events of the physical world, but only the relative moral values that should be assigned to them. This is not an "easy way out", because it's not a "way out" at all. It means that you don't assign moral values to events that are not part of social interactions. It also renders much of traditional religion at best irrelevant. And it means that theology is a proper subset of a union of sociology and psychology. Much of traditional religion can be seen as basically a social control mechanism...which is a description, not a value judgement. Promises and claims that are made which are unverifiable cannot be considered as a part of the universe considered by science, except in so far as those claims have physical results. Which is not a minor effect.

Caution: Many of the experiments are only statistically reproducable. Many of them require that the experimenter be "skilled in the art" (and which art varies with the domain of the experiment).

So it's not as simple as school books try to make it seem. Check out "search image" to see one of the potentially confounding problems.

And this isn't even considering that some of the experiments are so exensive or so dangerous to perform that most people are prohibited from doing them.

That said, science, when well done, produces reliable results...within its applicable domain. E.g., don't ask science for moral guidance, it can't provide it. What is can provide is a statistical expectation of what the results of a particular action are likely to be. You provide the moral judgement. And, unfortunately, people who become deeply enmeshed in science are as apt to ignore morality as those who become too deeply enmeshed in finance or politics.

Because they can get away with it. And it works.

If they really thought you might shoot them if they scared you, they'd try not to scare you.

Especially when there is such repeated evidential validation.

Actually I think that when he wrote "the law" he was slangily speaking of police officers. In which case he seems generally correct.

No, because sometimes several different models will fit all the available information. E.g., I prever the EGW multi-world interpretation of quantum physics, but the Copenhagen interpretation fits all the data just as well, and so do a few others...including such useless ones as "SuperPredestinationsim", "Solipsism", and "God is doing at all, and fudges things whenever he notices you're doing an experiment".

Additionally, the argument being logical doesn't imply that it is true. It is based on some incorrect premises. For one thing the law is often illogical. For another the EULA cannot bind you to something that the law doesn't allow it to bind you to.

Additionally, being able to win a suit, even easily, doesn't prevent you from being sued.

That said, they might well be able to win the suit easily, at least in some jurisdictions.

That was my first reaction as to how he should respond. But perhaps it would be better if he talked someone else into hosting the lists (and maintaining the server). Linus is probably quite busy with other business.

Still, Cannonical might take the job, or the FSF. Perhaps the OpenSuse people. I'm not really sure I'd want Red Hat to have that much leverage.

You are much too certain. They know the characteristics of designs that have been tried with the techniques and approaches previously tried. To go from this claim to the blanket claim that you are making is far overstepping both the evidence and what any reasonable expert would say. (Not to claim that there aren't unreasonable experts. Some will claim that things will work, but more will claim that they won't. Often they will turn out to be right, but not always. And very few of even the unreasonable experts would make as broad a claim as you did.)

OTOH, it *is* clear that many designs of what I was proposing would not work.