I think it's because when we were kids being cyberbullied, the only people who were bullying us were other nerds and the only people who knew about it were other nerds. And we could get back at them by hacking into their BBS and deleting their warez. Revenge is a dish best served cold and all that.

Not that I would ever do that. I'm speaking completely hypothetically.

If you know your employment duties are to assist in breaking the the law, you have a legal obligation to refuse to work. "I was just doing my job" is not an excuse.

The same rights that you have. There is no law that says MPAA employees or agents have to identify themselves on demand.

It isn't a crime, but it is a tort. If you waste my time under the false pretense that you might actually accept an offer I am making, but you really have no intention whatsoever of accepting it then you have harmed me. You can be sued for damages. But how much money are we talking about?

I think the record labels felt that the few hundred dollars of damages one might get for having an hour of their time wasted under false pretenses was an acceptable cost.

In this case the "harm" was the only fact that the PI was not going to buy the home. It isn't illegal as far as I know, to take pictures of someone's home that they have invited you inside. For that matter, when I've gone apartment hunting often landlords have invited me to take pictures. The PI could have even asked "May I take some pictures?"

That's actually the point of intellectual property law. Judges are not supposed to undermine the law.

They should make it look like the Millenium Falcon. The whole ship could spin like a flying saucer to create gravity.

or an artificial womb as the original post clearly stated.

Since when did a female need to be willing to get pregnant? oh wait.. I guess because you put quotes around the phrase "willing female" you were implying that all fertile females are presumptively willing.

Good to know.

It doesn't really beg the question at all, since you've turned the entire discussion into a semantic one over which almost nobody except a linguist would care about.

To claim that the mechanism has a task presupposes that the mechanism is intending to behave a certain way to achieve a certain end. The mechanism merely follows the laws of physics, and whatever it happens to do is a success from that stand point. There is no foresight or end-goal in evolution. If the mechanism was designed, then you could say the designer made a mistake, but it isn't the mechanism which can make a mistake.

The word "mistake" implies judgement and comprehension. It is completely improper to use that word for machines or chemicals.

He didn't claim to have found the actual method of inheritability. He didn't miss it, he had no evidence upon which to build a hypothesis and he pointed this out. The word "flaw" is inappropriate. Recognizing the gaps in knowledge that remain after drawing all the conclusions that the evidence suggests, and leaving suggestions to others for future investigation is one of the beauties of science. It is not a flaw.

It isn't an ad hominem attack. It is ridicule directed both at self proclaimed agnostics and at the claim, independently.

And yes I have arguments. And when someone makes an argument to justify popular agnosticism that isn't obvious crap, then I might respond.

But to keep it short, your godlike alien scenario is utterly irrelevant to the issue, hence :crap.

Thinking "taking a crap is a virtue" is pretentious.

you have a very cool way of redefining the word "attack" and "militant" and "close minded". keep up God's work. He needs you to help spread the good news.

He said READ your bible front to back before coming back and saying that. Try again.

Are self-proclaimed agnostics the only people pretentious enough to spew crap like that and think it sounds intelligent?