If selling your search terms to advertisers were not in the business model, how much would you be willing to pay for Google? $50 a month? $100?
About 1/3rd of my internet bill, eg $20 per month. Lots of telecoms companies can survive on that amount. But given that I've been around the internet before Google even existed, I'm perfectly capable of imagining alternatives that don't require paying Google $100 to come up with products and services I don't use.
Similarly, intelligent design is an uninteresting, unimportant subject compared with accepted science facts. Obviously, intelligent designers are the most knowledgeable about their own claims, but they shouldn't be contributing articles about themselves - that would just be adverts for their cause - making their cause seem bigger and more important than it is to attract new followers and stay in the news.
There's an argument to be made that new articles about a company should be *creatable* only by third parties without a connection to the subject, who can judje if creating a page is actually meaningful or desirable. Most companies, especially the unknown ones, would then never get an article. Only once an article about a company already exists does it make sense for that company to submit edits for facts.
It's about time America started acting like America again.
I dunno, making grand plans and all that is great, but after the *actual* work gets outsourced to China, how do we know they'll be *really* wearing USA T-shirts when they step on Mars on our behalf?
You appear to confuse convenient abstractions, whose truth or falsity must await a decisive experiment, with scientific laws that have already been tested. The latter, once tested, do no change, and are not repealed. The former are undetermined, until a test addresses them for the first time.
All your so-called contradictions are of this type. It's an easy mistake for non-scientists to make, because scientists often write about assumptions as if they were fact, just to explore their consequences. But every scientist keeps a mental table of what's been experimentally verified, and what's as yet undetermined.
And that's Science too, BTW.
The philosophical underpinnings of science have advanced since then and the term law is no longer used.
By whom? Postmodern philosophers who live on the sidelines of Science and write papers about epistemological impossibilities? There used to be a philosopher called Zeno who believed that motion is impossible. The world ignored him.
Richard Feynman had a great quote that's quite apt in this regard: "Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds".
If you're a scientist doing actual Science today, then Laws exist. In fact, plenty of Laws exist. Plenty of Settled Science exists. There's always room for improvement, and plenty of things we don't know, but the new things we learn cannot contradict the past things we already learned. They can only polish the details.
To take an analogy. Past laws of Science are like a movie (representing reality) shown in DVD resolution. New Science can increase the resolution of the same movie to 1080p. You'll see more details more clearly, and you'll recognize how the old DVD resolution was sort of fuzzy in some places. But the movie remains the same, it's just more precise.
This is exactly what Apple are asking for is this case - proof of ownership, and the standard legal verification of the will.
Then either TFA is not truthful, or you're wrong. According to TFA, Apple are asking for a court order to prove that the mother was the original owner.
Reading TFA's summary, "We've provided the death certificate, will and solicitor's letter but it wasn't enough". "were asked to provide written consent for the device to be unlocked".
Anyway, this horse is pretty much dead by now, there's little point in beating it further.