The PATRIOT Act is not an amendment, it is an Act of Congress. This Act has been challenged in court and restricted to a degree but it still by and large considered constitutional by the court (at least in the narrow sense that no other court cases involving the PATRIOT Act have been accepted and adjudicated by the Court). Whether or not it should be constitutional is another matter entirely.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Okay, I'll grant you, science has gotten it wrong many times...however, you will note that we have newer, more accurate theories supplanting old ones when the evidence does not square with the theory. This is healthy and good, it is growth. The thing to take away from this is that science discarded those incorrect theories when we found that evidence did not support them. That is the reason why science has progressed. Denying new information that conflicts with pre-established worldviews on the other hand is stagnation, no growth is possible without change.
Yep, and for roughly the same reasons. An ignorant populace is far easier to manage and control from the top. Look at North Korea for a live example of this. With no external facts or even a method to determine if a particular "fact" is grounded in reality, you can insert whatever you like and ignorant people will swallow it wholesale simply because they literally do not know any better. (an aside, the latin root for the word science was scientia, knowledge, very telling in this context)
TL;DR - Orwell said it best, control the present and you control the past; control the past and you control the future. The most effective way to do that is through control of information
What specifically are people demanding a naturalist explanation of and why is it unreasonable? Where would a naturalistic explanation not fit and why?
I'd say it's more along the lines of Snow Crash or Shadow Run back story. All that's missing is the CIA throwing out an IPO...
And I'm sure that the five people who use it are quite happy
PC-BSD would probably be your best bet for a desktop BSD. It's got the same newbie-friendly vibe that you see with *buntu but is pure FreeBSD under the hood.
Fork bomb it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure...
I think the GP was referring to the Westboro Baptist Church, which could be considered a "cult" instead of a "church" depending on who you asked.
Total Recall in my case, it's a freemium app, $10 to unlock full features though.
You did not address the point parent was trying to make. just because there are court systems worse than our does not excuse the failings within our own system.
I believe the name of your logical fallacy here would be tu quoque.
Files generally are not encrypted on a one-off basis, instead they are saved within an encrypted "container". This encrypted contain could contain other arbitrary files and will likely use a unique seed value to start encryption, both of which will ensure that you will not be able to find a reproducible file hash for bad images. What you are describing is basically a known-ciphertext attack and is well understood within encryption.
Note the fine distinction made there.
I was thinking more along the lines of Snow Crash or Shadowrun actually; privatized police enforcement working for super-national sovereign mega-corporations.
null hypothesis --> there is no god or he/she/it/they do not interact with the observable universe in any meaningfully detectable way.
your hypothesis --> there is a god and he/she/it/they do interact with the observable universe in a repeatable detectable manner.
The null hypothesis is the default in science. Proving something is not due to random chance is how science works. That's why we have confidence limits, these limits may be very small but there is still always the chance that it the null hypothesis is correct. This caveat, that a scientific theory must always be falsifiable, is the core of the scientific method; the thought that whatever phenomena we are measuring could still be due to blind luck is why science works as well as it does because it means that we only accept something only after rigorous testing.
Also, as an aside, saying that life evolved from simpler organisms into more complex forms as opposed to fully formed ex nihilo does not automatically preclude the existence of a god. Deism is perfectly compatible with evolution for example.