At first, that's what I thought. But sadly, the current way corporations attack legislation they don't like is to pay "scientists" to offer an alternative and contradictory conclusion and then claim there is no consensus. In the lack of consensus they are usually allowed to do whatever the hell they like. This bill is designed entirely to fit their playbook.
I'm afraid you can make up any word to have any meaning in any way you choose. People are free to not use it, ignore it, bitch about it, etc.
Actually, you don't fully understand causation. I know this because nobody does. Also, the nature of time itself isn't understood. How can there even BE a BEFORE the beginning of time for the act of creation to occur in?
I've read a substantial volume of atheist literature and blogs, etc. None of it supports your claim. The contrary. Most of the prominent atheist authors point out how valuable christianity has been to science, progress, morality etc. They also point out how much ill has been done in the name of religion, even at the direct instruction of religious leadership. None of this is inconsistent.
Er, he was suggesting targetting the stngrays not the official cell towers...
Is there a paper I could read. This looks ineresting.
That makes me wince.
The NSAs main purpose used to be codebreaking. I bet a number of years ago a report was sent to the top describing how with modern (at the time) methods encryption would be impossible to crack in any reasonable amount of time and resources. So they switched to the alternative of snooping on the data while it was in plaintext, and trying to introduce weaknesses into future encryption schemes, and using side channels to pick up snippets. Hence their whole existance is based largely on mass surveillance.
That's what we want to change. The biggest problem is that the enemy of the NSA is anyone that would oppose it, or tear it down. It will move to defend itself by using it's considerable power. It needs to be torn down and replaced with an entity with a more targeted mission and more oversight.
Creator can be a metaphore here. It doesn't need an agent for the passage to serve its purpose. There is speculation that some of the founding fathers were atheists despite much of the language that was used. The salient point is that we have rights from the moment we exist.
I'm sorry, I the the danger is more "what happens when those with the data decide to use it for nefarious purposes?". The existance of such an enormous body of data will mean some people will misuse it. And they ALREADY have!
Where is evidence of quantized space?
Science is created by man. But some theories are consistent with others. You can't have a physical system with inconsistent math. So, actually, you do have a choice. You choose the theories that are most consistent with theory. Your idea of a physical universe with no irrational lengths would imply untenable consequences. But you can choose to subscribe to it if you wish.
If you make the statement that the diagonal is quantized, you're either saying you have a measurement problem, or you're throwing out mathematical consistency. I personally think we're much better off keeping the irrational numbers.
You switched from talking about Planck's constant, saying roughly that it couldn't be irrational, to planck length. But even still, irrational lengths would still exist. E.g. make a square 1x1. What's the distance across the diagonal? It's either irrational or you've given up orthogonality.