The problem for society in general is that positive feelings for a particular brand that are based on personal experience, word of mouth, or even effective advertising can be corrupted when a competitor misappropriates the brandname or other trademarks. If I am a long-time Google user and expect a high level of quality operation and privacy from them, then if a different company that hides behind Google's trademarks tricks me into using its own services, then I, as the consumer, will be confused and possibly frustrated or harmed by this rogue company. Obviously, it's also bad for the business that built up its good name and goodwill just to have a competitor snatch away customers by masquerading as the well-known company. That's why we want to keep trademarks relatively distinct.

Sure, they may comment, but that doesn't mean they have any qualifications for making an informed judgment. A bachelors in Physics does not necessarily prepare you to understand chaotic biological and thermodynamic systems at a global scale any more than a bachelors in Nuclear Science or Computer Science. You may have proven that you can stomach the math and a logical thought process, but surprisingly there is actual, applicable knowledge being offered in an ecology major (depending on the school offering it).

For what it's worth, a 40-year position at the EPA doesn't necessarily prove he's qualified either, because he could have just as easily earned that experience by calculating budgets for dam construction or making policies for airport rainwater runoff allowances.

Finally, a PhD in Economics CERTAINLY doesn't prove he's qualified to judge the scientific findings. His input may be invaluable in determining the most practical way to budget for (or ignore entirely) the scientifically-analyzed situation, but not to evaluate the scientific findings themselves. If you are experiencing symptoms of a possible stroke, you don't take advice from your accountant until you've had a doctor examine you.

That being said... I still find it appalling that his report was squashed and hidden from sight. Scientific debate is about considering the all the evidence and a winning theory should be able to explain any major questions or inconsistencies. Rather than silence the report, qualified scientists that have arrived at the contrary scientific conclusion (i.e., Global Warming) should simultaneously distribute a paper that convincingly refutes the "rogue" economist's arguments. Government should be about transparency, and Science even more so. If the officials think he's just interfering with the new policy for political (and not scientific) reasons, then their counterpoint should seek to reveal his dishonest intentions. At least, that's the proper response in an ideal world...

Of course, "property of the city" doesn't mean anything if they haven't already used those passwords to access the "private" information. If they're quick enough, the account holders can always change their passwords before big brother tries to take a peak. On the other hand, having user names and passwords are moot if the employer can find you online with a simple name search. If you publish it online, it's no longer private.

Exactly, the definition is the key. In my opinion, there is a vast difference between the term "free will" as attributed to human decision-making and as a term in contrast to cause-and-effect.

I for one, can't see any way of defining "free will" as pertains to human choice that DOES include randomness. I see free will as describing a sentient life form's ability to evaluate a external situation, select a set of goals, and based on internal preferences, take an action or pursue a plan of actions that the actor deems desirable. If, instead, human free will were described in terms of randomness or probabilities, the notion of future planning would be superficial and we would be faced with the same conclusion that a belief in absolute Fate leads to: that we are not responsible for our choices.

In contrast, my view of free will could never be applied to an object without first establishing sentience. A quantum particle may respond to stimulus in a probabilistic manner, but there is no evidence that evaluation, preferences, and planning take place.

Under these definitions, the OP's report does nothing more than reestablish the common belief that our actions (liberated under free will) can have an effect and impact on our world and universe. Just because the ultimate outcome of any quantum measurement will be influenced by the experimenter's free will doesn't mean that a probabilistic reaction itself embodies choice and sentient free will.

Granted, I don't know as much about the science as the researchers do, but my off-the-cuff impression is that they are abusing the definition of a decision.

Not if you build animatronic dogs and go on dates with women from internet dating services.

Their goal wasn't to stop referrals; the assumption is that their goal was to harass a website that was posting undesirable (but public) information about one of partners of the law firm.

At some point, they'll come up with a good system that uses PV cells to collect light and use the excess thermal energy to drive a turbine.

I suppose I did read your

broadly.

To properly address your point then, I offer you some examples where average scientifically-minded people think of evolution as a Darwin-centric idea, or where Darwin is a synonym for natural selection:

• Darwin Fish bumper stickers
• The infamous Darwin Awards
• The term Social Darwinism
• National Geographic's obsession with Darwin for the man's 200th birthday anniversary, including tonight's show Darwin's Secret Notebooks
• Various articles published in respected science journals like Nature, such as Kevin Padian's Darwin's Enduring Legacy, stating that "perhaps no individual has had such a sweeping influence on so many facets of social and intellectual life as Charles Darwin."
• The annual "international recognition of science and humanity," called Darwin Day Celebration

These are just a few examples of how Darwin is used to encapsulate the entire field of evolutionary biology. Sure, professional biology scientists may not use Darwin's name so casually, but is there any wonder why average people who support the theory of evolution also appear to idolize Darwin?

You must not have read the article at all, huh? You have entirely misunderstood and mis-characterized the NYT article into the complete opposite of what it actually says. Allow me to paraphrase TFA for you.

NYT says that while Darwin's theory of natural selection was a "step beyond common knowledge," it also:

• was heavily inspired by man-made selection, such as animal husbandry;
• was nearly preempted by Alfred Russel Wallace, which shows that the theory of natural selection was ripe on its own, with or without Darwin;
• was incomplete because the concepts of genetics, dna, and inheritance had not been developed, so the theory of natural selection could not address the most fundamental questions regarding mechanics;
• and has been drastically altered in the 150 years of research since Darwin.

The NYT article is effectively supporting the same argument you are - that characterizing evolution as Darwin theory does a disservice to Science and allows creationism to flourish.

The article doesn't suggest purging Darwin's name, just not applying it as a shorthand for evolution. You don't refer to Mendel's genetics when you discuss modern genetics, do you?

And while most biological scientists don't toss around the term "Darwinism", your average evolution-accepting person does. The bumper sticker/plate of the "Darwin" fish with the feet is just one of many examples.

It's not $700 for a game. It's $700 for a fantasy life.

Exactly. Just because the two points, point A in the present and point B thirty years in the past can be considered to be in two different locations in some universal frame of reference, it does not mean that the intervening vacuum of space (with its accompanying dust, rocks, comets, and planets) must have been physically crossed.

Even assuming the DeLorean had to move a physical distance in order to reappear at the same geographical location on earth, the medium through which the timeship traveled might not have been standard physical space, but rather something like subspace, which might not require the usually trappings of a spaceship to navigate. Propulsion (other than the 88 miles an hour to engage the flux capacitor) might not even be necessary, depending on how the fictional time-traveling mechanism "works."

Besides, who's to say that in terms of time traveling, each point in the universe is fundamentally mapped to its other "locations" in every other time-frame. Kind of like how H.G. Wells's Time Machine stays in the same geographical location because it exists as if were always anchored to that piece of land, throughout time.

I would recommend against that last step. Everyone knows that when objects pass into antimatter wormhole, they are reconstituted into the antimatter universe in reverse order, thereby undoing all the painstaking steps you've already completed.

Then all the Bizarro people will be able to see your porn collection.

They're not using telephone operators, they're using the intertubes.

http://ocw.mit.edu/

It's perfectly valid to ask what the point of a product is. Not only does it invite answers that may describe a perspective not imagined by the inquirer, but it also raises the point that the product might not be worth the trouble to make if there is no interest in it.

Sure, the OP doesn't have to buy it if he or she doesn't like it. But that doesn't mean the product has any value to anyone else either. If you decide to make ice cream that tastes like shit, and you can't answer the question of "what's the point?", then what will you have after you've spent $400,000 in research, design, production, packaging, and marketing just so you could sell your product to one *somebody*? Nothing but a big pile of (cold) shit. So the question remains, who needs a 4 grand laptop that weighs 11 pounds, and are there enough of these people for the product to turn a profit?