No, but it is designed to illicit recitation as fact later. In very short order, you will have "scientists" who state "All Mamals evolved from a single rodent" as a fact, and it will be place in Textbooks as a "fact" and so on. The fact that in the original source it is clearly hypothetical bullshit is irrelevant. Shit like this should NEVER be published as "science". It isn't "science" ... yet.

IS not scientific proof of anything. Often science is found where statistics fails. In other words ... Science is just as often found in the "that is odd" moments, that lie outside of what statistics suggest. Statistics is math, math is used in science, but math is not science. Math is just a tool.

Where is the proof that life exists elsewhere? This isn't about your bigotry towards people of faith, it is about the level of science required by Atheiests who believe in life outside our solar system demanding upon those of faith.

And if you want to use examples of how aweful SOME people of faith are towards their fellow man, I'll toss out Mao, Lenin, Stalin ..... people who kill MILLIONS in the name of the Atheist state. Of course those people killing in the name of atheistsm get a pass by you and excused as "not authentic atheists", which is the same arguement atheists reject when used by people like me who reject violence.

Let me be perfectly clear here. One does not have to treat their fellow man poorly simply because they are different, or because one disagrees with their moral choices. But hey, if you like to dehumanize people and that makes you feel better about your "non-scientific" evidence (math is not scientific proof), by all means keep believing in your fairy space people.

Other than one belief requires no proof, and the other doesn't either.

So, how does one scientifically justify wild ass guesses without any proof or evidence and call it science in your world?

And while you MAY be correct in that there is life elsewhere in the universe, it has never been observed or tested, making it not "science" but more "math". For all we know, the earth is unique in the Universe, and if it is, that would be pretty special, wouldn't it? You believe differently, and that is okay, but doesn't make it science.

Your browsing habits aren't a secret. You're telling each server you what you're browsing. As long as you browse the internet, it isn't really a secret. If you want to keep a secret, tell no one.

What you do at home IS your business. The internet is not your home. If you want to keep your "private life" private, then don't let it escape from the confines of your house, cave, or mom's basement. Viewing porn on the internet means someone knows you are watching porn, and if you don't want others to know, then you've already lost that battle.

If you want to watch porn, anonymously, then get a good disguise and go to the porn shop in the next couple towns over, pay cash and hope nobody recognizes you. Once that is done, watch it alone, and don't tell anyone.

Anything else, is sacrificing privacy for convenience. But that isn't nearly as satisfying as instant access by typing "Lesbian Whores" or "gay anal sex" into Google, is it?

"The universe is enormous, no doubt there's *someone* out there."

So, you believe in the "invisible man in the sky" too huh? ;)

No, but LastPass does!

The fastest typist can type 100 - 150 WPM, so lets use that metric for designing systems requiring "human" input, like passwords. Artificially limiting brute force attacks.

More to the point, privacy is an illusion we create to hide us from ourselves. If you really want "privacy" then go hide in a cave all by yourself. If you want to keep secrets, don't tell anyone else. The moment you tell someone something you've lost control of that information. The internet just makes it easier to lose control of information.

It isn't what percentage of PC's are running it, it is what percentage of "computers" are running it. My Android Phone has more power than a PC from 2000, and is running linux (via Android). Free BSD (Mac, iOS) is also pretty powerful option. Microsoft cannot compete in these arenas, because it is too "windows" focused. Microsoft is not agile enough to compete.

The Elephant is about to be devoured by a billion ants.

"I doubt it's that they are pro baby killing, but that they value a woman's rights more than the life of an underdeveloped baby (only because you insist) who's still living in said woman's body. Or maybe they are pro baby killing. How am I to know who you were arguing with?"

Dehumanized, easier to kill. And we cant even discuss when a "fetus" becomes "human", because nobody knows exactly when that happens. So, abortion is legal all the way till full term, way beyond viability outside the womb. So, when does a fetus become a baby?

My point, is by using terms like "fetus" and "tissue" we have dehumanized the least among us, and that makes us ALL worse off.

"Do they really believe that their ethics are better than yours?"

Yes. Because my ethics are derived from my faith, while theirs are not. And their hypocrisy is allowed but religions is not. And while I can defend my positions without mentioning a diety, many atheists cannot attack my position without mentioning "invisible man in the sky" (or similar). My arguments are formed from the premise of a deity, but they are not dependant upon it.

"They were pompous imbeciles without a shred of intelligence (evidently because they said things I disagreed with). Therefore, theists tend to be that way. I'm sure that some atheists are idiots, but isn't that true of every group?"

Yeah, there are idiots in every group. But ascribing idiocy to the whole group (which I have not) is always wrong. I have had intelligent conversations with Atheist (this one, for example), but I can assure you, that this is a breath of fresh air compared to many others I've had. Thanks for being decent and not condecending.

That is where you fail. Make a better product cheaper, like Linux was to Windows and you will succeed. And the Monopoly won't be able to compete. It is doomed to fail. The whole "not fair" whine is pretty sad coming from a grownup. I'm opposed to government picking winners and losers, because government is not too bright when it comes to private enterprise. Who else can take a succesful Whore House and make it go broke.

Linux is to Microsoft as ARM is to Intel. ARM is and will break Intel dominance in Processors, or have you not noticed?

One thing people forget about monopolies, is that they are doomed to failure eventually. Even without Government intervention. In fact, I would suggest that a Monopoly that is not doomed to failure is one that is propped up by government regulation.

My best example is Microsoft, which had a near monopoly on Desktop and Server based Computers. Which I believe led to the success of Linux, a free and open source product, which COULD compete on features and beat the price. And there was NOTHING Microsoft could do to stop it. And believe me, they tried.

It is now to the point where Microsoft is close to being a "has been", as their product cannot compete against Linux everywhere Linux is, because for so long, they didn't have to compete at all. Without Microsoft being a Monopoly, nobody would have looked at the toy programming experiment from a college student in Finland. Linux provided a product that statisfied a need and succeeded in the process. And it has all but destroyed the monopoly of Microsoft. Linux is everywhere, even more prevelent than Windows.

The problem isn't the Lawyers in the Judicial System, it is Lawyers in the other two branches. Can anyone say "conflict of interest" in making laws only lawyers can benefit from?