VGer poot'd. Must have been a relief.

and this is soooo much worse than the malware authors who do this on closed source software ... how? Decompilers are readily available. The only thing they don't give you is the comments and annotations. If you're good enough to write decent malware then decompiling a closed source binary and inserting your payload really isn't an issue and people will trust what you put back into the wild because it's closed and "safe".

If Evolutionists can't provide sufficient evidence to disprove the null hypothesis then why should should Evolutionism itself not be considered just as much a matter of faith as Intelligent Design? Arguing that the existence of a process proves the non-existence of the process engineer is no better than saying we were all created as we are in an instant. Neither argument carries any logical validity and can only be considered as statements of "faith".

When we catch 'em we'll drop the bastards. . . . . . . .

poking out one eye just so I CAN'T EVER see that in 3D!

Precisely ... or not

quite simply should be cancelled and banned. If some pharma company actually INVENTS some new gene that CANNOT occur due to natural mutation then fine, but when it occurs naturally ANYWHERE in nature then nobody should have the right to patent it. Clearly it was NOT their invention and discoveries and inventions are very different things. Patents on "business methods" and software should also be blanket cancelled and forbidden, the first because it's a ridiculous concept and the second because software is a written work and already covered by copyright law. Neither is a physical innovation, which is what patents were supposed to cover.

I wanted to commit a PS3 to biomedical research on a project of MY choosing, as well as play LEGIT games but that was taken because ... well it doesn't matter as it's too late now.

the RIAA is declared a terrorist organisation and all it's executive dragged off to Git-mo the better off the world, and the music industry, will be.

a new implementation of the "she'll be right, mate!" algorithm, or the "no wucken furries!" paradigm?

mmmmmmmm ... knobiliscious!

With patents on software abolished. there is still protection for software developers. It's called copyright. Patents were only ever intended to cover PHYSICAL developments, not written works. A better situation is where code can be reused so long as you credit the original source. The current system of patents prevents anyone from further developing software beyond the original patent holder's capabilities, effectively stifling innovation. Innovation comes in small steps, building on the work of others. It's how science has worked since the beginning. Patents on intellectual (imaginary?) property forces innovation to either stop dead or to operate in quantum leaps. The latter happens very rarely, while incremental innovation can be continuous. Software patents don't protect livelihoods, they strangle them in favour of large patent trolls.

I don't actually SPEAK to anyone because that would require me to interact with ... you know ... PEOPLE?

"Past" indiscretions? With the quality of their code I can't imagine a Zynga programmer being able to get a job teaching BASIC to grade school kids and their QA people must have access to THE best hallucinogenics money can buy if they think that trash is production grade software. I wouldn't hire an ex-Zynga employee to scrub toilets let alone touch a computer!