Attenborough reveals creationist hate mail for not crediting God
Sir David Attenborough has revealed that he receives hate mail from viewers for failing to credit God in his documentaries. In an interview with this week's Radio Times about his latest documentary, on Charles Darwin and natural selection, the broadcaster said: "They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance."
Geez. This was as informative as some prick blabbering about how a homeless person yelled "Fuck you" at him.
From scientific point of view, creationism is less than worthless, the way physics is absolutely banal from the ... shall we say, poetic, or literary point of view. And frankly, I don't care much for the crackpots trying to push religion onto science.
But do you know what I care even less for? Atheists who are riding on the coattails of science to insult millions and billions who believe in God (or a god, or many gods). Science is silent is on the matters of religion, period. Anyone who suggests otherwise (one way or another) has an agenda to push.
Personally, I believe in God, and I do believe that God created the world. But that's my personal belief and I don't think I have any right to let that interfere with my work—no more than an atheist with an agenda to prove non-existence of God does.
Judge's ruling that WoW bot violates DMCA is troubling
Glider, a popular WoW bot, took another hit on Wednesday as a federal judge ruled that the product went beyond copyright infringement to being a circumvention device under the DMCA. The decision raises serious questions about the legal status of interoperability and competition in the software industry.
First they came for WoW bot makers ...
Will you wait until they come for you? Abolish copyright NOW!
US House Kills Proposed Delay For Digital TV Transition
An anonymous reader writes "The Digital TV transition delay bill has failed to pass the United States House of Representatives. By a vote 258 to 168 in favor of changing the date, the bill has failed as two-thirds of the votes are required for it to pass. The delay bill was once perceived as inevitable, [but the House] has now apparently made February 17th the date of transition once again. Now the question remains, will they attempt to pass it again by the deadline?"
I'm glad that the Republicans representatives are back to what they do best: Fixing the Democrats' mistakes.
Obama Looking To Symantec CEO For Commerce
patentpundit writes "Word has started to circulate that President Barack Obama may be close to appointing John W. Thompson, the outgoing chief executive of network security firm Symantec Corp., to be the next Secretary of Commerce. According to the LA Times, over the last several days Thompson has spoken on the telephone and met with key senators, and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a member of the commerce committee that would hold confirmation hearings for any appointed Secretary of Commerce, is 'extremely supportive and hopeful he'll be the nominee.' The appointment of Thompson to head the Department of Commerce would be an exceptionally interesting choice given that only days ago President Obama asked Scott McNealy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, to lead his open source charge and conduct a study and report back regarding the feasibility of the US government forgoing proprietary software and moving toward open source software solutions."
Yay, CHANGE!
Wronger Than Wrong
Scientists are no slouches when it comes to pitching invectives at colleagues. Achieving almost canonical status as the ne plus ultra put-down is theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli's reported harsh critique of a paper: "This isn't right. It's not even wrong." I call this Pauli's proverb.
...
Reality exists, and science is the best tool yet employed to discover and describe that reality. The theory of evolution, even though it is the subject of vigorous debates about the tempo and mode of life's history, is vastly superior to the theory of creation, which is not even wrong (in Pauli's sense).
Yes, he's right. Creationism is not even wrong, although I wouldn't say Darwinian theory of evolution, as taught in high school classrooms, is far off—the whole thing is filled with tautologies and untestable statements; where is the experimental evidence and testable predictions?
MotherJones Blog: What Happened to Bush's Pardons for Libby, Cheney, et al?
For all the Bush doubters:
Here's the proof that Bush was all that he said he was, someone he did everything to defend America from foreign threats even though that may not have been the popular thing to do. For every bad thing that he did, there was a good, intelligent reason behind it—perhaps less informed than it should have been, but that's not his fault; it's not the President's job to gather information, but it is his job to act on the information he has at the moment, and frankly, with all the Clinton hold-overs in the bureaucracy, it would've taken a miracle for him to get all the information necessary.
I can only hope that Obama would have the courage, nay, audacity to leave as cleanly as Bush did, 4 years from now.
When I hear "equality"
I hear "statist-communist plot". It's probably because of the book I'm reading now, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (so far, a very good, inspiring book, although I haven't even finished the first of the three units).
Only people who shout "equality" are people who have a hidden agenda: a hidden agenda to force others to their will. A libertarian knows that equality is a natural result of a society where free enterprise and self-ownership, free from government intervention, is achieved. There's no need for emphasis.
Global Warming Irreversible, NOAA Scientist Finds
Tibor the Hun writes "NPR reports that Susan Solomon, one of the world's top climate scientists, finds in her new study that global warming is now irreversible. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concludes that even if we could immediately cease our impact on pollution and greenhouse gasses emissions, global climate change would continue for more than a thousand years. The reason is the saturation of oceans with carbon dioxide. Her study looked at the consequences of long-term effect in terms of sea-level rise and drought."
Somebody should tell her: "You never bet that the world will end; you should always bet that the world will not end."
If the anthropogenic "global warming" is so serious that it can't be slowed or reversed, what's the point of her study? Let's panic and kill ourselves? On the other hand, if all this fear-mongering turns out to be exactly that, she will have years of ridicule to endure (and if that does prove to be the case, I do hope she has no future career in science).
In any case, we got these fear-mongerers by the short tail now. Either they were truthsayers and we are doomed some years from now (as I said earlier, let's wait 5 years and see if polar cap goes away), or they were despicable monsters that scared the public for their 15 minutes of fame. And now they actually said that it's irreversible!
One nice thing about betting that the world won't end is, if it does end, no one will collect on the bet. 
Edit: Actually, with her strange theories about the ocean soaking up heat and carbon dioxide, I see the brighter side of her "study":
We have the ocean as a buffer. The earth can take a lot more! Let's burn all the fossil fuels so that the future generation doesn't have to worry about putting carbon out of the earth into the air!
Now, why does she think that all the heat and carbon dioxide will come out from the ocean in some cataclysmic event? Doesn't she believe in the second law of thermodynamics?
Bush's Closing Argument: Was Anybody Listening?
President George W. Bush said farewell to the nation, but the nation wasn't paying attention. TV barely cut to him in time for his first words Thursday evening and couldn't wait to cut away when he finished 13 minutes later. Something unexpected and awesome had happened to shoulder him out of the picture: a jet gliding to a stop in the middle of the Hudson River, with everyone emerging safely. The departure of President Bush, by contrast, had become part of the world's mental wallpaper some time ago.
I wasn't listening, but I wish I had.
With all the disgusting things going on in the D.C. with Obama inauguration —Can you even guess how much he spent? $100 million more than Bush! Obama is the vindication to my mantra, "Yes, Bush wasn't perfect, but a Democrat would have been worse"—I just tuned out everything political.
Now I wish I hadn't.
Edit:
"Why'd the financial collapse have to happen on my watch?"
Amen. The fact of the matter is, no matter how much the ignorant public want to pretend otherwise, the matters of economics are seldom a result of the presidential action. Yes, the Iraq war (which Bush deserves all the credit for) probably strained the federal budget a little—but given the figures being floated around for "bailout", which, at $1 trillion is several times more than what the war has cost in total, it's hard to believe that the war was actually responsible for the current state of the economy (which I still believe isn't as bad as the liberal media claims it is—it's nowhere near the soup kitchens of the Great Depression).
If anything, the Congress more often bears the responsibility for the economic welfare, and even then, the government is far more often responsible for hurting the economy (and preventing a recovery) than saving it.
The same will be true next 4 years. Obama may have made history, but he is not a god and nor will he change the natural flow of history—that is, the government is seldom a keen observer of the economic flow and change; where the government meddles (like in the housing market), the government harms.
Libertarians for Life Homepage
One popular misconception is that libertarianism as a political principle supports choice on abortion. And major elements within the libertarian movement (the Libertarian Party, for example) take abortion-choice stands. Nonetheless, libertarianism's basic principle is that each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else--for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy. That is a clearly pro-life principle. Recognizing that, and seeing the abortion-choice drift within the libertarian movement, Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong under justice, not a right.
And to think Gov. Palin was character-assassinated by the liberal media for her pro-life stance!
It makes one almost wish that we could make this one exception on our stance on "de-personing" somebody.
BTW, regardless of what you may have been told by the deceptive liberal media, even the staunchest pro-lifers would choose mother's life over the child's. What they frown upon is the abortions of convenience and choice—not abortions of medical necessity.
On second thought, I am not sure exactly how a libertarian state would advance pro-life agenda:
i.e. Beyond stopping subsidy of abortions (which is really insidious, since it's essentially making all pro-lifers actually pay for abortion by way of taxation), what can a libertarian state do to ensure as little abortions as possible?
A libertarian state wouldn't be in the business of issuing doctors licenses to practice, since an association of doctors should handle that sort of thing, and a libertarian state shouldn't try to meddle with that association (unless it becomes such an odious thing as unions for white collar workers).
When it comes down to it, one couldn't really do much better than Gov. Palin has done so far: she is pro-life in her personal belief and personal life (and she's open about it), but as far as legislations and government actions go, she hasn't tried to force anyone.