Don't like the Supreme Court ruling? Pressure Congress to do their jobs well and not write ambiguous laws. Problem solved.

Whether or not something is "clearly nonsense" depends on your intuitions about the way nature works. As Feynman is quick to point out, quantum mechanics doesn't respect our intuitions. Until you experience/observe/measure the cat in the box, it's state is future to you and doesn't exist until then (cf. Mermin's, "Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory").

There's nothing wrong with Copenhagen. Don't confuse ontology (what the cat is) with epistemology (what we can say about the cat). The cat is alive or dead. But until we know that by observation, we can only say that the cat is dead with some probability and alive with some probability. And that's all we can say about the future - because the future does not physically exist.

Where's the line between claiming false data is true and fuzzing to test the robustness of a system?

If /. adopted the BSD code of conduct, your comment would be in violation at a minimum of "Unwelcome comments regarding a person's lifestyle choices and practices".

This is straight out of Bug Jack Barron, by Norman Spinrad, published in 1969.

Those who might exploit the bug won't wait for the vendor to get its act together.

Regulating what to make is the antithesis of Capitalism. Regulating what to charge is the antithesis of Capitalism. Regulation of abuse of monopoly powers is not.

That's a big "if". How would you go about showing that there is one moral law to which both man and God are accountable? And what does it even mean to hold God accountable to something? God is existence itself. Surely you cannot undo existence. The best you can do is close your eyes and pretend it has gone away.

And you're right back to the "in my opinion God is evil" accusation. But you don't have anything behind it other than your notions of good and evil. Your notions of good and evil are, in part, formed by nature's use of the iterated prisoner's dilemma to ensure some cooperation between individuals where extended cooperation is necessary for raising young. This, in turn, drives the notion that God must (in some way) cooperate with man. When He doesn't, He offends our moral sensibilities. The problem with this is that God does not need our cooperation, so it's a mistake to think that He has to follow our rules.

And then what?

Notice what you did. You made a value judgement which requires knowledge of good and evil. Instead of judging God to be good, you've declared Him to be evil.
But that is something you logically cannot do, since God is the ultimate arbiter, not you. There is no moral yardstick that is external to God and to which both God and man must conform in order to be "good." He, himself, is that yardstick. But, instead, you've made yourself the yardstick.

God has put you in a bind in which there are only two possibilities: either man is "broken" or there is no God. Since we don't like to think of ourselves as broken (and, heaven forbid, agree with what the Bible says about us) some choose the "no God" path. But, since it's based on faulty reasoning, it's akin to whistling past the graveyard.

And don't forget Jamie Bamber as Simone. I didn't recognize him in his spacesuit. When I saw his name in the credits I went back and looked again. Sure enough, another Apollo. Deep stuff -- one Apollo dies, another lives.

Lubos Motl claims that the MWI interpretation of QM is completely false to fact in this post: Simple proof QM implies many worlds don't exist.

by Barry B. Longyear

Moral relativism run amok. Since each individual decides what is right for themselves, and we have the right to be secure in our own possessions, and our mind is our greatest possession, you don't have the right to upset the world I've constructed in my head. In other words, we've confused feeling good with being good.

Lot's of techie folks have DVRs. In fact, I just used my iPhone to instruct my DVR to record these Jeopardy episodes.