Such as people shouting long enough that the Earth is only 6000 years old, which was disproved long ago, but some people would like to have that 'fact' ignored for their own superstitious reasons.
Did you see the tizzies that the creationist organisations threw when they saw the recent Cosmos series with neil de Grasse Tyson? Quiet a bit like Ayyadurai 'complaining' about people not buying his made-up email history, because, you know, evidence.
Actually, we are a lot more sure of our dating methods than some (creationist-inspired) critics like to make out. Any scientist working with dating knows not to trust any one method blindly - the power comes when you can get matching results from multiple sources, and when we can test methods using other, different methods. The examples you 'quote' are known 'mistakes', such as people deliberately submitting the wrong type of sample for the wrong type of test - which of course will then give the wrong result! The only people who benefit from trying to put down radiometric dating are those anti-science people who would rather either deny humans can have an effect on the planet's climate, or who think the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Scientists don't just randomly pick a 'theory' and vote on it - the agreement that a meteor strike took out the dinosaurs was based on years of painstaking searching, years of various tests, and a huge amount of actual evidence. I've watched the case build from a 'maybe' when I was a kid to 'pretty definite' now. Plus, the final, current view is slightly more nuanced - there were mass eruptions in India (Deccan Traps) at the same time that were already putting massive stress on the biosphere.
Again, actual scientists are well aware that models are only that - but when various models not only agree with observations but can make testable predictions, they can be viewed with some confidence. But a lot of what we are discussing here is not based 'just' on models.
I look forward to seeing you railing at the content dealing/peddling companies for screwing over artists and actors, because 'the law' is that they should be fairly compensated, and MAFIAA shouldn't be 'dodging tax law' by using 'Hollywood' accounting.
Which is why they won every case up to the Supreme Court?
Why do you hate the Free Market?
Aereo are trying to provide a service following Whatever Idiocies the law requires, yet they are being penalised for trying to follow the law. They are trying to maximise user benefit and make a profit, like any good company should. Except for all the companies that you support, which are all apparently about turning the quickest buck while screwing over users and creators.
This is censorship and destruction of disruptive innovation by corrupt law, plain and simple. If it were a genuine attempt to stop someone 'freeloading' then they would be happy to have Aereo compete while offering statutory fees. But it's not about that, it's about preventing Aereo offering a better service than anyone else can be bothered to do.
Well, I know that all true Murikans are happy with innocents and children being killed by gunfire in horrific numbers outside of Gaza. But it's your democracy, you're free to murder children as you see fit.
The DMCA is utter stupidity, but if you must have it, it ought to be fixed, so that there is an active penalty for perjury. So long as it is a joke, it should be treated like one. And if people have found ways to abuse the takedown process, then I would be more than happy for companies like Google to also 'abuse' the takedown process and make it as onerous for content dealers and peddlers to lie, cheat and otherwise do business as usual.
Also, if copyright was cut back to its original form, things would be very different, and there would be a lot more innovation going on, instead of useless lawsuits. And yes, people would have less incentive to cheat stuff - a lot of films I remember from my childhood would be public domain by now.
Copyright is an unnaturally parasitic monopoly process, as industries that manage without it prove. And I dare anyone to say there is no innovation or money in fashion or Formula 1, or other idea-based industries.
Having looked at the collection, there is some interesting stuff there, but not necessarily anything I'd pay out so much for. It's one thing shelling out a few quid on a game that you can play for several hours and replay. It's another thing paying the cost of a DVD movie or Netflix subscription to 'acquire' a single documentary (niche subject or not).
One of the major reasons I don't bother with things like Google Play Movies/TV, despite the phenomenal choice and the convenience of having on phone/tablet is the ridiculous prices. Like with too many e-books, there are simply no savings for it being digital (and possibly only effectively a licence). So there is no incentive to buy something that I can get a DVD of and watch on a decent-size screen. (To be fair, I don't have much time for watching on phone or tablet.) So if the prices for these offerings suck, they won't be likely to be that successful.
If GOG can undercut their competitors with good programming while still providing a useful, DRM-free product, I'm happy to chuck pounds their way.
Then how come every other developed country in the world manages just fine without armed civilians, and even with mostly unarmed police? How come Canada, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, the UK aren't armed battlegrounds with hordes of armed criminals going all Mad Max on poor underarmed civilians and police?
When *you* are the outlier, you have to look at what your problem is. In this case, the "I'm-compensating-for-something" bunch don't want anything that'll make their premature ejaculations even more ineffective...