I agree. A theory is, after all, a predictive model, and science wouldn't work if any theory was considered unassailable truth. This brings up a couple other problems with the public understanding of science that are often overlooked: The belief that science ultimately leads to truth (a failure of our educations system, no doubt) and the belief that we've got it all just about sorted, with a few details left to be filled-in.

I want a smart watch a smart pen and smart glasses and a smartphone and a smart earpiece and a smart pager and a smart mini fax machine that are all networked together. Arranged around my body like Classic Batman. In bright yellow so people can see from a distance how smart and trendy I am.

No, really, what I most want in a smart watch is to be able to leave my phone at home. I grew tired of carrying multiple devices long ago. Sadly, smart watches tend to be merely extensions to the phone you're already carrying. Ok for hipsters but no thanks.

Having the watch sync with the phone when in range would be fine. But having the watch only function as an extension of the phone? Fail.

There is exactly one reason why they do that: If they don't, they can kiss the storage business abroad good bye. Nobody would ever even think about touching any of their storage services with a ten foot pole, and, if sufficiently security conscious, contemplate moving away from MS wherever possible. At the very least in the server area, if possible at clients, too.

And I'm not that certain whether companies in the US would agree with it either.

It's worse. Most people who complain about the use of the word 'theory' don't know what it means in a scientific context either, and spread one of several nonsense definitions they saw on a forum or heard on a youtube video.

Here in Saskatchewan Canada, it is illegal to operate any electronic device while driving a motor vehicle

So then, is it also illegal to sell cars in Saskatechewan that may have controls for things like the stereo, etc, mounted on the steering wheel so that a driver does not need to take either hand off of the wheel?

What about hands-free devices? What about hands-free devices that do not require any concentration to use (such as a pacemaker, for example, or other implanted technologies).

The law there, as you've worded it so vague as to be useless.

What about the tons of dust and debris that fall to Earth every single day? What about the heat this planet radiates out, the loss of gases that occur naturally?

We do not have a closed system. Period. You can be ignorant and attempt to argue it all you want, but you will always be wrong.

Always.

Because people who smoke weed never rob anyone to get money or drive around stoned out of their gourd and wreck into people.

I am sure all of them could pass it if they studied for it. That is why all certifications are useless. With enough studying, almost anyone can pass it without understanding the material, just regurgitating facts.

If you could force someone to take and pass such a test without studying, THEN your statement would be useful.

Fuck software "engineering" and the bullshit always-update mentality. Build shit that works so that it can be used 20 years later without issues. If I have to update, YOU are doing it wrong.

I say this as someone who has written software. Oddly enough, it was in C, has never had any exploits, has not needed updates, and has been running in a hostile environment since 1999, and is still just as reliable now as it was then (never needs to be restarted/rebooted, no memory leaks, etc). And it is not Hello World.

Talk for yourself. I like the bus a lot more than a car. In the morning I'm sleepy and don't like to drive. In the evening I'm tired and don't like to drive. Plus in the bus I'm comfortable, can nap, talk with the cute chick or most likely watch videos on my phone. I can also bike to work (long ride) in the morning and put the bike in the bus on the way back (uphill). Plus it's cheap. The bus is great.

Why ? If you want 6 kids, you should be able to afford them. Otherwise <snip> Overpopulation is to root of all evil so I don't see reasons to encourage it except by economists who think 'growth' can be forever.

Which part of your banking data do you not want to be consistent?

Which transations do you not want atomic?

Personally, I like the idea of my banking data being durable, and I sure dont wat to bank with anyone who sees it otherwise (might feel different if the buggers would give me an overdraft, but I cant see the shareholders or tax man agreeing to it).

and not isolating the transactions? How will that not end in tears

I can understand that maybe you had too much LSD, but we stopped using pounds, shillings and pence years ago, and the other kind messes with your brain...P. oh, wait ...