The difference between golf and most other "sports" is that your resulting score or win/loss is based solely on your performance (like bowling or drag racing). There is no offense/defense in golf; just you, clubs ball and course. If something goes wrong it's all you.
Most every other sport has human interaction as a core element: US football/rugby has people crashing in to each other as a core element, baseball has a pitcher throwing a ball to a batter and the pitcher can directly affect the batters performance, in basketball you could be the best 3 point shooter on an empty court but you've got to get the ball past the defensive players trying to block it.

My iPhone 4s. 3 years old, never in a case and has been horseback riding innumerable times, hiking, camping, boating not to mentioned tossed in to cup holders on to desks and other abuses but still works fine and only has two minor scratches on the the glass.

But some knowledge is inherited, it is called instinct. No-one teaches a wild newborn mammal to locate a teat, they "just know", the brain inherited the specific knowledge via structure encoded in DNA. It seems that evolved traits/behaviors could have been learned/taught behaviors as some point.

Science requires no faith; it is all observable, testable and debatable. If you want you can re-create almost any experimental result ever published.

Faith/belief is holding something to be true without any evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary: i.e. the opposite of science

According to Christian stories: yes.

Since, in reality, there is not crhist there is still no anti-christ any more than there is an anti-Thor or anti-Ra or anti-Gaia.

Sorry, I forgot Earth is the center of the universe and all measurements of scale and time are related to it. Silly me requesting that science article be clear, concise and accurate.

I thought all planetary orbits were 1 year; it's sort of the definition of a year. Did they mean 11,400 Earth years?

Curious: If you were to point a bunch of satellites at any part of the open ocean and have dozens or hundreds of analysts pore over those images would they find exactly the type of "possible objects" that we are seeing in this situation? Is there any part of the ocean where it is not possible to actually locate human debris such as wood pallets scraps of metal and such.

Remember: we still have tons (literally) of trash from the tsunami floating around out there.

Beyond that, why do ALL the media outlets take government statements such as "possible object", meaning the analysts can't agree that there is an actual thing there and the spot isn't just a light glare, and instead report "it could be a wing". From 'not sure it exists' to 'it could be the plane'.

This all seems like the Washington DC sniper investigation and the "white van" syndrome all over again.

Considering the amount of money that Microsoft makes in patent licensing fees from Android I don't know how they could have any financial reason to want Android to go away. At the moment I suspect that Microsoft makes more money from Android than it does Windows Phone.

ok, three things.

1. As soon as creationists use actual facts: objectively observable, testable and debatable facts instead of simply pointing at a book and saying "there's the proof" then I will be more than happy to bankroll a Cosmos style show just for them. I don't have the money but I don't think they'll ever have the "goods" so I don't have to worry about raising it either. "WE" the collective have debated the creationist/evolution ideas ad-nauseam and creationists have no new information to bring to the debate. All of their arguments have been debunked and science has provided provable or plausible answers to every question posed to it.

2. Your right to free speech is just that a right. No-one has any obligation to provide time, space or audience for your expression. If you want to produce a show about creationism and can get a network to show it, good for you. Some believe we are all defended from aliens, or a flying spagettin monster; Cosmos has no obligation to offer those opinions either. Look Christians: There are about a billion of you. There are also about a billion Muslims and a billion Hindus and all of you believe that you worship the one true god and know the true meaning of all the ancient texts. You can't all be correct and the most plausible answer is that you are all wrong and there is no god, gods, spirits, or any other super natural powers.

3. The premise of most of religion's dislike of the Big Bang theory is that "nothing can just be, it has to be created". Well, where did you god come from if nothing "just is"? How improbable is it that super intelligent being that exists everywhere all the time(omnipresent) and has total knowledge(omniscient) and control(omnipotent) over every single quark in the entire Universe just spawned in to existence out of nothingness? For all your rants, you have the same problem as science except that science says "we don't know but we're looking really hard". Religion says "your question is stupid" (see item #1).

That's the rub... the museum can rais $250M to install a shuttle exhibit but if you asked those same people to pay that much in taxes that was guaranteed to go to NASA they would balk.
Most people labor under the false impression that NASA has a tremendous budget, perhaps almost as large as the military budget when in reality NASA's portion of US spending is about .75% of the total budget (historically it has been as high as 4.5% and is currently about .5%). If the government as a whole could operate as efficiently as NASA does we'd have solved world hunger, provided free healthcare to all Americans, and have free mass transit in every city.
Over the SST program lifespan NASA spend about $192B on the entire thing. For comparison: the US Air Force's F-35 program is expected to cost $857B over its life span (figure you need to double that to get to the number we'll actually wind up at).
The US spends about $220B on interest payments, so we could re-build the entire SST program for the price of 1 year of interest payments!

The "six figure bolt" was probably a dichotomy of incredibly strong and incredibly explosive. It was designed to hold the shuttle to the tank no-matter-what until the exact moment it needed to stop holding them together and then it needed to not exist, immediately and safely and with 100% reliability.
Any bolt holding anything together in a static, simulated display does not need those tolerances or requirements and I'd bet that a $15 grade 8 bolt of similar size would achieve all the holding power and longevity the new project requires. You could just welds and simulate the bolts as well.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/app...

Yes. I don't just think that; the science, physical objective testing and blind subjective testing all bear that out. Take the experience of sitting at the console out of the mix and play you a purely analog version of that same recording vs AAC/256 and 99% of people will not know any difference. The remaining 1% will be split 50/50 as to which recording sounds better.