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.

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.

Damn, how many lunch breaks do you need?

People seem to want a smart watch that is, at a minimum, as useful as their smart phone. The trouble, of course, is that no one has any idea what such a device would be like.

I was completely surprised that Apple announced a watch. If I were a betting man, I'd have lost my shirt. While they delivered something different, with a novel interface (I do like the 'crown' control, it reminds me of the jog-wheel on my old 7290) they didn't deliver the mythical "wrist computer" that the wearable computing crowd wanted.

I don't blame them for being disappointed. After all, the die-hard Apple fans all but guaranteed that Cupertino could deliver. The sentiment was: "if anyone can do it, Apple can!"

I didn't think that Apple could deliver -- I'm not sure anyone could deliver -- which is why I was struck when they revealed it. I'll give them this: They did better than I expected. We'll see how this influences future watch offerings from Apple and their competitors. If it's at all possible, healthy competition should help crack that nut.

So you're saying that a sizable percentage of users are vulnerable then?

Okay ... Let me guess -- the earth is hollow and home to the lizard people who secretly control the world. All the government need do is stop fighting the swarm of "conspiracy" books and websites and step forward and go "This is bullshit, here's why". Instead, they're doing EXACTLY what the "conspiracy" is claiming they do. You refuse to open your eyes and look for yourself. You expect everything hand-fed to you on a silver spoon. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE.

Seriously, listen to yourself. You're a nutter.

I don't have a choice. They're the only carrier with acceptable service in my area. You can't use Verizon inside most buildings. (The 'Can you hear me now' guy hasn't been this way, I guess.) T-Mobile and Sprint are even worse.

CellularOne was good, but AT&T bought them years ago.

AT&T hate aside, I've never had a problem with basic phone service while traveling. (Well, except that one time driving through the desert in New Mexico.) So, baring their ridiculous prices, I can't really complain.

It's still really neat.

STILL no evidence for your claims!

Instead, I get a bunch of porn and a conspiracy theory. Oh, you have no evidence because Reddit is hiding the truth! Does the NSA come in to play here? How about Area 51?

Well, I'm not surprised at all. People like you delve in to fantasy when reality doesn't suit your crazy beliefs.

Why do you want to put so much responsibility on the victims?

Are you a criminal?

Did you miss it? He said:

You even quoted it.

I'm thinking more coercion than bribery. Hence, "power dynamics".

"That's a nice game you've got there, it would be a shame if I had to give it a shitty review..."

Sad? I'd say the exact opposite of that. Moving on...

You have absolutely no evidence, so you direct me to a porn site? Are you 12? Why not just link to goatse?

Pathetic.

Nice change. (You never said that! At least you're trying to learn from your mistakes.) Of course, all it does is make you look like an idiot. 1) because you don't know what the term "non-deterministic" means 2) because variables in JS don't have types, values do.

Let me guess: You're an autodidact?

This has been driving me crazy. Since when is an explicit cast an "ugly hack"? How long have you been programming, half an hour?

So you rescind your claims that "the language behaves in a non-deterministic way" and "there is no way to say with certainty what the interpreter will do since there's no telling for sure if he will treat the "+" operator as a sum of integers or a concatenation of strings"?

That's what this whole thing was about, after all. If you're willing to accept that those nonsense claims are total nonsense, then we're in complete agreement.

If you're not, then you're 100% wrong when you claim to "know how the '+' operator works".

I wonder, as you double-down on your lunacy:

You wouldn't need your "ugly hack" if you knew how the + operator worked, after all.