Probably too late for that. Sigh :(

(Disclaimer: I am a scientist, so this isn't anecdotal)

Mod my parent up. This is -precisely- true. The idea that we test a hypothesis and refine it based on experimental outcomes is utter BS. In all but the most -basic- of processes, there simply is no way to account for all possible results of testing a system; this is further compounded in my field, where an 'in vitro' experiment may yield different results than one 'in vivo'. To make matters worse, those 'in vitro' experiments may in fact yield different results in /different cell types/, given all other conditions being precisely the same.

Without going into too much detail, the real nature of science is that we already have a fairly good idea of what we -want- to happen before we begin testing. I may have a vague theory about the experiments will come out, but more often than not we end up writing the theory to fit the facts around the time the data is published, in such a way that it fits the data we've collected, even though that final theory may not have any relation to the initial expectations.

Some of this is also attributable to the funding system (at least in the US). Submission of a grant (money to do experiments) requires that you already have (preliminary) information, and a fairly tight and detailed set of theories to explain how what you propose to do will result in a conclusion, as well as what those conclusions will be. Essentially, you need to present some data in order to get funding to obtain data. Give too much preliminary research, and you won't have enough theory and interesting suggestions to get funding, but if you don't have enough research done (how you do this without money is a nice conundrum), you won't get funding.

In practice, this often means researchers with no active funding will dust off old unpublished work, and write theories around it, in order to talk the NIH into paying out money so real work can get done (since once you're funded, you can really do whatever research you want -- especially if we're not talking about a renewable grant).

So it's really a messed up system all around, but the scientific method as you know it has virtually no role in it either way.

.... an idiot tax on us for electing these complete and utter morons to positions of power.

Play the Repub/Dem line all you want - we the people are to blame for electing them in the first place.

Whenever things like this happen, we all go 'ohh, that was a mistake. Should we not have done that?', then come election-time, we vote the same old sleaze into office.

Well, once again - we reap what we sow.

THIS.

Thank you. This myth that HFCS is somehow -different- than sugar in terms of metabolism is utter nonsense.

Truth of the matter is that HFCS is just a stupidly cheap way for super-processed food to taste sweet.

I mean, really.. does bread need HFCS in it? Really now. No, but it does make the hyper-processed mostly nutritionless bread-like product taste better, so we'll buy it.

Yuck.

I don't think so. Whoever it is is holding a chair over their head and he looks angry. ...

Do not feed the trolls.

In a world where you can be (relatively) famous for the ability to eat more hot dogs in five minutes than anyone else in the world, I can't see how gaming is all that bad.

(Why not combine the two? Oh, wait. There's already a competitive eating video game. Holy crap, I think I might just explode.)

Note I said 'when you uninstall the application'.

I didn't feel it was necessary to point out the entire process, merely the portion TFA was referring to.

Also, in reference to another comment here - I'm fairly certain if you choose 'no thanks', it just isn't rated -- that doesn't result in a one star rate.

Does he own an iPhone/iTouch?

When you uninstall the application, there's a large button right below the stars that says 'NO THANKS'.

It's very clear, and .. oh, useful -- when you uninstall an application but don't feel like rating it.

Maybe his eyes are broken.

She's bat**** crazy, obviously.

I can't blame either one of them for not bringing grandchildren around for a 'nice visit'.

Ten minutes later, they're in the oven.

"I was bored, and my teachers weren't interested in doing things my way, so instead of making a good faith attempt to learn, I cheated."

Wow. No wonder all my students think they're entitled to passing grades just because they show up.

Man up, Nancy. Until the school systems are so well funded that we have a 1:1 teacher student ratio, some kids are just going to have to suck it up and learn the hard way.

Cheating is just an excuse to not work hard. If you can demonstrate serious effort and still have trouble, try finding a teacher/professor during office hours.

Amazingly, we're pretty ameniable to trying to explain topics over again if you'd bother to ask.

Cheat in my lectures, and you get a zero. The end.

Nothing says that they'll pay for the -right- answer.

And personally, I'd be rather wary of paying $100 for a presentation, since if you don't know the material it's going to be pretty obvious anyway. You'll be out a lot of cash, and still look like an idiot when you get asked a question.

So I'm all for it. The creator is right. They'll have to learn the material sooner or later, because nobody will be able to buy answers on exam day. He might as well make some easy money off of anyone gullible enough to do this.

Of course not, but this isn't competition. Bell -owns- this infrastructure, and they shape all traffic going through their lines.

I -do not- agree with this practice, but I also don't see how these small-time resellers should be exempt just because they feel like it.

Somehow, I fail to see how any of that smacks of wanting to reduce competition. Really, I think all of the copper should be owned by government and treated as a community commodity, like power is (at least where I live).