I think that's far too narrow a definition of science, one that seems far too ideal to be useful.

Is string theory science? After all, there's virtually no way to test it with any technology we currently possess, and it may be decades before we possess the equipment necessary to actually test its predictions.

I'd say the answer is yes, it is science. It may be wrongheaded and may ultimately end up being wrong (though the mathematics that have had to be produced to explain string theory have had some benefits in others areas of research, so in science, even failures lead to advances). Even the most ardent string theorists will admit, when pushed, that at the moment, strings remain a theory without experimental evidence, so it's not like they're deluding themselves into believing they have TRUTH.

In fact, that, to my mind, is what makes science more than any other philosophical statement; and that is that there is no TRUTH with a capital T, but rather provisional facts that are open to change at any time. Some theories may have sufficient explanatory power and evidence backing them that they might as well be considered true (ie. biological evolution, general relativity), but even in such cases, there's usually aspects that are incomplete, so even within well-established theories, there's always room for improvement. In some cases, such theories may ultimately be subsumed into larger theories (as happened with Newtonian Mechanics). I fully expect that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics will themselves ultimately be unified as part of a larger theory (maybe it will even be string theory, so one hopes that those researchers keep going, even if by the Chrichton formula, they're apparently not doing science at all).

Compared to other scripting languages (I'm thinking Bash, Python, heck even Perl), yeah, Powershell kind of sucks. But compared to the incredible hacks that had to be used a decade ago to do scripting on Windows servers, it's a 1000% improvement. But, at the end of the day, it has to be one of the worst scripting languages I've ever used.

Apart from anything else, what I truly dislike about Powershell is how verbose it is. Perhaps it's my *nix heritage, but I like tidy little mnemonic commands like "mv", "rm" or "grep". Less typing, less things to wrong when you're writing scripts. I also find the syntax rather awkward. It's far better than the alternatives (like vbscript or jscript with WMI), but it's still a long ways away from what I would consider a decent scripting language.

Actually, the worst part of about Powershell is how awfully slow it is. I'm sure that is because it's basically an interface sitting on top of .NET. The *nix shells are, for the most part, self-contained binaries, so bringing up a Bash script is very fast. But then again, sh and its descendants aren't trying to create a "do it all" environment, but rather create control structures and variables to expand upon existing *nix commands.

I wrote a Powershell scriptlet a few months ago to dump Exchange 2010 mailboxes based on some criteria. Works like a charm, and like I said, despite my dislike of Powershell itself, I'm very grateful that it exists. But loading the Exchange scriptlets library takes something 10 to 20 seconds, and you can see Powershell nailing system resources like crazy to get to that point.

While its roots, or at least its inspiration, are the Unix shells, in very important ways, it ignores key Unix principles. It is indeed what Bash would work like if it had been written by Microsoft.

Powershell is just enough like Bash to make me groan after ten minutes and ask "Why the f--- didn't they just make an integrated Bash shell?"

"New" as in "newly discovered"....

TCP/IP has the singular advantage that it is deeply entrenched, runs on a vast number of devices from supercomputers right down to single-chip computers. Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but it's a proven technology.

I'm sure in the fullness of time it will be replaced, or at least subsumed into some better protocol, and maybe this initiative will be the one that produces its successor... or not. I think TCP/IP is going to be with us for a very long time.

Can you provide some evidence that they were sleeping together?

What proof? Be specific. Show me the actual proof.

And no, a favorable review is not evidence of sexual favors.

In other words, there is no verifying the claims. It strikes me as being irresponsible to the point of being outright of defamatory to continue to repeat these sorts of claims where no actual evidence to their veracity can be produced.

I'm asking for an actual citation demonstrating the claim that she slept with people for favorable reviews. Does such a verifiable citation exist or not?

None of which seems to prove the claim that the woman in question was having sex with lots of people.

Then you can certainly provide me with a verifiable reference.

You're claim, you back it up.

I don't see a reference there to your claims on that page.

Do you actually have some references of any kind at all?

Reference-less accusations seem to prove the article's point.