Don't anthropomorphize science. It hates that.

You're absolutely right that science doesn't need to place value on anything. Science is a process, a methodology and, to a lesser extent, a culture. It doesn't have needs. And yet besides being completely right, you also completely miss the point.

Science doesn't need anything, atheism doesn't need anything... but people do need something. People find the emotionless, purely rational "Spock" view of science deeply unfulfilling (ignoring for the moment that spock wasn't wholly rational or emotionless, and neither was Data, even without his emotion chip), and therefore they seek something else, something more, something, in fact, bigger than themselves which (somewhat paradoxically) gives value to them and makes them more than just "chemical scum on the surface of a typical planet", as Hawking put it. Otherwise, what's the point? Different people feel this need in varying degrees, and atheists tend to be people who are towards the less "needy" end of that particular spectrum (which doesn't make them superior or inferior).

Atheists who see religion as a problem to be solved, and wish to convince people to stop seeking gods find this need for something in their religious fellows to be an obstacle... because the atheists have nothing to offer to fill that human need. At least, that's the argument.

I recently read a book which I think has an excellent answer to this. The book is "The Beginning of Infinity", by David Deutsch, and in it Deutsch makes a compelling argument that, rather than being irrelevant chemical scum, people (a term which Deutsch defines, and of which humans are the only example we know) are objectively the single most significant phenomenon in the universe (actually, the multiverse, since Deuetsch is a proponent of the many-worlds hypothesis). The reason we're so incredibly important not only provides value but also purpose, and I think that value and purpose can fill the need.

Deutsch argues that the reason humans have become people and therefore important is because we've made "the jump to universality", by which Deutsch means that we have become "universal explainers", capable of developing an infinite stream of ever-better and ever-more-detailed explanations of how the universe works, and therefore also "universal constructors", capable ultimately (given the necessary knowledge, which we have the capacity to obtain) of constructing anything which is not physically impossible (note that universal construction also implies the ability to overcome any inherent deficits in our brains that might impose limits on our capacity as universal explainers).

As to how those characteristics make us the most important phenomena in the universe, Deutsch provides several examples. I'll relate two of them. First, he points out that we believe -- with reason -- that if there are other people in the universe it is highly likely that we will be able to detect them, even if they're hundreds, thousands or millions of light years away. This belief is the rationale for the SETI project, and it is based on the simple observation that people, when they become radio engineers, produce signals which are distinguishable from any phenomenon that exists in a universe without people. More succinctly, people are one of few phenomena which can be detected over interstellar distances. This puts people in a class of cosmic significance that at least rivals that of stars.

Second, he points out that as universal constructors, who can ultimately create any arrangement of matter and energy which is not prohibited by the laws of physics, once we learn how, that we're actually more significant than stars, supernovae, quasars, etc. It's conceivable that we will someday learn how to harness and modify those vast phenomena, for example we may someday wish to prevent a supernova and do so by removing enough mass from the star to prevent it. We don't know how to do that, of course, but we already know exactly what would have to be done, exactly how much mass would have to be removed from a given star, and by when.

Further, if we consider the set of all possible arrangements of matter and energy in the universe and then consider which of them could occur via the operation of the laws of physics in the absence of people, vs which could occur in the presence of people (universal constructors), we see that only a vanishingly small set of states is possible without people. The classic example is that of Paley's "pocket watch on the heath"... what is the probability that in the absence of people that a pocket watch would come into existence? The watch's structure is not only intricate, it is all geared toward the purpose of telling time. It's extremely unlikely that that arrangement of atoms could occur by chance. Of course, the same argument can be applied to our own bodies, but we do have an explanation for how they could occur by chance.

So, the cosmic significance and importance of people, as universal explainers and constructors, clearly fulfills our human need to be significant. We, collectively (including other non-human people), are the most significant and powerful thing in the universe. But how does that address the need for a purpose larger than ourselves? The purpose is to achieve our destiny, of creating that infinite stream of knowledge, and of applying it to better the existence of people. In a word, progress, making people, collectively and individually, happier, smarter, better, freer, more powerful, etc. through developing ever-richer explanations of the universe we inhabit -- and create.

Note that this still leaves open the question of how to create and justify morality, something that normal people feel is important, and another key role of religion that atheists sometimes have a hard time replacing. Relativist, or amoralist philosophies abound, and can be logically very consistent, but are almost universally unappealing to people. Deutsch takes a stab at that, too, arguing that morality is also objective and can be derived from the laws of nature (physics). His arguments there are interesting but not quite as compelling.

(Disclaimer: Note that I am not an atheist. I do believe in God, and believe that He is our creator and the creator of the universe we inhabit. However, I find objective arguments of humanity's importance and morality's fundamental nature very interesting, and not in the slightest in conflict with my view of a benificent creator who wants us to find fulfillment in our struggles to progress.)

You say that as though it's some sort of moral issue, as though science has somehow failed to provide you with what you deserve. I don't understand that. We know what we know (though much of what we know is wrong), and we're learning. Saying we should know any given thing that we don't know is silly, because given that we don't know it, we don't even know what is required in order to know it.

In the case of the effect of red meat, just how deep does that particular rabbit hole go? We don't really know. We have a rough understanding of many of the mechanisms involved, but no comprehensive understanding of how it all fits together, much less how it interacts with other elements. We can look at empiricist[*] studies but the plethora of confounding factors make those particularly weak in this case. Simple phenomena can be described via empirical methods. Even emergent phenomena with very complex underpinnings can be described empirically, as long as they're simple at the level of explanation. But when phenomena are inherently complex, only deep explanation will suffice.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if we're still 50 years from the level of knowledge that you demand. It's probably not that bad, but it might be, because we are barely scratching the surface at understanding the complexity of our own bodies.

[*] By "empiricist" I mean the sort of semi-science that assumes that descriptive knowledge derived from observation, without any real explanatory theory, is scientific rather than just being a narrow rule of thumb whose applicability is uncertain. In this case, measuring health outcomes and correlating them with red meat intake and then using the result to predict what red meat intake choices produce the best outcomes. The approach is flawed not only because it often confuses correlation with causation (though it does), or because it's hard to isolate the studied factor from confounding factors (it is), but because without explanatory knowledge that tells us not only what the effects of red meat are but also exactly why they are what they are, we can never really know how other choices will interact.

We've done everything we can in our Active Directory network to overcome roaming profile issues. Even with folder redirection, you have a huge fat ntuser.dat for prone to corruption. Users' home folders on a server, with discrete text-based configuration files would be a dream.

Did you know that in 2014 you still can't safely put risking profiles on a DFS share?

Metro is dying before our very eyes. It has been deemphasized in Windows 8.1 and by Windows 9 will be little more than a fancy start menu.

For chrissakes, most suppliers if enterprise systems I deal with still happily ship you Windows 7 Pro machines, or at least heavily advertised downgrade rights. "Business class" systems still ship with Windows 7 preinstalled. The enterprise customers never bloody wanted Metro to begin with, and so act as if Windows 8/8.1 didn't exist.

OpenLDAP, NFS and home folders on a file server.

Jesus Christ, Microsoft junkies well and truly believe there's no alternatives.

Given the relative densities of gold and water, you might want to reconsider that plan ;^)

Hmm. So you get easy access to amazing hardware that previous generations could only fantasize about, at bargain-basement prices, and still you manage to find a way to get upset about it, because somewhere out there, somebody might be making a profit by supplying you with products you want at a price you're willing to pay.

I'm finding it a bit difficult to feel much sympathy for your plight.

OP does point to a real issue though -- drive capacity is increasing faster than drive bandwidth. That means that as time goes on, it takes longer and longer for full-disk operations (e.g. drive backups) to complete.

Since NAND access is (at least in principle) parallelizable, perhaps there is some new SD interface that can increase the transfer rate so that we can keep up for a while longer? I certainly don't much look forward to waiting 15 hours to make a copy of my 5TB SD card...

Could you elaborate?

That's a particularly weak example, since for everyday purposes we knew how to deal with gravity long before we had any scientific understanding of it at all.

Turns out that biology is a little bit more complicated than we expected.

It's my firm belief that one cannot write any software of any moderate to large size without inevitably running afoul of some software patent. There are only two things that protect any developer:

1. Distribution of their software is sufficiently small that it escapes the notice of patent trolls.
2. Being a large company with a legal department capable of dealing with patent threats, and a bank account big enough to buy them off.

The client isn't great, but it does work. We have a few Android and iOS devices that use the apps, and it works once you get it configured.

So sure, it's easier to hang up on them but you are actually doing them a favor and helping them out by doing so.

No, failure to take hostile action isn't a favor; it's neutrality. Installing their malware would be a favor. I can appreciate those with the time and energy to take fight to this enemy (good on you!), but I have other battles to fight with my (however high) limited anger.

The problem with this enemy, which makes it so hard to care, is how irrelevant they are. So they call people about bullshit, wasting their time. That can be annoying, but there are so many more annoying things.

I suppose some people would say this enemy is worse that that, because the call is just a way of performing a SE attack, but I disagree. I just can't help but get blame-the-victim-y with SE attacks like that. I think many of our society's real problems are caused by SE, much of it legal (e.g. "vote for me, because I'm a member of the correct party," or "believe our religion's dogma, because your parents did") and that we'd all be a lot better off with more "scam antibodies" in ourselves. So part of me hopes these scammers flourish, thereby teaching people to stop being so fucking gullible. Maybe you can't fix stupid, but we can try, and an environment full of con artists is good for that. These assholes are evil, but they're good for us.

No, I'm not fully committed to that outlook (sure, I wanna hurt the bad guys too) but I'm conflicted enough that it evens out. And while we're at it, don't knock lazy! So a position of neutrality, it is.