Better still is payment based on past performance. Whether he's a dowser or a geologist, how many times in the past has he succeeded as a fraction of his attempts? If dowsing is a crock (and I think it is) and study of geology actually improves the probability of finding water, then the geologist should win over time. Unless, of course, the dowser has actually acquired an intuitive sense of geology, and the dowsing rod is just a prop.

Of course, I doubt you will find a dowser who is willing to compare his success rate to a geologist.

This.

There's an old Russian proverb: "Pray to God, but continue to row to shore."

If a problem requires action to solve, you can't just pray it away. On the other hand, if you're powerless to do anything about a problem, you may turn to a spiritual salve in order to cope. I have no problem with spiritual practitioners who offer the salve. But if they claim to solve the problem, then I burn with contempt for them.

I stand by my original comment. I was not being sloppy with my language. There are indeed many mainstream religions (or perhaps more correctly, prominent sects thereof) that accept science and the scientific explanations of origins, and have stated as much in their official positions. (Organizations may not have beliefs, but they can have positions.) For them, the origin myths are philosophical and allegorical, not historical or factual.

I just used the word "correct" to be pithy. I agree that science is not something that is "correct" or "incorrect" or that it claims to be able to reveal absolute truth. But I do maintain strongly (and I think you would agree) that science is indisputably the best way to achieve an understanding of nature that is as close as possible to the truth (whatever it may be) even though that understanding needs occasional revision. And despite what you may think, there are many religious organizations that officially hold that position too.

FTFY. There are plenty of non-fundie mainstream religions, Abrahamic and otherwise, that recognize science (and in particular, scientific explanations of origins) as correct.

AFAIK what's different here is that Comcast claims unlimited == no_cap, but unlimited != fixed_price. Obviously Comcast's definitions are highly self-serving, but I don't think they rise to the level of blatant lies.

I say again, I'm not on Comcast's side. I just think that describing Comcast's position in hyperbolic terms (such as "blatant lies") will be self-defeating.

Technically, that sounds more like a lie-by-omission. For it to be a blatant lie, they would have to say there is no quota when in fact there was one.

I have no desire to defend Comcast. However, I think it's a bit strong to call it a "blatant lie." What I would call it is "highly disingenuous."

Comcast says there's no cap: they won't stop sending you bits, they'll just charge you more if you exceed a threshold. Of course, their definition of "cap" is a thin disguise over their real intent, which is to discourage heavy usage of their network. It sucks, but it is tenable.

FTFY.

Well said.

People who generalize are idiots.

Wait...

internet + cat = bandwidth mayhem

It has happened before.

My comments were (falsely) premised on one guy suing Sony. Others have pointed out that I failed to see that this is in fact a class-action suit.

I just didn't think one guy suing Sony for 'all economic, monetary, actual, consequential, statutory and compensatory damages' had much of a chance, and his better option was to return the product, and then perhaps give Sony the finger in online reviews. Now that I realize it is a class-action suit, I think he has a good chance and I cheer him on.

DOH!!! Sorry, my bad. I glossed over the summary too quickly.

IANAL, but I doubt he will win. It seems to me that the proper remedy for him is to return the product and get his money back.

Sony should be punished for lying, but I don't see how one person suing them is going to work. Others may be satisfied with the product, even if Sony was being dishonest about its capabilities.

Now, if a group of consumers started a class action suit against Sony for this, I'd imagine their chances of winning would be much better.

Tell that to the statistical mechanics theorists. They need 6 dimensions for each particle in the system.

First of all, Verizon is not the only CDMA carrier in the USA. (Sprint, for example, uses CDMA.) Verizon can't "break" their version of CDMA without making it impossible for non-Verizon subscribers to roam on their network.

Second, many of the phones currently available in the USA support all CDMA and GSM network protocols. Some even support them at all of the frequencies used outside North America, so you can roam in other continents.

Third, many phones from CDMA carriers now come with a removable SIM card, just like GSM phones have for years. I'm not sure, but I think switching carriers may involve modifying the apps and parts of the OS (and would that involve unlocking or even jailbreaking?) However, the most important step is to swap out the SIM card with one from the new carrier, and that has become a lot easier.