The Mac interface is a LOT closer to classic Windows (XP through 7) than Windows 8 is. I've transitioned plenty of people between OSX and Windows XP/Vista/7 in both directions. They're not all that different and transitioning between them isn't hard for most folks. I use both on a daily basis. Windows 8 is a HUGE departure in interface intended to merge touch screen and keyboard/mouse interfaces.

Personally I absolutely loathe Window 8. For me it is the most annoyingly unintuitive OS interface I've used in the last 20 years. Maybe it's fine on a tablet but I absolutely hate using it on a desktop.

Calling theories that have been tested as much as relativity or quantum mechanics "guesses" is to deny the world in front of you. While they could be shown to be false in some manner tomorrow, the simple fact is that much of the modern world would simply not work if the words "hypothesis" and "guess" were equivalent. The computer you are typing on would not work if quantum mechanics was merely a guess. GPS could not function if relativity were merely a guess, regardless of how noble a sense you use it. We only call them theories instead of facts because we know that they could in principle be proven wrong even though we have no actual expectation that this will happen and huge volumes of evidence in support of these "theories".

If you ignore anti-science folks you end up living in a theocracy. Ask the folks living in big parts of the Middle East what that is like. You ignore those who are anti-science at your peril. If the anti-science people are the only ones doing the talking then their ideas will eventually carry the day no matter how absurd them might be when viewed objectively.

Wrong. They don't need to be right for their argument to win the day. Science does not become policy by magic. It requires educating and persuading policy makers, sometimes against their will. Being right is important but not remotely sufficient to ensure that science becomes the basis of policy rather than mysticism and magical thinking.

Physics is a pretty big field. You seriously expect someone to spend the time to restate a meaningful amount of here what has already been adequately stated elsewhere?

Did you actually read to what was linked? Do you actually understand the formula shown and why it matters? Pretty clear the answer is no.

You don't know what you cannot answer until you try to answer it. Science generally speaking can (theoretically) answer any question which has observable evidence and is falsifiable. What our universe looks like and how it developed are well within the bounds of being observable and falsifiable.

I'm sure the scientists who study geology, archaeology, paleontology, astronomy, and numerous other disciplines will be disappointed to hear what they are doing isn't considered science anymore. Oh wait, those ARE sciences. How foolish of you.

And exactly what in his argument was actually wrong? Or are you just being an argumentative dick-head because it amuses you? What about the science did he get wrong?

Pot meet kettle...

What makes you say that? Just because there are things we don't yet know doesn't automatically mean we are wrong about the things we do know. We're perfectly capable of building models that predicatively describe the world around us. If you build a model that accurately describes something and how it will (or did) behave then that is not a guess.

The big bang theory is basically a consensus picture of what we think happened based on the evidence we currently have. Some of the evidence we are extremely confident about. Some less so. And some we know we don't know yet (see dark matter) but know something about what is missing. We are basically saying that given our current observations and physical models, the following (insert theory here) must be true. Every theory is subject to revision based on future observations - some just need more of it that others. Models of what must have happened in the past (geologic, cosmological, archaeologic, etc) often get revised as new evidence is uncovered that must be accounted for in the model.

Ideally yes though I realize that is probably unrealistic.

Most people are vaccinated already when they are children so the vast majority of the cost is already accounted for. The rest of it is probably pretty much the easiest cost/benefit analysis ever. The cost of the vaccines and program administration would almost certainly be hugely outweighed by the reduced health care costs. I imagine it would be pretty straightforward to do this either with public or private money. Most medical insurance already covers getting vaccines. (vaccines are generally very cheap)

Since the point is that they should be vaccinated the answer to your question seems self evident. Furthermore those numbers do not add up to 100% and the percent of loonies who don't get vaccinated is in the single digits.

I don't really give a shit about your personal or religious preferences if it affects public health.

The government isn't mandating what you put in your body. It is however telling you that if you want a government funded education then you need to be vaccinated so you do not present a risk to others. You do have the right to opt out but there are (and should be) consequences.

I could not disagree more. If you want to home school your children or send them to a private school, then that is your right. If they want to attend a public school then they should be vaccinated against common illnesses or provide that they cannot get the vaccine for provable medical conditions. I do not care at all about personal or religious preferences in this matter. Viruses do not notify people ahead of time when there will be an outbreak so by the time there is an outbreak it is already too late. The entire point of vaccines is prevent the outbreak in the first place.

Who said you had to work in IT? I have had numerous jobs where no drug test was required and I don't work in IT.

That's because a LOT of people fail the drug tests and remember that many of them are working registers and handling cash. Would you trust someone with a drug habit to handle cash or safely work a grill? I hire a lot of temps at my company and I'm not kidding when I tell you over 50% of applicants fail the drug test. Why would I hire that person when I can hire someone who doesn't give me the safety and liability concerns of a drug habit?

Demonstrably untrue. Many vaccines are well over 99% effective.

Wrong again. If vaccines did not work on an individual level then there would be no herd immunity. Vaccines don't have to be 100% effective to create herd immunity but they do have to be effective on an individual level in a substantial portion of the population. Herd immunity protects those who cannot (or will not) get vaccinated for whatever reason.

You first since you clearly have no idea how herd immunity works.

I have no quarrel with that. Problem is that I, as an employer (which I am), cannot be certain that your recreational (and probably illegal) drug habit will not present a safety or liability problem for me on the job. I have no problem ethically with an adult getting high on their own time provided it doesn't harm someone else. That last bit is the key though. As an employer I cannot afford to take avoidable risks of people getting harmed. If I don't test for drug use and someone gets injured with drugs as a contributing factor then I have several problems now. First, someone was needlessly injured due to my negligence. Second, there will be a lawsuit that follows and the lawyer is going to ask me "why did you hire someone with a drug problem?" And they will be right and I will lose and very likely have to pay a large settlement. Third, I run a company which operates heavy machinery and someone who is impaired runs a higher than normal risk of getting injured or causing injuries to others.

I cannot make these safety and liability concerns go away just because I want to respect what people do on their own time. Some people probably can manage a drug habit safely and without problems but many more cannot. I genuinely do not care if someone wants to smoke weed or do some other drug on their own time. None of my business. But what IS my business is the risk that potentially presents to me and my employees and I can't waive that away, like it or not.

So you think it is a better plan to hire a truck driver who is taking substances that impair judgement/performance, wait for an accident which has a good chance of people getting killed, wait for the inevitable lawsuit that will follow asking why you didn't test a drug problem, and only then bother to see if the person was impaired? I don't think you have a future in risk management or insurance. How about you just pee in a cup and we prevent the accident in the first place saving a lot of pain, suffering and money in the process.

If I'm testing you for drugs I'm not assuming you are doing anything but I'm also would be stupid if I didn't confirm that fact. No, your word does not mean anything. People lie all the time. The problem is that I KNOW for a fact that some percentage of people will do drugs and I do not know which ones they are. Literally over half the temps who apply for work at my company fail a drug test. (Yes I can prove it) Many drugs demonstrably impair judgement and/or coordination. Someone who uses recreational drugs also is indirectly telling me something about their mental state and lifestyle which may present a problem for me as an employer.

I run a business that requires operation of dangerous machinery and uses hazardous chemicals. If I didn't check for drug use and someone was injured with drugs as a contributing factor, the very first thing a lawyer will ask in the lawsuit that follows and accident is "why did you hire someone who used drugs?" And they would be right and I would lose. Judgement for the plaintiff... [/gavel] It's no different than doing a background check to find out if someone has a conviction for embezzlement before hiring them for an accounting job. If you want to use drugs there are jobs that will not test you or you can work for yourself.

I genuinely do not care if you want to get high and I'm not making any moral judgment. I also respect the position that you do not want to be tested but understand that doesn't obligate me to hire you. I'm just not willing to take needless risks on your behalf or risk the safety of others so you can get high. That's your problem, don't make it mine.

Way to go straight to the absurd and irrelevant extreme.

Spare me. Nobody applying for a job at Disney is in a position where they have to get a job there or they will become homeless and die. There are plenty of other jobs out there and even if there aren't (finding work can be hard sometimes) there are other social safety nets for almost everyone. Yes some people are in better circumstances than others. Opportunity is not equal for everyone and never will be. Welcome to the real world. We all make choices that open some doors and close others. If you want to choose to not get a vaccine and you are an adult then that is your choice. But do not expect your decision to come without consequences. Possibly quite serious consequences.

While the most common cause is usually bacterial, that doesn't rule out other causes. You claimed quite wrongly that pneumonia is solely caused by bacteria which is demonstrably untrue.

Since the only thing I'm seeking to establish is that bacteria are not the only cause of pneumonia, the Wikipedia article is as accurate is we need right here and now. If you want to prove that with a different source, knock yourself out but the answer will be the same.

Furthermore I just shouted down the hall to my wife who is a MD and asked her if she thought it was "misleading". She declared it to be fine. Since she is a physician and more informed than you and me put together on this topic, I'll just go ahead trust her opinion if it is all the same to you.

The CDC reccomends everyone over 6 months get the vaccine with certain exceptions. They are better informed on this subject than you are.

Consider yourself lucky. The flu can be quite unpleasant. In fact it sometimes can be so unpleasant that it kills young and healthy people. Your choice to get vaccinated or not but the notion that the flu only affects the weak and frail is demonstrably nonsense.