Data is nothing if you do not have any way to interpret it. Models and theories provide the context for interpreting the data.

It is like saying "bits are bits, assumptions are the stuff of encoding and decoding". Problem is, without any assumption to decode your bits, it would be as useful as any random noise. The fact that we can have a conversation here is because I (or rather, my browser) made the assumption that the bits are encoded with a certain pattern, and so did you.

Without any assumptions, models, or theories, the signals we received from Hubble would be no different from random noise.

Without the assumption that the photons came from a distant galaxy, we cannot form the image we can see.
Without the assumption of what they saw were the result of the collision of two galaxies, it would just be a bunch of stars in a strange shape.
Without the assumption of the current model of our universe, we cannot guess what would be the most probably original form of the two galaxies.
Without the assumption of the Theory of Gravity, no one can make sense of what could have happened when two galaxies collide, and thus compare with this observation.
Without the assumption of the model of gases and stars, we cannot reach the conclusion that gases should interact and slow down, while stars would not.

The problem is, with our currently best assumptions, models and theories, those that are able to explain most of our observable universe, we found that it would require the present of some undetectable matter in all the galaxies to make everything consistent -- hence "dark matter".

Yeah, you can claim that is too many levels of assumptions. Feel free to build up your own that could consistently match all the known data even better than the one commonly used.

The answer to this is simple: Pay more to qualified STEM people.

But of course, we all know that the real questions is actually:

That, would require artificially flooding the market with oversupply, but luring qualified people with false promises through continuous propaganda of "STEM shortages".

But why would you think someone with not-as-good academic credentials will fare any better?

In my experience when I was in school, the best teachers I have encountered were always passionate about the subject they teach. You rarely get people passionate about a subject they are bad at.

Yes, they may not be very well equipped to deal with kids who don't want to learn, but on the balance, it would be better to let down kids who don't want to learn by a teacher good at the subject but at handling rough kids, than to let down kids who DO want to learn by a teacher good at handling rough kids but bad at the subject.

Unfortunately, that exacting system of thought is beyond the capability of most of the general populace (including most students still in school). So we are all doomed.

For all the ridicule /.ers like to heap on Apple fans, at least those Apple fans are usually willing to pay for stuff.

The amount of money I spend on iTunes for content is comparable to the money I paid for Apple hardware, and is already way more than what I had ever spent on CD/DVD/etc combined.

Obviously, logical thinking is unacceptable when one's income is threatened by it.

As a BF4 player, I would rather they focus on gameplay related issues (rubberbanding, etc), rather than spending a huge effort on getting the last 180 pixels on the screen.

Sure, it's nice to have 1080p resolution, but it's worthless if the game isn't fun. If the game is fun at 900px, who cares about that last 180px.

It cut both ways.

Are you saying that banks should also NOT refuse to open accounts directly for terrorist organisations, drug lords, government of Iran, and North Korea?

How about their representatives? Or known associates? Or some front business that don't seems to do transactions like the business they claimed to be, but more like they are just a front for the drug lords?

How about just some normal foreign rich people (e.g. from the US, or China) who had no other business in that country (e.g. Switzerland) but wanting to put millions of dollars (in cash) into the account? BTW, through a company registered somewhere else (e.g. some country in South America)?

How about some no so rich foreign people doing the same for just a few hundred thousand dollars?

How about some random business (e.g. Mega) that the US government just told you not to (or else your bank's will feel their pressure... *hint* *hint*)?

Yes, it is a slippery slope. So, where do you draw the line?

Sure, that automatically disqualifies them from selling to any China banks, which means all the money that would have gone to foreign software companies now go to local Chinese software companies, thus kickstarting their growth and eventually they will grow big enough to compete outside of China.

It would not surprise me if that was the real goal here.

That's the first thing that came to my mind also.

Isn't Android being "open" supposedly one of its major strength? Now someone came and actually try to make use of it "openness" and they are now a "rogue" company?

Since when did "paradox" became a synonym for "unknown"?

Yeah, nobody knows how space expands, but how does that make it a "paradox"?

Do your company also do real life security "fire drills," supported by executive management should be conducted regularly in organizations, in order to understand the appropriate course of action in advance of a physical security breach. This includes recovering evidence, identifying and resolving the root cause of the incident (not just the symptoms), and undertaking a forensic investigation?

No? Then perhaps you don't need to do IT security fire drills for the same reason.

You know what could completely stop identity theft? Holding banks responsible for the loss when they were tricked by some thief pretending to their customers. You will see them tightening their authentication and fraud detection overnight.

You know why some countries don't have any identity theft at all? They held banks and companies responsible when they were defrauded, and won't let them pass the loss to their customers by claiming "identity theft".

Then, in the future you described, you may continue to do so in "driving parks" dedicated for human driving or some restricted area where human driving is specially allowed. I.e. much like what you have to do now to enjoy riding your horse around.

Simply because the banks are not responsible for the losses?

The summary said "nearly $24 million in bank account takeovers by hackers", see? The banks simply pass the loss to their customers by calling it identity theft! Hey, you account has been taken over by hackers! Your loss.

In countries where the banks themselves are responsible for these losses (they called these, rightly, fraud against the bank), you see banks taking measures to stop these thefts. In the US, the banks simply don't care.