Exactly. Funny they mention Puppet, it's the default used in Red Hat's latest Dev Ops initiative, OpenShift.

Dude, the question was about Enterprise servers. Do your development on Mint, that's just fine, but are you really going to deploy your production enterprise application on a farm of ... Mint servers? really?

That sounds more like a methodology to me. The "belief system" part is only related to the value of the methodology. That's fine, but science itself is a methodology, as I think you have described here.

I certainly agree with your assessment of it, and that the methodology is the important thing to teach, not the facts or even thoroughly tested hypotheses. Everything flows from core principles. As you have done, you can describe your belief system as a faith in the scientific method. But that's something else.

There are, of course, some very clear opposing bases for belief systems in general, which often come down to faith in a higher power or faith only in empirical evidence. But you can pick either one and still do science.

Incorrect. You could have at least tried to check Wikipedia before posting ignorant comments. This is directly from their page (check the link if you want source references).

In its 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court overturned sections of the Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act) that had prohibited corporate and union political expenditures in political campaigns.[5] Citizens United made it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures related to campaigns, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns.[6][7] Organizations seeking to contribute directly to federal candidate campaigns must still rely on traditional PACs for that purpose.[8]

Stop getting your information from partisan comedians. It's an embarrassment.

Actually, it operates on exactly that principal. The owners and operators of the site are financially dependent on the ideas espoused in the articles, and are in fact publicity whores with more interest in popular opinion that truth.

Which is why I can't understand the myopic thinking around what to do about climate change. It seems the alarmists are adamant that the agenda should be to curtail use of energy by a combination of stopping use of fossil fuels, reduction of energy use generally, and limiting human habitat to allow conservation of wildlands. It's a "hunker-down" approach which, yes, may give humans more time. Yet, if, as they claim, it's human habitat (and thus future generations of humanity) that are in danger and need preserving, it seems clear that their strategy is one that will only buy time.

The only way to ensure the long-term viability of humanity is to spread. Whether that is colonization of space, the solar system, or multi-generational ships to other stars, is not entirely relevant, only that there must be an effort in that direction. Crawling back and tightening the apron strings to mother earth only means that humans will never grow up and leave the nest. Perhaps this is the civilization firewall that explains the Fermi paradox.

Oh, okay, I get it. So who gets to decide which parts of the human population to cull?

In that vein, so was fire.

Pretty sure writing pre-dates the scientific method. And I'm sure that Fire soup do.

No, it's because there is absolutely no benefit to converting from one unit of measure that everyone is already used to and using to another arbitrary unit of measure that would take many years (and possibly an entire generation) to completely convert to. It makes no sense. The only thing useful about it is you don't have to memorize as much and the math is easier. BFD. Here is a chart for you.

Why don't you come on over and try to do something about it?

Chicken.

When did science stop being a methodology and become a belief system?

No, it doesn't. I already said it was a thin line. Corporations can create PACs, but cannot contribute to them. They can (after the SCOTUS decision) fund media information about candidates but cannot endorse for or against any candidates. You really have to read and understand all the regulations. You don't, but that's not surprising. A lot of people have run afoul of the FEC for just that kind of misunderstanding.

That's exactly what I said, but in different language. "electioneering communications" is more concise than mine, though, I'll grant you.

I pay less for both (although gas+water, which are both from the city, is higher than Internet). But, if I use lots of water and/or gas it goes way up. So I guess Comcast is going for the same model. In fact, it would be very much like the water and gas model in my locality. I pay a minimum amount ($25 for gas and $35 for water) even if I use NONE. After a certain very basic level of each, they start charging. Exactly like Comcast is saying they are going to start doing.