The subsidy is the "opportunity cost" of selling something at below market rates. If NASA sells a thousand gallons at $5.00 gallon when the market cost is $10.00, that's effectively a $5000 subsidy, even though the cash is flowing *into* NASA rather than out.

The situation is complicated, though, by the fact that the Google execs are allowing NASA to use their planes for research. It may well be that overall the relationship is a win-win, but this kind of complicated and cozy relationship between a government agency is probably not a good idea given that it makes telling good vendor relations from special favors impossible.

Both creative people and cranks have lots of wild ideas. The difference is that a crank reflexively defends his ideas with irrational vehemence. A creative person usually discard his ideas, because he knows there's always more where that comes from.

There's a big difference between "settled" and "set in stone".

"Settled" science can be challenged, but you just can't waltz into a field and say, "I have this data which proves that decades (or even centuries) of research are entirely wrong." You have to start with narrow claims and then gradually broaden them. You attack scientific consensus by patiently tugging at loose ends until the whole fabric of consensus starts to unravel.

Science is, in fact, open to the possibility of perpetual motion or intelligent deign. It just doesn't make it as quick or easy as some people might like to make such ideas a new scientific consensus. The value of scientific consensus largely lies in that it must be hard-won.

So to answer the summary's question, of course science can be "settled", but settled science can always be overturned. A "settled" hypothesis is merely one so well-supported that the burden of proof lies with its would-be rebutters.

Bypass button? Real hackers don't need a bypass button. They guess the real password in three attempts. (Of course, the first two are just for show.)

Watch, I'll hack Slashdot right now. *types "12345" as the Password* And to prove I'm in, I'll make a dupe story appear sometime in the next month.

First class example is that evolutionary criticism is completely forbidden in US schools

Or maybe Evolution is just supported by so much overwhelming evidence that 99%+ of scientists accept it as the best theory. Most of the scientific discussions around Evolution are centered around how we dot the i's and cross the t's, not whether Evolution is a better theory than "last Tuesday God said 'abracadabra' and the Universe was formed as is with its 'history' as an illusion."

In a school's science class, students should learn what the prevailing scientific theories are. They should learn why those theories are the prevailing ones. However, school is not the place for students - who are just learning the material and who will have a highly incomplete knowledge of the subject - to make a determination of which theory is the "right" one.

Whenever someone says "we need to teach the weaknesses of Evolution", what they really mean is "I would like schools to teach Creationism, but that was struck down by the Supreme Court... as was Intelligent Design... so maybe if we sow enough doubt about Evolution in the students, they'll grow up believing that God created it all 10,000 years ago."

I'm not a fan of Facebook by any stretch of the imagination. (I still refuse to open an account despite many people I know being on there.) However, if your entire nation can be "destroyed" by Facebook, then perhaps your nation isn't as stable as you think it is and maybe there are deeper issues than people sharing selfies so their friends can "like" them.

And they'll continue to proliferate until they saturate the market and some other version takes off. Just like, at one time, the "punch the monkey" style of banner ad was all the rage and could be found virtually everywhere.

When people talk about evolution, they're not just talking about species adapting and changing over time. I think most people believe that.

Most? Perhaps, but just barely. "Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

I don't purposefully take photos of other people, but if someone happens to be in the background of a shot I take of my children I'm not going to delete the photo. I also wouldn't expect someone else to delete a photo of their kid just because my kid happens to be in the background.

Thanks. Now I can't take a photo of my kid in public (for example, playing in a neighborhood playground) because I might get someone else in the background and I don't have their consent. One photo with my cell camera to show my wife and I'll be a criminal. Forget it if I try sharing the photo on social media. I might as well just turn myself over to the local authorities right now and save time.

I think you've found the one definition of DRM that I'm in favor of. If you're wearing clothing, it's a definite sign that you don't want people to see you naked at this moment. So someone finding an odd angle that happens to reveal more of you (your underwear which most of us at least attempt to hide from view) is circumventing this "protection."

However, while I would be in favor of circumventing DRM of a piece of media/software that you own for your own personal use, circumventing the "clothing DRM" of someone else for your own purposes is completely different. You have no right to just decide that you have the right to circumvent this person's "clothing DRM" because you say so. Unless that person consents to it, of course, in which case find a private place and circumvent each other's DRM all night long.

I'd take exception to B.

Suppose I take a photograph of a busy street corner. Do I need to get the permission of every person in that photo before I publish it? If a photo is of a specific person, then it is always best to get a model release. However, if the person is in the middle of a public area, they have no expectation of privacy and can't regulate what I do and do not take photos of.

That being said, I try not to take photos of people I don't know. Especially since I'm usually taking photos of my kids and "guy with a camera taking photos of kids" too often becomes "guy questioned by police because someone reported him as being a sicko taking pics of kids."

Wait. This actually makes sense. Only instead of coding perfectly legible code, legislators are the kind of coders that craft spaghetti code which has tons of bugs, unforeseen glitches, hidden functions to give their friends back doors through the system, and which can't be read by another human being without them going cross-eyed.

The problem is that we need someone to decide what is Constitutional. Say it isn't the courts. It is Congress? If so then I know plenty of politicians (on both sides) who would decide that the First Amendment actually means you have the right to say anything you want - so long as you agree with them. i.e. Dissent is illegal.

Maybe it's the Executive Branch? All it would take then is one President to decide that signing an executive order suspending elections indefinitely is Constitutional.

The people? Good luck getting them to vote out Congressfolk or a President based on bad laws being passed. Not when they've got the difficult choice of watching Boy Band X on America's Got Talent or seeing who gets voted out on Survivor. And too many of the people who pay attention and actually are involved seem to think that a theocracy would be perfectly Constitutional.

So we need someone who will decide what is Constitutional and what isn't. The courts' purpose is to judge things so they seemed like the right choice. Is it perfect? Of course not. You could easily point to a dozen Supreme Court rulings that, given today's sensibilities, sound horribly unconstitutional. However, it's still better than letting Congress or the President decide.