The CII is backed by a who’s who of tech companies, including Google, Microsoft, IBM, the Linux Foundation, Facebook and Amazon, and the group added a number of new members this week, as well. Adobe, Bloomberg, HP Huawei and Salesforce.com have joined the CII and will provide financial backing.
Now, the OCAP team, which includes Johns Hopkins professor and cryptographer Matthew Green, will have the money to fund an audit of OpenSSL, as well. OpenSSL took a major hit earlier this year with the revelation of the Heartbleed vulnerability, which sent the Internet into a panic, as the software runs on more than 60 percent of SSL-protected sites."
No, the poster was clearly asking to back a very specific assertion, namely that many scenarios have already been proven wrong, which is the claim that needs to be proven.
I also don't accept your claim that the claim must be bullet proof. The expected costs and values can be a combination of likelihood and significance of the effects. If the effects are dire enough and the likelihood not sufficiently remote then it becomes a bad value to not make those changes even accounting for the costs they incur.
Besides, a lot of the money being spent isn't just being thrown into a hole and buried, it'll have positive effects as well even if they don't completely offset the effects you're concerned about.
Whether polygraphs work or not depends on what you want them to do. You may not be able to say for sure that a person is lying or not, but if you're using it as one tool in a suite to decide if someone is worthy of trust it can be effective. You may rule out some people that you could have trusted, but if you're ruling out people you shouldn't trust it's a good tool. You may trust some people you shouldn't still, but that's why it's not the only tool you use.
And I think they'll still get plenty of recruits because a) there are some people who think that helping the government is a worthwhile pursuit and b) if you have a special qualification in any job (e.g., hold a security clearance) you can generally make more money than someone who doesn't have that qualification.
Regarding linux, I think we can evaluate each of the platforms against their claims/goals (as I understand them at least) and avoid your suggested hypocrisy. Linux is often a platform where you combine tools. Billed as such getting the right tool to do what you want is expected and things that get in the way of doing what you want (like the outcry when Gnome 3 came out for example) are disparaged.
Windows, however, is trying to provide (and is charging a fair amount for) a slick, usable interface to your computer. If it fails at that, and you have to get other tools to work around that, then they are not delivering on their claims and should be decried for it.
Each evaluated on its own terms can have different expectations and not involve hypocrisy.
Ok, how about we say it's a horribly designed car then? I suppose it all depends on what you're looking to get out of the car, if you want a super car you probably are willing to sacrifice some aesthetics and usability for performance. If, however, you are designing a car for mass consumption and make it awkward for a lot of people to use then you've made a horrible car for your intended purpose. The rest of the engineering may be great, but if you fail at your goal, you've built something horrible for its intended purpose at the very least.
If your computer makes it harder to use the computer, as metro does for most of us it seems, you've made a horrible OS. That you can turn it off is a step toward redemption, but I've yet to be convinced over the last year of using it that windows 8 is as easy to use as XP or win 7 was.
It's the equivalent of saying X model of car is absolutely horrible because you don't like the layout of the dash.
Isn't that a perfectly legitimate reason to not buy a car? If you think the car is unattractive or laid out such that it will make things harder for you to do/use you should probably consider other options. If the way you primarily interact with the car (i.e., the dash) doesn't work for you you're probably not going to have a good experience in that car very often, and thus for you at least it is a horrible car.
In fact, isn't the layout of the dash one of the frequently reviewed aspects of cars? I agree with your analogy, but apparently not your conclusion.
Well I'm glad you thoroughly debunked the idea that higher temperatures and higher crime rates are in fact correlated.
Of course, this study produced in 1989 before global warming alarmism was really ramped up suggesting this question has been around for a long time (especially considering it sites papers from 1899) includs the following quote:
The studies of geographic region temperature effects on aggression provide impressive support for the temperature-aggression hypothesis.
And are you in fact sure that no AGW supporters commented on the CNN anchor's comment? It didn't seem all that hard to find at least a couple of sites mentioning the topic and suggesting that Bill Nye was polite enough not to mention the absurd segue question.