You, sir, have me baffled.

I assumed originally that you were one of the less scientifically literate types swayed by sensationalist reporting. But now you report that you are yourself a scientist....? In the light of sweeping statements like

Now the only projects that get funded are the ones supporting a particular line of reasoning. Experiments are done without controls, and ad hoc hypotheses created to explain anomalies in the data. Politicians actively suppress researchers who suggest things that contradict doctrine.

I then assumed you were a young firebrand recently disillusioned by your first encounter with worldly imperfection.
But... you are perhaps older than me? Though I doubt that, your statement still implies my second assumption is incorrect.

Can you seriously say that you have examined all branches of the sciences, and that all science is a minefield of deceit? You should set an example here: what percentage of the sciences have you studied, and how much of that turned out to be unduly influenced? What is the statistical significance of your study? Otherwise you are merely contributing to the noise that fuels the growing blaze of ignorance.

disclaimer: I, too, am a scientist. Take my words with a grain of salt.

The peer review process, which has been around quite some time, works to prevent exactly the problems you claim exist with science today. Many peer-reviewed results later turn out to be incorrect - science does not follow a straight path to some mythical "truth" - but for the most part, papers which are peer reviewed are much more likely to be reporting work carried out in accordance with accepted scientific practice. The reason most people don't trust scientists is because, being scientifically illiterate themselves, they rely on the media to digest science for them. Stories of corrupted science and wild claims sell much better than the dull, careful, incremental progress most scientists make, leading to a popular perception of minefields of deceit or moats of lies.

and ate it.

The cornucopia of confusion evidenced above could easily be resolved by using the US definition of a country: that date when the First Settlers, having arrived at an unoccupied land (or having exterminated enough of the indigenous people to make it essentially unoccupied), spit in the face of the country that supported their colonization efforts and mount a PR campaign in the form of a document proclaiming themselves to be upholders of the most basic human rights.

So where does my 2004 Prius with 175000 miles, still using its original battery, fit into your world?

No no no... life is fine tuned for earth.

So the only exposure we had was a programmable calculator in physics class. We had to write a program to solve a quadratic equation. "No, it can't solve for imaginary roots." First of many challenges...

I have been using linux since RedHat 4.1. Finding a desktop that is usable is not the problem.

The problem is that there is no way to seamlessly run Microsoft products. (Yes, I know, it's not even possible to do that on a Windows box, but that's beside the point.)

It took a long time before I could read .doc and .ppt files correctly. Shortly after OpenOffice got good enough at it, Microsoft introduced .docx and .pptx files. The question of who is responsible for this, or why it happens, is irrelevant. What matters is that I have to ask my colleagues to convert their files from THEIR default format to something I can read. Personally, I like poking my colleagues a bit. But when I tell a friend to use linux, and they can't read the files that everyone is sending them, they don't poke, they just return to Windows.

At work, I use scientific instruments that are controlled by Windows software. Some manufacturers are gradually providing other options, but for the most part, it's Windows, and it's got to be REAL Windows, not Windows inside VirtualBox. As much as I would like to make linux the operating system in the lab, it's not going to happen until linux can run Windows applications.

Users can adjust to a new desktop, and will if there is a reason, or if it's interesting. But you can't adjust to a system that won't read what you need to read or run what you need to run.

You can get eggrolls, rice, wonton soup, and Szechuan chicken in 5 minutes...

Awesome, sounds like a great idea. So does country recognition for browsers... until you are in a country whose language still gives you headaches. You might be surprised at how very unhelpful it is to someone struggling with the language to have everything popping up in Czech. Perhaps a flag to turn this off? Like google's secretive /ncr, only one that works a little more globally? I have no problem ignoring the ads in any language, but when shotwell tries to log me into facebook, I don't want the username/password prompt in Czech. Prosím? Maybe there's a case where I might fscking want to know what cars a company offers, so that when I get home I can buy one... instead of automatically being offered what is for sale in the city I happen to be logging in from. No?

Helpful tip: know your audience. You'd have easliy gotten a Score:5, Funny but for the Diaspora remarks which hit too close to home.