Yes, but imagine a fart for every man, woman, and child, all at the same time in the same hurricane. Not because it counters your statement--just because it is funny to imagine.

Answer (2 words): You don't.
Alternative (2 words): Khan Academy.

Someone enlighten me if I'm clueless here, but here's my thought:

Why not have a section when people do their taxes to donate to specific programs directly. I know you can donate to the IRS in general, but I never heard of them making high-level programs available for specific citizen-targeted donations. Another possibility is to have a portion of individual citizen's taxes be customized by them so they can control somewhat where their tax money goes (this could only work as a small percentage).

This would provide a way for the public to voice their priorities/opinions by donating to programs which they find most beneficial. In this instance, it would allow the public to make up for the inane budgeting cuts as politicians think they are qualified to judge the scientific merits of different programs within NASA.

Politicians could also find out real quick what programs are most popular with the public.

Thoughts?

How about we start with sustainable database connections?

Seems to me like they are just writing off their DVD business model (at least in the long-term)--which seems to be a good idea. With media, the money is in streaming more than it is keeping inventory and managing the logistics of physical goods.

For my family, my wife and I turned off cable 3 years ago and have been Netflix/Hulu(+)/Redbox ever since. We have 3 little kids, so we hardly ever go to the theater except for once or twice a year. Now, we'll just get new releases from Redbox and cancel our DVD service with Netflix. I went through our DVD history and found that for DVDs that aren't available via Redbox or streaming from Hulu/Netflix (ie: foreign films & documentaries), nearly all are available through my local library system (Seattle public library). I already pay for the library (taxes), I might as well use it.

Ya, but BOTH get equally as hot.

I'll just leave this here:
http://www.theonion.com/video/new-google-phone-service-whispers-targeted-ads-dir,17470/

That information is classified.

Very well put.

As for the U.S., I think the chasm between science and religion is most prominent due to the "protestant" origins of much of the Christian faiths within it. By "protestant" I mean Christian sects that fractured away from a previously existing sect over a matter of doctrinal interpretation. When that occurs, usually the authority of the new protesting faith is derived solely from the new "correct" doctrinal interpretation.

This, however, is ultimately an unsustainable position. Most major "protestant" sects fractured during the enlightenment. Since the enlightenment, we have greatly increased our knowledge of the universe. When faced with seemingly conflicting evidence, sadly, the initial "protestant" reaction is to discredit or attack the evidence or idea since it is a direct threat to the source of their authority (ie: that strict doctrinal interpretation).

What is needed in any religious faith is the idea of an open cannon that allows for on-going doctrinal revisions based on new situations and evidences. Some "protestant" religions are more open than others and there are some Christian faiths which have an open cannon as a core principle. Eastern religions tend to have more of an open cannon.

Bottom line, when new truth or evidences come along (which itself can be a big matter of debate), we need to align ourselves with it.

I like your trust != faith comment. The two are similar and interrelated but not the same.

However, when you say "Faith is expected without justification and is expected to endure regardless of what facts may come to challenge it", I have to disagree. What you are describing there is blind faith.

Faith, as my comment tag line also says, is a willingness to accept something w/o total regular proof and act on it. From that perspective, every self-motivated action starts with faith. Getting out of bed to start the day, go to work, express love, turn on a car/computer, get on a plane, etc.), we make decisions and take action based in incomplete or uncertain information all of the time. However, science seeks to move away from faith and provides a systematic way to do so through the scientific method. Theories start from faith w/o proof--but then experimentation leads to the reformation or abandonment of that theory until repeatable experiments validate or falsify the theory.

Religion differs in that it never seeks to fully eliminate faith. Different religions (and to a higher degree, people) will rely on faith to different degrees than others, but ultimately each has at its core a non-falsifiable lemma. This kind of underpinning of faith is usually what some people find unattractive about religion. Some find comfort or wisdom in this kind of foundation based in faith. Note that science also has somewhat of a foundation of faith since it too uses lemmas, but it has a much higher restriction on what a reasonable lemma is.

IMHO, science and religion both have (or at least should have) the same end goal: the discovery of truth. However, both have different (and sometimes conflicting) methodologies to get there. But it's very important to separate the people claiming to be scientific or religious from science or religion in general since different people are better or worse at representing either than others.

To answer the original question: No, science isn't just a matter of faith. In fact, it is a systematic methodology to move away from faith.

My wife and I payed good money to get out of an AT&T contract several years ago and went over to T-mobile. We can't seem to get away from that company.

Rate hikes for everyone in 3... 2... 1...

IEEE 802.11q... 'nuff said.

Wireless-Q has the defect that you can't broadcast your SSID since that your require devices to observe the signal first first before connecting, which would result in a quantum paradox.

Outbound port 25 suddenly stopped working for us at our home office. My wife has a CRM system that she runs in our home office and it frequently sends emails to her clients (appointment reminders, appointment follow-ups, promotions, etc.). I configured that CRM system to use our mail server setup on a VPS in a data center with Server Axis. After I figured out that it was Comcast that suddenly shut down outbound port 25 from our home, all I did was change the incoming SMTP port on our mail server to be 2500 and everything has been fine ever since (something which may not always be a practical option if you have lots of different groups expecting it to be available on port 25).

But yes, make sure you follow best practices for managing a *legitimate* high-traffic mail server:
* Use a static IP
* Have proper abuse@ & postmaster@ addresses
* Setup an SPF record for your domain
* Follow the FTC's CAN-SPAM act (http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus61-can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business)

Dear Mr. Chemistry,

I know in your world the chemical reactions involved in reproduction are all that you see. Combination of chromosomes, DNA replication, mutation, proteins, RNA, etc. These are all well and good, but this species whose DNA your observing developed this little thing called a prefrontal cortex. Since then, this frontal cortex (not merely DNA) has ruled the destiny of this species. After millions of years of this species evolution being heavily influenced by this prefrontal cortex, things like individualism, self-identity, social interaction, personality, culture, etc. have become central to this species.

So I ask that although you must remain focused solely on your duties of executing the chemistry underpinning life, you keep an open mind to the fact that this species is no longer bound entirely by those chemical reactions. Perhaps a viewing of one of their own exploring some of these details would help.

Sincerely,

Mr. Evolution

That and ulcers and/or depression (citation). No job is worth either of those.