They make some falsifiable predictions. We can apply selective evolutionary pressure to viruses and observe useful results, and do it repeatedly. We can interbreed and predictably speciate horses. But we cannot falsifiably predict that a single-cell organism will evolve into a horse under certain conditions, with a known set of evolutionary steps along the way. That doesn't stop us from looking at fossil records and trying to inductively trace back where horses came from and what conditions led to them and what the intermediate steps along the way were. And we still call it science.

With cosmology, we have billions of snap shots of different structures at different points in their lives, and we can look at them and say, "We think these are different stages of the same cycle." So we create a model. And we say, "If this model is correct, we would expect to find X somewhere." And then if X turns up, that increases the probability that the model is correct. But we can't create a universe and observe its evolution for 14 billion years. That doesn't stop us from creating models of how stars and planets and galaxies form, and we still call it science.

The point is that you were saying that the Scientific Method is what makes stuff Science. I'm saying, a lot of modern science can't rely on the scientific method you learned in sixth grade. As we try to understand our universe and the world around us, we are stuck making the best observations we can and trying to infer a model that we can't falsifiably test.

Exactly. Like evolutionary biology. Now that we've successfully created life from basic proteins and selectively applied evolutionary pressure until we get modern man hundreds of time, we have a solid scientific theory. And cosmology. Now that we have successfully created the universe hundreds of times and consistently observed its behavior, we have a high-confidence model for what it will do in the future.

And a good thing, too. Can you imagine where we would be if those types of things were inherently not subject to repeatable, falsifiable experiments? What a wreck that would be! Much of our body of science would be inductive reasoning that we kind of back into from our best observations, instead of nice, tidy falsifiable experiments from which we can deductively predict outcomes, just like they taught you in sixth grade. I'd sure hate to live in that kind of world.

Yeah, but there might be a downside, too. It's hard to tell with these things.

I see you purchased a low-ish UID from B'Trey. Or assassinated him and cracked his 1024-bit encrypted passwords.txt file with your quantum computer. Really, it's all the same to us. Unfortunately, all that stuff he told you about Slashdot being a sort of counter-culture geek site was from 1999 when he registered. Now the articles are mostly trolls (like this one) and the comments are largely from kids who aren't old enough to remember the turn of the millennium. There are still lots of anti-DRM rants, though. Sorry if you're disappointed. Welcome, anyway.

I think you just nailed it. They will come here because Senator Xzwlyng'to needs to bring some pork back to the home world, and what better way then to build a factory for an interstellar ship on government funds. It will ostensibly be so they can send an aid package, in the form of 50 billion ktars, though anybody with half a brain pod will know that as soon as it arrives, the leaders of the Blue World will confiscate the money and use it to pay for guns and prostitutes.

Most shows I just watch on Netflix, without commercials, whenever they're available. I get Dr. Who on iTunes because I don't want to wait for it. For a season of 15 episodes, I'm paying $30. $45 if I want it in HD (which I won't get on DVD). It's a pretty reasonable price. And that's not a one-time rental. I keep the episodes. I have every episode since the 2005 reboot and a good collection of the classics, available to watch whenever I feel like it. It's really not a bad deal.

Well, we can certainly agree on that.

Hey, you should join our tautology club! The only membership requirement is that you're a member of the tautology club.

Ponzi schemes are by nature efficient. All you have to do is take people's money and pay out fake dividends until the bubble pops. It's not that hard. How is the SSA more efficient at it than private enterprise?

I guess they're efficient at that one thing. "Effective," might be a better word. But that's not the only thing they do. In fact, according to the IRS's own website, they reorganized themselves in 1998 to be more like a private enterprise. So even if the IRS is a bastion of government efficiency, as you claim, it is because they are aping the private sector. That's not much of an endorsement of the efficiency of government operations.

Ummm, wow. Your shining examples of government efficiency are the SSA and the IRS? Do you not realize that Social Security is essentially the largest Ponzi scheme in the history of the world? They don't take your money and grow your portfolio until you retire. They take it to make disbursements to beneficiaries, with the promise that your children will pay your way when they start working. It's worked out okay so far, but the bubble will burst eventually. It's kind of one of the primary features of a Ponzi scheme.

And I assume when you say IRS, you are referring to some agency other than the Internal Revenue Service, who are essentially jackbooted thugs. I guess you could say they're "efficient" at shaking down people for money, but only because they're not answerable to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. If they were subject to any kind of tort liability, they would be sued into oblivion next week.

When you win a copyright case you may be awarded your attorneys fees. I can't wait to see YouTube's attorneys fee motion. It's going to make my firm's bills seem like chicken feed.

But the defendant's lawyers have done a great job of beating back the Evil Empire, and in so doing have accomplished an important victory for the vitality of the internet.

Yeah.

And trying to 'maximize' the 'minimal' legal authority that exists to support their positions.

And trying to maximize their eroding monopolies.

I fail to see how slick Japanese gadgetry would improve the experience. Perhaps they could have used genuine bull snot? No, thank you. Maybe they could improve on the smells, but I don't know that I want super-realistic Iron Man sweat smell after he spends a while in that suit. Overall, it just felt gimmicky and obnoxious. It was fine for a one-time outing to show the kids something different, but I'm not going to consistently pay $20 per ticket or whatever to see summer blockbusters that way. (Assuming I would even pay $12 to $14 to see summer blockbusters on a normal screen, which I don't.)