Nice phrasing, but no.
Tests are themselves discarded when they fail to provide any evidence, either for or against. Then better tests are devised. Hypotheses themselves are discarded when the testing is capable of providing evidence against the hypotheses.

Let me know when that happens with religious belief.

Everyone has some beliefs without scientific evidence. No one, no matter how skeptical, can take the time to prove EVERYTHING they believe, before they believe it. Now, religion is in an odd category, in that its not irrational, so much as it's arational (if that can be a word). The fact that it cannot be disproved in general principle may not be to its credit, but it's not actually a point against it either. For religious people, religion provides a community tradition, and potential answers to questions that science is not prepared to answer. It is also experiential. Somewhere, a poor person in dire straits has prayed and prayed for financial aid and just won a 10,000 dollar jackpot. Statistically seeking, it had to happen to someone, but is it really wrong for his family and friends to see this as evidence for the power of prayer?

The problem comes not from believing without proof. The problem is when one takes that and extends it into the realm of science. It's when one uses religion to replace science, instead of holding it alongside of science. A person who says dinosaurs never existed because the earth isn't that old is replacing science with religion, and yes, this definitely hinders scientific progress. A person who says that the bible is clearly wrong because the earth is older than it states is replacing science with religion and hindering their religious experience. Obviously we'd rather have person B in charge than person A, but these aren't the only two options. The third option is for a person to recognize that a timeless infinite God can spend only 6 days creating a much older earth because screw time anyway. This is a person that doesn't limit science with religion or religion with science. He has the potential of both a good scientist and a good priest, and as such, should he really be mocked for his faith?

Rhetorical question. This is Slashdot, so I already know the answer :P

You have to be very careful with this kind of reasoning. It is close to saying, "Even though he doesn't have to evidence to back his claim, it fits my world view so I will use it to reinforce my current beliefs." This is the same kind of thinking that spreads conspiracy theories and group think, and it is an extraordinarily easy trap to fall into.

The controller has its own web browser

Government watchdog is one thing. Watchdog government is entirely different. I'm not sure how he can continue what he's doing while holding actual power.

Query: Why is HK-47 not on the list?

When I first read this I thought it was dreadful, but what if it was used smartly. What if the cable companies introduced a lower tier of service, where it costs less for the base subscription, and you're charged for every commercial you skip, up to a price a little higher than the next tier service? They could grab a larger percentage of people who think that cable isn't worth it at current prices, while showing investors and advertisers a model with less risk. The micro transactions could give the consumer a feeling of value and choice over when to skip commercials.

It's like he was warning us from the first book..

Just because you disagree with the parent, doesn't make his post any way off topic.

I really have to disagree. These laws were made with bad intentions. Hear me out for a moment.

Murder is wrong. Murder is against the law. Murder still happens. Even assuming the intention was good in broad strokes, which I will dispute in a moment, the idea that we will continue piling laws up against murder until it goes away entirely is inherently abusive toward our liberties and impossible to actually enforce. Murder is illegal and penalized with incarceration or death depending on where you live. Nobody likes murder, but we arent clammoring to make it *more* illegal.

Likewise, copyright infringement is already illegal under the relevent codes. Making it *more* illegal simply blurs public perception about what crime is being committed. If the law simply made it more illegal, it's already in the wrong, but it does worse than that.

Imagine if, in order to stop murder, we created a law that said anyone who suspects someone of murdering their family member may hold them prisoner, possibly indefinately, with the burden of proof on the accused to show that he is not guilty. We would be legalizing vigilante enforcement at the hands of the most biased party, with the presumption of guilt until proven innocent.

This is what SOPA does, and it is incidious. It is not establishing the rule of law. It is using the cloak of law to legitimize lawless percecution. And I don't think for one moment that it's accidental.

If an operating system marketed at users gives users a better interface, how exactly is this a bad thing?

You are not their demographic, the "luser" is. As a developer, I would hope that you would understand the need to cater to the users, instead of maligning them for not being as knowledgeable as yourself.

As an aside, the issues that I recall everyone complaining about back in the day were blue screening and degradation over time. I can't speak to your experience but I haven't need a reformat since getting Windows 7, and blue screens and black screens are a thing of the past. The BETA was more stable than previous iterations, the only problem being its lack of driver support.

I guess the fact that I notice and appreciate these things makes me a Luser. Uh... down with MS. Here's a hilarious picture of Nazi Bill.

I WANT TO NAME MY FOLDER 'CON'

I'm not sure you understand how this works..