It's weird that you chose to a link to a site which argues exactly the opposite of what you're claiming: even when some scientists predicted cooling, six times as many predicted warming.
It's strange how more and more, the "skeptics" are leading me to information that validates AGW theory! Just the other day, some particularly rabid commenters on the conservative blogs convinced me that the "97% consensus" number was totally unfounded and lacked a source. Since I'm the kind of *legitimate* skeptic to whom all claims are suspect but worth investigating, I attempted to track down a source myself and within three minutes had two published papers showing 97% agreement among the scientific community on AGW.

The comments on that article show just how entrenched positions have become. A lot of conservatives got wind of it via Alex Jones, who painted the whole thing as "The cult of AGW wants to burn your house down," which is preposterous to anyone who bothered to read the article. It very clearly doesn't say that. Yet somehow there are many replies along the lines of... well I'll quote: "Come to my house with matches, pal. You'll be leaving on a stretcher under a plastic sheet." Also: "Wow Steve, you ride a bike and burn down people's houses. You really are a moron. Not just that but a dangerous psychopath to boot. Shouldn't you be in jail or institutionalized in a psychiatric facility?" And so on and so forth.

I can't stress this enough... the two sides aren't even speaking the same language. It's was already apparent that both sides have their own talking points, their own debunkers, their own pejoratives, even their own scientists. What only became clear to me here was that they can look at the same sentence and come to totally different conclusions- not just about the import of the sentence, but about the literal meaning of the sentence.

not to mention the CLOUD project at the European Organization for Nuclear Research!

Brought to you by the society for redundantly linking redundantly to redundant links

I'm not sure by what metric you mean, but if you're talking about delegates, Paul is fourth (says Politico) behind Romney, Santorum (campaign suspended) and Gingrich (campaign apparently still chugging along for some reason Newt only knows). Paul has half as many delegates as Gingrich, about a quarter as many as Santorum, and just under a tenth as many as Romney. It's a done deal, and unsurprisingly the result is the one the "lamestream media" has been predicting since before the primary even began.

Completely bogus. It takes maybe 1-4 years to recoup the energy cost of construction, and the panels can last 30 years.

1984 was puerile, unsubtle propaganda, and almost as laughably hysterical as the commenters who refer to it at least once per thread. Don't you realize how utterly boring and mindless it is to repeat, again and again, that "Orwell warned the world"?

Do you think that gesticulating wildly in the direction of 1984 makes you look smart? It's a children's book.

Well, I was under the impression that it was possible for a person to be non-responsive to those stimuli for other reasons. Wikipedia states that "barbiturate overdose, alcohol intoxication, sedative overdose, hypothermia, hypoglycemia, coma or chronic vegetative states" may mimic brain death, although there's no indication of how a differential diagnosis would be made in all those cases.

Still, you make a good point; I trust that medical professionals have honestly and diligently considered all the angles, and that their criteria for death are the most accurate. I guess I was really just surprised to hear that they can determine the function of the brain with such simple, noninvasive tests.

I agree completely, but I was a little surprised by the tests we apparently use to determine brain death. I assumed there might be an EEG to check for brain activity, but apparently they give you a wet willy and poke you in the eye, then turn off your air for a little while.
I'm cool with all my parts going into other people once brain death occurs, but I guess I'd just like them to check a little more rigorously to be sure it has occurred.
The article offers something of a solution: don't sign the card, but provide your family with instructions that your organs are to be donated after enough tests have been run to be sure your brain is kaput.

As an iPad owner myself, I have to emphatically disagree. If people are satisfied by the computing experience offered by the iPad, their expectations are way too low.

It's simply not good at browsing the web. It's slow, it's full of ads, it crashes so goddamn much (responding to the Slashdot poll crashes mine about 2 out of 3 times). Compared to a laptop, or certainly a desktop, it's a terrible browsing experience.

It does video alright, but lots of web video outside of youtube just won't load properly half the time. It's difficult to control playback (pause isn't quick enough, seek bar is clumsy and inaccurate). And unless you plug in headphones, music or any video relying on sound will be greatly degraded.

Yeah... *basic* document creation. Touch keyboards just aren't good enough to type anything substantial, and let's not even get into the ergonomics of extended typing on it. It doesn't have the processing power to create music, and I wouldn't try any serious image creation on it.

Some of these problems will get better, I assume one day they'll make one with enough horsepower that I can vote in the damn slashdot poll. But tablets are toys, they aren't real computers and they don't replace real computers for most of the applications you mentioned.

Your mortality rate is a little bit high, I think. In the article, the authors of the study are quoted, saying that "About 6percent of those who suffer from anorexia nervosa die from it."
The National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders (ANAD), reporting results from the American Journal of Psychiatry, puts the mortality rate at 4%

I don't mean to minimize the death toll here - 4% is still a tragedy.

There's no goddamn way 6% of Slashdot users were born on february 29th. Assuming all times of year are equal, by my math 0.068% ought to be closer to the truth.

If it's really true, Slashdot is a hell of a statistical anomaly

Electronically limit reverse speed. Most of these accidents are probably caused by some moron gunning it backwards out of the driveway. Once they can't do that anymore, the accident rate has got to drop by at least half.
I don't trust those cameras because they make drivers lazy. They think they're getting complete information about what's behind them, but they aren't. Even if the view angle is 180 degrees, which it isn't, there's no way to represent that much information on a little screen in a way that adds to proprioreception.
By limiting reverse speed, we not only eliminate *most* accidents caused by normal reversing, we also stop people from deciding to tear off backwards on a one way street.
Yes some infants will still die. Some infants will always still die. You cannot save all the children all the time.

If that was the mechanism involved here, one would logically expect that the rich would appear *less* immoral in situations where they could cheat to earn a reward. To paraphrase you, even if everyone has the same level of ethics and morality, it will appear that the rich are more moral since they're less affected by the rewards. However, as noted in the article, the researchers found in one experiment that the rich were three times as likely to cheat to win a reward. I'll admit that there is another possible explanation of their finding: that the rich will cheat more severely than the poor (hiding four aces up a sleeve as opposed to just the one, e.g.) But I don't really find that to be exculpating. The rich apparently either cheat more than or worse than the poor, even though they have less at stake.

Maybe I'm being paranoid, but personally I'm much more concerned about the ubiquity of old lead pipes in the school buildings around here. Lead leaching into the water supply is a huge risk, especially for children, in whom it can cause learning disabilities. That's right, drinking the water in these schools is, statistically, causing learning disabilities in at least some of the students. But that would cost a whole lot to fix, and so instead we hear unsubstantiated hocus-pocus about wi-fi signals.

Actually, in October 2011 they had one of their many unbelievable, mind-blowing sales. I picked up GTA 1-4, vice city, san andreas, and liberty city... all for TWELVE DOLLARS.
For all that people say about the value proposition of 99 cent iOS apps, there's no beating a Steam sale for value.