How about something even simpler?

Breathalyzer devices create a paper trail. Every time a sample is run, the results are printed out. The cops need this paper trail if they want to use the result in court.

If they want to use the calibration sheet in court, they should need the same paper trail. The calibration sheet should have the paper printout stapled to it for each calibration sample they ran. If it doesn't, no calibration was done. Simple.

You used a token named "number-of-times-laid" and then you used "age-16" when you meant a token named "age" MINUS 16.

I want to stab you in the face right now...

According to the reports on several other sites, the guy claims he downloaded exactly one mislabeled torrent, and it contained CP. It should be trivial for the authorities to verify whether or not that is true. It certainly shouldn't take months.

If you read some other sources, you find that apparently the guy found a torrent which was labeled with an album name, downloaded it, and then discovered that the files inside it were actually CP.

That much should be easily enough verifiable (by the police, obviously). We can assume he knows what the name of the torrent file was; in fact he probably still has it. It would be trivial for their forensics lab to fire up a copy of uTorrent and determine whether or not the torrent contained those files.

If so, I consider it a pretty much open and shut case: Unless there is evidence elsewhere on his computer that he actually searched for this sort of stuff - and it shouldn't take very long to determine this - it is fairly evident that it was a mislabelled torrent file. It's pretty obvious that he didn't know what it contained until he opened the folder (yes, I realize that many torrent trackers will list the files inside a torrent, but if there's no evidence that he downloaded this sort of thing regularly, there's no reason to suspect that he checked the files until after he downloaded them).

If anything, the authorities should be going after the other downloaders/seeders in the torrent's IP cloud right now, instead of hassling the guy who reported it.

Although, it's also pretty obvious that he was very stupid to report this the way he did. The proper thing to do would have been to anonymously submit the torrent's hash and/or the URL of the page where he found the torrent to a cyber-crimes tip line. Meanwhile, delete the torrent and files, scrub his drive, and hope they never come after him.

No, I'm afraid you're wrong. Hey, if the correlation between "child abuse images" and "pornographic images" in the BBC's report was a little bit too obscure for you to catch, perhaps you'd be better off at the Daily Mail. Here:

Is it really that hard to put 2 and 2 together?

The opening line said "child abuse images". The rest of the article described them as "pornographic images".

Did it ever occur to you that the headline might - just might - have been correct? And then, as the relevant fact had already been stated, it wasn't repeated later in the article?

Heck, you could even do some due diligence and look up a few other sources, mr. "skip the blurb and get to the source". Here's a couple:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110921/Council-bans-daughter-contact-Nigel-Robinson-child-porn-images.html
"A father has been banned from being alone with his eight-year-old daughter after telling police he accidentally accessed child porn while attempting to download music from the internet."

http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=170852
"a British man has been banned from being alone with his eight-year-old daughter for up to a year after he accidentally downloaded images of child pornography while attempting to download an album from former GUNS N' ROSES guitarist Slash"

No, they are the EM equivalent of shouting down the tower. They are low-power devices doing the equivalent of telling the phone: "the tower is nowhere to be found. Good luck finding another one." The phone then drops the call all by itself.

You have two devices, a tower and a phone. The tower has a lot of power, but it is far away and its signal is very weak. The phone has less power, but it has to have enough power to reach the tower - it is effectively already "shouting". Both must be able to talk to the other, or the call will drop. To jam the connection, the weaker one is the one you obviously want to drown out. The tower's signal is weaker, so that's what you jam. And since your broadcast power is low, it only affects a small area.

Think about it for a minute: The phone is already transmitting with enough power to reach the tower. If you wanted to drown out the phone's signal, you'd have to also drown out every phone's signal going to the tower. You'd have to DOS the entire tower.

That is obviously not what a jammer is doing: it creates a small, localized area where the tower's signal (not the phone's signal) is drowned out by noise. As a result, phones close to the jammer will drop their connections to the tower.

No - I meant anachronism - but after finding that I had spelled it correctly I didn't read the definition carefully enough to notice that (I'd forgotten) it has a specific relation to incongruity in time, not just context. So I suppose my use of it was, itself, a catachresis.

Catachresis doesn't really seem to fit what I was trying to say particularly well, either. The word was used correctly, grammatically, it's just that the meaning of the word that it was supposed to modify can't really be altered by the meaning of the word "high". I was more trying to point out that incongruity. Maybe incongruity is the closest word to what I actually wanted.

FYI, that's an anachronism: All Earth geosynchronous orbits, whether circular or elliptical, have a semi-major axis of 42,164 km (26,199 mi).

A geosynchronous orbit can't be modified by words such as "low" or "high". It is what it is.

Someone is fascinated by the way a fabric of structural elements in tension behave. It's almost cute.

In all seriousness, though, TFA was pretty light on the details. It sounds like a really interesting simulation, but a dumbed-down write-up is just kinda ... well, almost too watered down to be very interesting.

It sounds like you've got it all figured out.

I suppose I should probably blame this.

That might not be much of a problem. Helium is the least water-soluble monatomic gas. At STP (0 C, 1 atm), the solubility of helium is 1.7 ppm.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html

Helium pretty much just doesn't like staying anywhere, including in water.

Please, stop spreading the FUD. Regular tap water can just as well cause water intoxication if you drink too much of it, and ultra-pure water is by no means unsafe to drink.

Yes, it most definitely is FUD, and he was spreading it, though not nearly as thickly as you.

I think the phrase you're looking for is "universal solvent". Oxygen is the most corrosive chemical in the universe, AFAIK. Solvent != corrosive.

Utter bullshit. The leaching process would be so slow that you'd have to leave a tooth in a glass of DI water for a long time before any substantial amount of minerals were leached out of it.

Water passes through a cell membrane much more easily than those ions, so no. Osmatic pressure would cause the cells to fill with water until they burst, but regular tap water will do the same thing. It would not instantly suck all the ions out of your cells, by any stretch of the imagination.

Why don't you go and do that, moron. Meanwhile, I'll be drinking RO water, just about as pure as it can be made.

Correlation != causation. I'm sure plenty of people have kept super-pure water in glass vessels without experiencing that problem, so the onus is on you to prove what you claimed next:

Stop spreading the FUD.

If you're eating properly you will get plenty of electrolytes from your food.

And you could probably die from drinking too much pure Gatorade. Your point?