I have a GED, and I assure you I earn substantially more than most CS graduates. Additionally, I continue to note a marked absence of (1) actual programming ability, (2) knowledge of even the most rudimentary information security practices, and (3) adequate understanding of core systems principles among recent CS graduates. Perhaps your perspective is the result of having grown acclimated to working with people with substantially reduced capabilities.

A huge number of software development jobs don't require a CS degree, including many highly paid positions. In fact, having a CS degree may reduce the odds of being hired for some positions. It seems the trend of misunderstanding the term "computer science" hasn't lost any momentum.

Any anti-fungal compounds found on your local whores probably came from a tube procured from the corner drugstore, but the potential efficacy of pizza and cocaine substrates may indeed warrant further investigation. I'll start printing up the requisite applications.

Setting aside the GP's bit about pulling out a rack to use as a work surface, some ovens are larger than others. Given the magic mushrooms context and the odd historical trend of certain folks employed in mortuary roles adding embalming fluid to recreational substances in the 90s (is that still a "thing?"), maybe the GP was operating out of a full service Dearly Departed Disposal Department facility.

That said, I don't know why a thinking person wouldn't just opt for a home-built laminar flow cabinet, which can be constructed at very little expense if a bit of effort is put into sourcing the required components. In a pinch, a unit suitable for basic biological specimen work can be built for USD $100 or less. Clearly, anyone building such a unit with the intention of handling potentially hostile materials should seriously consider needs versus risks, but in my experience dudes wishing to conduct personal mystical fungi pharmacology trials are not noted for being particularly receptive to cautionary notes.

I don't think you understand what the term fork means in this context.

Fascinating

"Shareholder capitalism is the doctrine that companies exist solely to make money for their shareholders. It is frequently contrasted with stakeholder capitalism, which holds that companies exist for the benefit of their customers, workers and communities, not just for ever-fluctuating number of mostly remote and unengaged passive investors who just happen to own stock in them, often without even being aware that they do.

"The rise of shareholder capitalism in the U.S. is often dated to an influential article in the Journal of Financial Economics in 1976, titled “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure” by Michael C. Jensen and William H. Meckling. They argued that shareholders should demand higher returns from complacent corporate managers. The idea of shareholder value was publicized by a 1981 speech in New York by Jack Welch, who had just taken over General Electric, and by Aflred Rappaport’s 1986 book “Creating Shareholder Value.”

"The shareholder value movement sought to persuade corporate managers to ignore the interests of all stakeholders like workers, customers and the home country, other than shareholders. Granting CEOs stock options, in addition to salaries, was supposed to align their interests with those of the shareholders.

"The theory had an obvious problem: Who are the shareholders and what are their interests? Most publicly traded companies have shares that are bought and sold constantly on behalf of millions of passive investors by mutual funds and other intermediates. Some shareholders invest in a company for the long term; many others allow their shares to be bought and sold quickly by computer software programs.

"Unable to identify what particular shareholders want, CEOs with the encouragement of Wall Street have treated short-term earnings as a reliable proxy for shareholder value. (...)

"Shareholder value capitalism in the U.S. since the 1980s has even failed in its primary purpose — maximizing the growth in shareholder value. As Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman Business School at the University of Toronto points out in a recent Harvard Business Review article, between 1933 and 1976 shareholders of American companies earned higher returns — 7.6 percent — than they have done in the age of shareholder value from 1977 to 2008 — 5.9 percent a year.

"For his part, Jack Welch has renounced the idea with which he was long associated. In a March 2009 interview with the Financial Times, the former head of GE said: “Strictly speaking, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.”

"In the aftermath of the failed 40-year experiment in shareholder capitalism, Americans need not look solely to other democratic nations for models of successful stakeholder capitalism. The U.S. economy between the New Deal and the 1970s was a version of stakeholder capitalism, in which the gains from superior growth were shared with workers, CEOs were moderately paid and the rich engrossed far less of the economy. In reconnecting with America’s native tradition of stakeholder capitalism, American companies can learn from the example of Johnson & Johnson, whose credo was written by Robert Wood Johnson in 1943:

"We believe our first responsibility is to the doctors, nurses and patients, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products and services.We are responsible to our employees, the men and women who work with us throughout the world.We are responsible to the countries in which we live and work and to the world community as wellWe must be good citizens.and bear our fair share of taxes.We must maintain in good order the property we are privileged to use, protecting the environment and natural resources.Our final responsibility is to our shareholders.When we operate according to these principles, the shareholders should realize a fair return."

The failure of shareholder capitalism, Salon, Mar 29, 2011

I'll add that although it's merely a clever proverb that is not perfectly aligned with the discussion at hand, I find the QOTD in the page footer as of this writing to be at least peripherally relevant:

"Don't discount flying pigs before you have good air defense." -- jvh@clinet.FI

The energy production device/method under discussion here may indeed be a fake. You've still entirely missed the point and failed to even begin to attempt to use appropriate evaluation methodology in this situation. Perhaps my earlier reply will prove useful in explaining this in more detail.

Your repeated use of the same misdirection tactic is demonstrative of a lack of creativity, but I have faith that you must have only the best intentions at heart. Would you care to read the cited paper and provide your insights on the relative trustworthiness of the authors? For your convenience, and in the interest of minimizing your risk of misinterpreting the cover page of the paper, I have repeated the names of the authors here:

Giuseppe Levi
Bologna University, Bologna, Italy

Evelyn Foschi
Bologna, Italy

Bo Hoistad,
Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegner
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Hanno Essen
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In deference to Slashdot's inability to properly handle Unicode, I have taken the added measure of producing an image of the names. Once again, this is for your convenience.

Please let us know when your evaluation of the these researchers' credentials has been completed. Your expert assistance is deeply appreciated.

This makes a lot of sense. It may be that my habit of frequently re-reading a freshly opened browser tab for a thread immediately before finally pushing the "Submit" button isn't a common practice for others, and my habit probably implies that I have relatively higher personal sensitivity to duplication. The part about the error rate (in a logical fallacy sense) still seems open to speculation, though, as it's largely independent of chronological factors, and is instead mostly dependent upon the ability to ingest and properly analyze sequential commentary that is by design difficult to miss. The best (worst?) example of this would seem to be failure to read even a single comment in its entirety before replying to it in a fallacious manner. Thoughts?

You and I have a lengthy history of ideological differences, some of which have been rather stark at times, at least to the extent that our comments on this site have accurately represented our views. However, I believe the situation you've described (if accurate, as I admit I haven't done any independent verification on it) represents a fine example of a case where our respective desired outcomes are closely aligned.

Caution: extreme run-on sentences ahead, as I believe it is critical to be very specific when discussing matters like imprisonment, and logical continuity matters greatly here.

(1) If this sequence of events is true, and (2) if it were proven that the actions of the elected officials were made in bad faith via intentional exclusion of factual data which should have been reasonably interpreted as favoring continued municipal energy production, with (3) accompanying direct and improper financial influence over the officials in question, and (4) optimally in terms of rating the eventual severity of the consequences, (a) strong evidence of the presence or lack of external conditions which would in retrospect be reasonably viewed as more likely root causes of the cited rapid energy cost increases, (5) I would be delighted to see the mayor and town council members serve lengthy prison terms. Their prison time would hopefully be followed up with personal financial sanctions, of greater or lesser severity depending upon the nature of (a) above, if only to serve as a clear warning to others. Unfortunately, I suspect any funds recovered via such penalties would fail to even begin to approach the total economic damage done to the community.

Regardless of our varied views on appropriate roles of government, and with clear acceptance that I am suggesting judicial and executive intervention on behalf of the people to determine whether egregious abuses of public office and trust have occurred in this case, how do you suggest we might encourage the people who appear to have been wronged to force such an investigation and prosecution if consequently warranted?

I support the "TLDR" here is: if this is true, it seems the community as a whole either doesn't care or doesn't have the capacity to understand that it has been wronged. How can we fix this? Looking forward to your reply.

I must agree with the "less talk" portion of your statement, but the repetitive suggestion of suicide doesn't really appeal to me. May I suggest some music instead? HTH.

It seems the author of the comment you replied to indicated agreement with your position in a follow-up post nearly two hours before you posted comment #48127499. Additionally, I happened to note the difference between the photoelectric effect and GR nearly an hour before your post. I am becoming increasingly curious why there appears to be a higher than normal rate of errors and repetition in this particular comment thread. However, I freely admit that my stated perception of that error rate is clearly a speculative utterance in the absence of a much greater volume of sample data.