Ok, maybe I'm hineininterpretierung this a bit

I had to think about that. I don't have much time for creationism but I think their arguments have been underestimated.
The main problem with creationism is not that their arguments are so weak. I believe some of their arguments are valid and too easily dismissed by let's say 'most people who believe in evolution theory'. For instance it's a very legitimate concern that the power of the combination of selection and random variation may be too weak to explain what we see around us.

The thing is that the approach is one of case-making rather than scientific investigation. That's why you can't discuss with them. The arguments they'll come up with will be borrowed (in let's say, the best cases) from investigation that is arguably scientific. So it's not really proper to dismiss the arguments as a rehash of things that have long been settled. but because the appoach is one of case making, the arguments are only pursued as long as they can support a case. The story ends once the case is won.
Another approach is to accept the validity of some of the creationist's objections and to just keep on digging and finding out how it works.
And gradually you figure out more. And that is what has happened and will happen. A lot of work has been done on the speed of evolution since the first iteration of Fred Hoyle's Junkyard Tornado argument in 1982.

Ow brilliant.fixing blockquotes the smart way.

Had to maintain a Windows 2012 Server system last weekend.... dealing with the Windows 8 configuration interface on a server makes me very angry.

Imagine Bruce Banner had been a sysadmin. The world would have been a different place.

The NYTimes article covers the issue well. The remnants of chemical weapons were not handled well which resulted in american casualties and which resulted in potential(I would say actual) use as IEDs. So Pentagon has reasons for not wanting to talk about this. I know mustard gas preserves fairly well. VX and sarin does not.

So there is no thinking in the line of ' Saddam had chemical weapons after all'. At least not anymore. Before the war there was deliberate obfuscation on the subject of how much chemical weapons capability one needs in order to provide a reason for war, so any find of a weapons cache was considered proof.
The idea is still around but officials have dropped it long ago.

  That was so important about the work by Scott Ritter in the runup to the war. He quantified the possible capability and made clear that whatever capability there was it could be military significant. So instead of asking 'are there chemical weapons' he asked 'are there enough chemical weapons', which is what every military analyst should do. An important part of propaganda is making you ask the wrong questions.

I know what the article says. did you look at the stats? Did you read my post? It says So maybe the actual marketing campaign for the FR-S was aimed at younger people than who actually bought it. Also in my first post I was not really thinking about marketing but about the product design part of the marketing. So what I wanted to say is that even if Scion wants to be young, it's not aiming as young as it used to, its product is not as young as one would think, and they mainly reaching people who are not that young either.

(logged in now). And I'm talking about the F-RS not the Scion of 2004. This article has a few statistics showing that the people buying the FR-S are not that young Edmunds . So maybe the actual marketing campaign for the FR-S was aimed at younger people than who actually bought it. I don't know. But I know the car and the design is towards handling - difficult to sell to youngsters - and tuning - easier to sell but maybe not such a large market.

I haven't spent any thought yet on the distinction between BRZ and FR-S.

If you'd seen the guy who's still driving that last Topazs you'd understand.

Oh you made me remember reading about it. Microgravimetric analysis of Cheops in 1980. Of course the Cavendish experiment required only 300 kg of material two centuries ago, so I suppose the whole thing about precision is how far away you are when doing the measuring. So my initial point remains: the title isn't saying much. Not like "Gravitational change now big enough to cause some people to have to update their tables".

Of course, the instruments measuring it can never ever be faulted ?

On the contrary, an alternate title for the article could have been "Measurement of gravity is now so incredibly precise that it can detect the effect of Antarctica melting away." . But that was too long.

It's a bit more than a concern, it's distrust because the idea has some attributes I'm suspicious about. Compare it with panspermia theories. These theories were successful primarily because people had problems thinking up ways of how life could spring out of nothing. That by themselves doesn't make them wrong of course, and some may claim that it's unsigntific to use such things as distrust. I disagree.

On the other hand, if it turns out that electroweak parity breaking does percolate upwards all into chemistry that would make it a very fascinating find.

Well, I'll need a lot of convincing to conclude that the asymmetry in amino acids was not due to contamination at some stage.

The article is rather dubious really.
There's an underlying assumption that the symmetry braking of the solution requires an asymmetry in the starting condition.
If you place a pencil upright it is very unstable and it will fall over. In what direction it will fall depends on the 'background noise' disturbances which can be completely symmetrical - on average.
So you have a completely symmetrical situation but the outcome will be completely asymmetrical: the pencil falls over in one direction. It is not an interesting question to investigate why exactly the pencil fell in this specific direction.
So what's the deal here, if our dna pencil comes out oriented one way? That electroweak parity breaking causes the pencil to fall over in one direction? That the chances of the pencil falling over in a specific direction are slightly enhanced but the outcome can still be anything - as with a single roll of a dice with 17 'left' faces and 15 'right' faces? Or that the effect will just be drowned by the background noise?
I think the latter.

It reminds me of the claims that the bathtub always drains with a rotation that depends on the hemisphere, while in fact the impact of the coriolis effect is completely negligeable..

It's nice to have technology to better dispose of diapers, but it should not be used as an alternative to tackling the main problem, which is that babies now wear diapers over longer and longer periods. The main reason for this is interfering with biofeedback. The better the diaper the less feedback the baby gets so the less it is inclined to change its behavior.

The best way to reduce spent diapers is to reintroduce a form of biofeedback. An irritation. An annoyance. But of course that would interfere with the gains of Proctor and Gamble.

If I might propose an environmental regulation, it would be about the minimum allowed amount of negative biofeedback in pampers.
In other words, from a certain age on it would not be allowed to make them too good.

I think you're far off the mark. The conflict in Ukraine has been building up for years and the Russians have since long threatened with very aggressive countermoves if the west and especially NATO would attempt to incorporate Ukraine - or Georgia for that matter.
The west disregarded the threats because they thought Russia is no major player anymore and could be ignored. So yes, Putin knows that Ukraine isn't worth a major conflict to the west and he makes use of that. But Putin is not on a mission of conquest and he has no desire to absorb parts of Ukraine.

Let's say he's got reasonable demands but stopping NATO expansion is important enough for him to use very brutal methods. And that could include ruining Ukraine or splitting it up.