Last I heard, nothing invalidates suing anyone for anything. As long as defense is expensive, extortion will be an option.

Install the emacs plugin.

Where do I send my check?

Send it to Larry Niven. I always wondered how his "reactionless drives" worked, and now I finally und-- actually, no, I don't understand how this works at all.

By having the user's view of your site not be "static content with no java or flash."

I'm a member of several professional associations, including IEEE and the ACM. These societies have codes of ethics, which mandate things like respecting data privacy, accepting and cooperating with professional review, honoring contracts, respecting the rights of system stakeholders, providing honest estimates of project costs, disclosing conflicts of interest etc.

It's mostly stuff that almost goes without saying, so I have say I don't think much about these codes. But I sure would be pissed if one of these organizations was involved in helping the government violate its own code of ethics.

APA has a code of ethics for its members. Getting information out of an unwilling subject technically violates several principles the APA expects its own membership to abide by. For example the code of ethics requires APA members to safeguard the rights of anyone they're involved with professionally, and in particular those in situations where the subject's autonomy is limited. This would clearly forbid an APA member to be involved in the development of *any* coercive method, even if that method falls short of the legal definition of "torture".

Now arguably APAs code of ethics is too restrictive; arguably psychologists should be able to develop coercive methods so long as those methods are in the interest of society and do not rise to a reasonable standard of "torture". But until the APA rewrites its code of ethics it should refrain from any action which arguably might violate that code. To do otherwise, particularly secretly is morally repugnant for a dues-supported membership organization. It may even be malfeasance, since a non-profit is supposedly bound by the purpose for which it is chartered in its spending decisions.

American Psychological Association (2012) style citations please.

References:
American Psychological Association. (2012). APA style guide to electronic references.

Well, you shouldn't. It's usually the press that blows a single study way out of proportion, because they have no understanding of how science works. Science *always* generates contradictory results early on as it gets the kinks worked out of a hypothesis. This is not some kind of failure of science, it's the way science is supposed to work. A critical follow-up attempt to check on some study's results is *of course* much less likely to reach significance, because of researcher bias either way.

The gold standard for judging the state of science isn't a study, it's a review paper. This is a peer-reviewed paper, written by someone working in the field, summarizing the state of published evidence on some question in that field. These are supposed to be both comprehensive and extremely conservative in their findings.

Science is continually producing a streams of contradictory evidence. You should either pay very little attention to some new scientific idea, or be prepared to follow along in great detail over several years. But even forty years ago, when my local newspaper used to publish a whole section of science news one day a week (!!!) you could pretty much count on most of the media ridiculously overreacting to a juicy sounding bit of scientific controversy. What can you expect of today's emasculated and dumbed down reporting?

Imagine the media response if there were a study that came out that purported to show that smoking e-cigarettes was beneficial to health. It would be a media circus, but only the start of a long process in the scientific community. So rather than lighting up your e-cigarette, you should wait for the critiques and counter-studies to pile on, and then for a few review papers to come out after the dust settles. Most new ideas in science, like most new businesses, fail after a year or two.

Ebook edition of job-hunting bible "What Color is Your Parachute": $9.99.
McGraw Hill High School Equivalency Study Guide ebook: $17.89.
Typical study guide for trade test (plumbing, electrical, etc): $30-$60.
Microsoft Office for Dummies: $13.99

Cheap Chinese 7" Android Tablet that can run ebook reading software: $35.

For comparison, how much a family of four spends on food in a year: $7800 - $15600/yr.
Cost of a 2 br apartment in a crummy big city neighborhood:$13000/yr.

So, what's clear here is the cost of an ebook reader is tiny relative to other things a poor family needs, but that the cost of the books very quickly outstrips the cost of even a rather nice ebook reader like a Kindle.

Computers are cheap, especially if you don't need the latest and most powerful. You can get a functioning Android tablet that can work as an ebook reader for under $40. It won't be a *nice* tablet, but compared to the cost being shut out of the digital economy $40 is a reasonable investment for even a poor person. Otherwise how are you going to look for jobs, in the help wanted section of the newspaper? Are you going to buy used stuff from the print classifieds?

There are laptop formfactor Android computers for under $100. Those probably don't make sense for more affluent users, but now you can write a resume and cover letter for an online job application. And then of course there are always other peoples computers. But it's not unreasonable for a poor person to have a computing device these days on which he can read an ebook and maybe tap out emails when there's wi-fi he can borrow. It is not some kind of absurd luxury for poor people to own an ebook capable device.

One of the effects of the bill will be to make it impossible to use data from large scale public health studies. The raw data is secret for privacy reasons and for practical purposes impossible to replicate. For example the highly respected Framingham Heart Study has been running since 1948; under the terms of the bill its results couldn't be used in setting policy because the data are simply impossible to replicate.

The link went to an article which mentioned research on CCD done at Montana State U (where I was once upon a time a biochemistry/microbiology double major) and U of MT. Didn't find a link to the actual paper offhand but didn't look that hard either; no doubt you can find it.

I did; I posted a link to it upstairs somewhere. Shame you didn't read it.

I'll take the validity of research at my alma mater above most anything else, because I know the quality of the research departments.

Airborne particulates is a false equivalency.

I get the feeling you won't be happy until everyone admits your particular point of interest is the culprit, which isn't exactly a scientific method either. It's fine to look at every possible candidate. It's not fine to decide that's the culprit when it's not even present in many regions of interest.

Also, if neonics are the culprit, that should be very easy to demonstrate -- you should be able to reliably induce CCD in fairly short order just by isolating a hive with a treated food source.

But Georgia isn't everywhere, and wheat isn't a bee-pollinated crop.

The relevant thing is that bees are affected without ever being anywhere near a treated area, in fact without being near an area treated for anything at all.