I had the same initial thought that you did. However, I didn't realize that harvester ants do not rely on pheremones which makes their approach slightly different than the typical Ant-Colony Optimization algorithms (which have been applied to routing). It would be interesting to know how the harvester ants communicate geographic information when they touch thier antennae. Something that may be revealed once I have the chance to read the rest of the article (beyond the abstract).

The featured article explains with a much less confusing use of pronouns:

I don't think the fact that the private sector is better equipped at making enterpreneurial decisions has been adequately proven by evidence (however, neither has the converse). One big problem with allowing private, for-profit, companies to be the decision makers in matters of public health has one major flaw: medications that yield high profits don't necessarily address real health problems (I'm thinking of Viagra and Cialis here), and medications that address real health problems will not necessarily yield high profits. The private sector has little interest in addressing health problems that are not profitable.

Your example would be more illustrative if you said 4 people make $1/year and one person makes $639,996/year, the average is $128,000 with only a single outlier (Perhaps Mark Zuckerberg subscribes to Linux Journal). The quoted statistic also doesn't account for the potentially more numerous Linux users who are too broke to subscribe to the Linux Journal.

That would only be meaningful if climate change and speciation were measured using the same time scale.

Although your point is true, the argument is that NASA and going to space in general is not a complete waste of money. No one is claiming that investing the money otherwise could not have yielded better results; in which case a controlled experiment would be required.

I believe the UK still use their own currency.

Likewise read my post, I never said they sentenced him. I said they arrested him. As far as I know judges in the UK don't go around arresting people.

Interesting that later in the article we find the following quote from Detective Chief Superintendent Tony Porter: "This case has never been about proving an endgame and we may never know what his intentions were". So they admit to not knowing his intentions, how can they in good conscience say they are arresting him for intent?

Whether the victims are criminals or not is irrelevant in ascribing the label of murderer to the police officer. If the officer took a bank robber into a back alley, had him kneel down, then shot him in the back of the head, he would still be considered a murderer. There are your shades of grey, they are hiding in the details.

Similarly, when you're talking about fighting an unjust law by breaking it, that's implicitly a grey area: you have to distinguish between something that is criminal and something that is illegal. To say that you need to be "very black and white" in these situations is, in my opinion, an over simplification of the issues at stake. In the context of ACTA, we can go so far as to ask whether it is criminal for the law to be imposed on the people of Poland the way it is (even though it's not illegal for them to do so AFAIK). Can you then say that a DDoS attack, although illegal, is criminal if it is intended to bring awareness to these shenanigans? (although this is not to say that I agree with the method, it's just to illustrate the shades of grey)

At this point, it has not been demonstrated whether Megaupload has committed any illegal activities (remember the presumption of innocence and all that). The problem is that it's not unfathomable for an entity to be taken down in this fashion regardless of whether they actually commited any crime; especially if SOPA/PIPA or any similar legislation ever gets passed.

First rule of Project Mayhem: Don't ask questions!