"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Richard Feynman.

There is no other single, concise thing I could say that conveys more.

"Consensus" is not science. The history of science has been the history of OVERTURNING consensus. That's what it does best.

No, "we humans" don't. Only the kind of idiot doctor who doesn't understand logic.

BMI started out as an index for use by doctors for calculating dosages. And it was pretty useful for that, though perhaps not ideal. But, they expanded its use to all kinds of different, inappropriate things. Things they should have known were inappropriate. Like obesity.

Simple example: a body-builder's BMI is off the charts. If one used it to measure obesity, they'd be so far off as to very seriously endanger someone's health. I've heard "but that's an exception"... but no, it's not. It's one end of a continuous scale, and it can be off at any point on that scale.

False dichotomy. Though you're no more guilty of it than many here.

Monopoly (or oligopoly, I'm grouping them here) and free market are not the same. Free markets can lead to monopoly. But once monopoly or oligopoly are achieved, there is no "free market" anymore. So they aren't even close to the same things.

That's why, clear back to Adam Smith, we've had the concept of Antitrust Laws. It is antitrust laws which are responsible for preventing monopolies from forming, and KEEPING everyone playing within a "fair playing field".

And that's the thing: you can't have a fair, free market without a reasonable body of ENFORCED antitrust laws. Sadly, when businesses were deregulated, much of the antitrust enforcement went with it, which was not justified. While I do think over-regulation is harmful, antitrust laws are not "over-regulation", they are absolutely essential.

So when someone who is otherwise knowledgeable mentions "free market", it is safe to presume they mean a free market WITH reasonable and enforced antitrust laws. You can't have real capitalism without the latter.

I doubt it will become unpopular.

Similar Title II regulation is what kept police from intercepting your phone calls without a warrant. It's about time there was some manner of enforcing the the same thing in regard to internet communication.

Granted, this regulation is aimed more-or-less at greedy ISP double-dipping, but the other is a potential side-effect, and a welcome one.

Why is this surprising? How many "new" ideas have been patented by adding "on the Internet" to an existing idea?

Like maybe, In Other News:

"Microscopic Rabbits Caused the Irish Potato Famine"

and

Forrest Whittaker Is Really A Mutant Hamster

Well, I must not be "people" then. I've used Firefox for years and while Mozilla has made a slip or two, it's my go-to browser of choice.

At least on my system, it's smaller and faster than Chrome, and it has far more useful and privacy-protecting plugins. More plugins in general, I think.

No complaints here.

That depends on so many different factors that it's a pointless thing to say. A person who has developed a tolerance for heroin might daily take what would be a near-lethal dose for others.

The main thing here, though, is that OP is misleading. TFA explains (though not very straightforwardly) that they are measuring potential harm based not only on actual exposure, but also on the proportion of the population likely to be exposed. By that measure, alcohol being highest "risk" is a foregone conclusion.

It's hard to tell how they compare when TFA and similar articles use phrases like "80% smaller", which is almost criminally ambiguous. Sure, you can do the math yourself but you shouldn't have to. (For the record, 0.0011 is slightly more than 18% of 0.006).

Dear journalists: if you mean "18% of", say 18% of. Not "82% smaller", or the like, which could mean several different things you may not have intended.

The Matrix did it too.

Ad-hominem will get you nowhere.

Billy Nye DEMONSTRATED that he knows squat about AGW by co-hosting THIS video with Al Gore... showing an experiment to "prove" CO2 warming that could never have actually worked.

While Anthony Watts also gets part of it wrong -- actual greenhouses do not actually work by "trapping infrafed radiation" -- he still demonstrates conclusively that the Nye-Gore "demonstration" was 100% a crock of made-up shit.

To publicly DEMONSTRATE his ignorance and dishonesty in that manner, then call others half-stupid, is very strong evidence that Bill Nye is a chronic sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Or just plain a liar. Choose one.

Is she going to sue her ISP for doing the same thing?

Well, I've got an advantage over you, apparently. At least I read the comments I am responding to, so I can see whether my argument is actually refuted before I even write it.

Nye never studied computer science, so how the hell would he know? And why is he giving opinions about it?

My own science education, just for example, has been far better than my what my chosen career would indicate. Most of my education was in science and engineering, before I took the turn into software.

So maybe my experience isn't typical. But so what? How would Nye know, either way? At the time Nye got his degree (almost 40 years ago), you couldn't even GET a "Computer Science" degree at most Universities. And I know, because I was there, writing programs. Well, maybe not in '77 but not long after.

I used to respect Nye a lot. But ever since he started opening his mouth about AGW he has been sounding like his head has gotten so big it could be mistaken for he Goodyear Blimp.

No, that's rather convoluted logic. It's appointment for "good Behavior".

Yes, of course it means you can't get rid of them unless they misbehave. That's what it says.

But "appointed for life" implies (incorrectly) that you can't get rid of them AT ALL. That's just wrong.