The link from your article to the photograph hosted on the Miami Herald website is 404 Not Found. Surprising. What "Imaging Specialists" are they using? How can a 1937 photograph ID a particular piece of metal that is deformed and found at sea? The shape is... well... deformed! Surely its discolored.

What are you implying? That it's OK to attack Ken Ham, or that its OK for Ken Ham to attack people who don't believe as he does?

Ken Ham can build whatever he wants on his own dime, in his own land. I just don't want him influencing public policy or spending public funds on projects that are not based on science.

Was there a serial number? Was there an inscription? Did she leave a palm print?
If I had spent millions of dollars, and involved hundreds of people, I'd sure grab on to even the remotest of possibilities so I didn't have to walk away empty handed!
FTFA:
The piece, which measures about 24 by 18 inches (61 cm by 46 cm), did not appear to be a standard part of a Lockheed Electra, but TIGHAR researchers recently began to look into the possibility it might have been installed on the plane as a patch after a window was removed, he said. On October 7, a TIGHAR team examined a plane at Wichita Air Services in Newton, Kansas, that was similar to Earhart's aircraft. Because the plane was being restored, it was possible to look at its interior and see where the sheet of metal recovered in 1991 would have fit, Gillespie said.

Not conclusive... sorry!

I had no idea Amelia Earhart was bionic and had metal patches!

No. When you register your card with Apple Pay, you AUTHENTICATE with BofA (or whoever your bank is). BofA requires you to call them in so they can ID you and accept your registering the card with Apple Pay. Capital One allows Apple Pay to launch the Capital One app and authenticate it through logging in there. Re-read my comment and try again.

My bad on the parenthesis thing.

But I say "Anonymous Coward", I have seen your lack of parenthesis on multiple comments! HAHA!!!! /sarcasm

Sounds like they really just don't know.
It likely was a combination of factors, they say, including ocean circulation, changing wind patterns and terrestrial processes.

But at least they are studying and learning.
"This abrupt, centennial-scale variability of CO2 appears to be a fundamental part of the global carbon cycle. "Previous research has hinted at the possibility that spikes in atmospheric carbon dioxide may have accelerated the last deglaciation, but that hypothesis had not been resolved, the researchers say.

The earth has been from +14 to -6 degrees on average from where it is today. Historically speaking, were in the "colder than usual" range of the bell curve today, and thats with using ice cores to detect CO2 levels and temperature histories. Its not like we had a thermocouple hooked up to a server recording that data for millions of years. These deductions are best effort conclusions on data that only tells a very broad stroke of the story.
What upsets me is how demonizing the argument about Global Warming / Climate Change is. The earth will change its temperature. That will happen with or without us, just look at the historical record. Earths temperature isn't stable. And for all those who argue we are burning too much fossil fuels, those carbon atoms weren't created into existence in the ground as they were today, unless you believe the earth is 6000 years old!
They were a part of the global carbon cycle, and buried during mass extinction events and processes that sequestered them to where they are today. It isn't science to say "for sure this and for sure that". Its science to say: "To the level of our current understanding...". Thats it. You can't know for certain, just like they didn't know for certain that the earth was the center of the universe, even though it was proselytized. Its not OK to attack the character of an individual when they are skeptical of your conclusions. All of science works better when there are those who are skeptical. It refines your proof if you are right, or betters your understanding if you are wrong.

As for the problems associated with climate change, it will happen. For those of us living where it will flood, there will be a new continent to live on, once it unfreezes (again!).

Apple Pay registers the card pretty fast, but not with BofA, you can't use their App to authenticate the card, you have to call in (at least you did when I registered my Credit and Debit cards. Capital One allows you to sign into the app and it instructs Apple Pay to go ahead.

On the subject of "who will win", I think that the easiest payment options with the most security and largest spending consumer base will win. Historically, thats users who use Apple. QR codes and Bank ACH transfers lack two of the three things - security and ease. They also miss the boat on a big number of other ancillary benefits Apple Pay has going for it:
1. Apple Pay can be used online.
2. There is no massive treasure trove of data for hackers to steal.
3. You can not ACH from a credit card. Guess where most of the retailers get their money from? Hint: Its not people's bank accounts, those are used to pay off credit cards.
4. If CurrentC participating retailers block Apple Pay (which is really to block NFC transactions), it stands to reason that Apple may block any CurrentC applications from their App Store. They could always point and say "In response to...".

Apple Pay will end up being just another NFC service, but NFC will ring the winner. What is Walmart / Best Buy / CVS going to do? Displace Visa/MC in the hundreds of countries that are already in? How many Visa terminals are there? Right.
I suppose they have all the legal work figured out as well, and don't mind bankrupting themselves in the process. /sarcasm

What I meant was many stores will have their own payment systems, and others will support the broad systems from Apple/Google, and some will be late to the "payment revolution", and so on and so fourth. Once it makes economic sense to adopt system X, they will adopt it. We still have to see how Apple Pay stands up to real world threats, heavy load, availability concerns, network issues (if the store is not in great cell range), etc.... We still don't know what happens when you take the big system you just made and apply it to the big load waiting for its availability and adoption. Time will tell us what the stores end up using because it will be the best system from a realistic point of view.

Once competition decides what service we decide to favor. A bunch of services will fail, 3 or 4 will remain and be universally accepted. Just look at the credit card networks for reference as to how this will play out.

It stands to reason then that apple saw this comming. They can point to the "free" nature of its downloads and say "but the OS costs nothing!". So you can take your wonderful new machine, and install whatever you want on it.

That seems like a lot of dick-measuring on the part of developers. Why wouldn't Canonical simply update the repository with patches that address known security vulnerabilities? Where is the years of support? When you update your package list, the developers of those packages should be able to post updates...

This is why Linux is not desktop ready... to many stubborn minds pushing their way.

Group of genes, not protiens! My bad.

My guess is that the fact that no organisms exist with a Neanderthal genome defines them as extinct. Where one draws the line is more art than science I guess. There is a species of Galapagos tortoise that was biologically extinct since there was until recently just one male member (lonesome George). I know that there are some genetics in us (like the HMG group of proteins) that are ancient, but work so well that we still retain them. That doesn't mean the first species to have evolved them isn't extict, it just means we evolved from them.

Because regardless of weather or not you have a point, a lot of people will write off your opinion as "the rantings of an idiot".

So are you suggesting the children should be liable themselves? The state? Any adult within a few hundred feet? When a child hurts someone, who should then be liable is the question? When an adult hurts someone, they are either sued in civil court for compensation / damage relief; or tried by the state in criminal court.

Are you suggesting that the child be tried as an adult? Shared liability with the parents (both serve 1/2 time or something like that) or should the state be sending out checks every time a child causes injury to a third party?

The reason I say that parents should be liable is because you have to ask yourself: Who made the decision? The parents made a decision to have a child in the first place. Surely as we can tell, the child didn't decide to be conceived. The parents made the decision, so they should be responsible for the consequences of that decision. And in the state's case, they don't reap the rewards if the child does something productive or successful, potential benefit is under the control of the parents, of course; and so it should be. As well as the risks associated. You can not take all the rewards, and assume none of the risks in anything. Otherwise, why not have 100 children, blame the state for the 99 that don't make it successful, and claim the one who goes on Disney and becomes economically profitable? The child itself can't be responsible for making the decision because it can not understand all the consequences that go into making that decision, it is a child. Just like a computer can not understand that you are using it to write a nefarious program, and so the computer itself is not liable. That would be a silly notion. The entity making the decision has to be liable. Since the last decision made by an entity with responsibility is the parents, the judge was correct, they are the one's responsible. Neither the school, nor the state, nor the victims are in control of the child, can not discipline or punish the child, and so have no control themselves. How can this be anyone else's responsibility but the parent?