Your two year old apparently didn't climb things. Three feet? That is nothing. That said I still count the first year as being far more draining than anything since.

I know you are using, the now meaningless, quotes around "deadly force" but do tone down the hyperbole. While it seems to be an ill-conceived idea to empower corporations to retaliate against perceived attackers it is not "deadly" in any sense (unless of course it is some other stupid corp who placed life critical equipment on the internet).

You are giving a single data point. Perhaps you should provide a data point further in the past to at least give a slope to your assertion? Here let me help. The effective tax rate on the top 1% has been falling since 1995 while for everyone else it is at a historic low. However it is important to keep in mind that the percent of wealth owned by that 1% has increased dramatically: the ratio of 50th to 99th wealth has gone from 0.024 in 1995 to 0.01 in 2013. In particular the 50% wealth level has DROPPED while the 99% wealth level has almost doubled.

The petition was to pardon Snowden, not to "drop the issue." Forgiving an offense and condoning an action are not the same but they are close enough that the kheldan's point remains.

I think you misread something. Pu239 synthesis doesn't include beta capture. U239 is unstable and EMITTS a beta similarly for Np239. Beta (electron) capture would lead to a lower atomic number:
P+e^- = N+\nu_e
There used to be a cool webpage where you could traverse all the isotopes and see how they were produced but I can't seem to find it now.

This is easily testable with whatever dataset they used to do the research. * Come up with a hypothesis based on a subset of your data * Test your hypothesis on the remaining data It seems like they had bunch of data so they could have selected data before the last N choices were made them see how their model predicts what the "Harbingers" would say or not.

I think that asking a private company (Google) to do the job of the State, keeping records private, is the wrong course of action. If your goal is to have arrest records be private then make the SOURCE of Google's search results remove them, e.g. the state database or historical news reports. It is NOT Google's job to hide these things it is the State's job to make these data private. Now if Google is HOSTING these data then they can be held responsible to remove the, otherwise the State should just go after the sources.

You can also add to this that launching with the direction of rotation reduces your fuel cost to get into orbit. The effect is diminished at latitudes further from the equator.

You do realize that one reason for the current state of affairs is the complete lack of ability to test ANY new theory? The LHC was really only designed to see what we expected to see. If we don't see some things that will be great but it will mean that the Standard Model is pretty much wrong. But we won't be able to test anything else.

It is naive to believe that everything in the world can be optimized my some market solution. If some group isn't producing results it is not always the case that reducing their funding will produce better results (e.g. education and basic science). We have trained many great theoretical physicists in the past 30 years but have invested very little in experiments that are likely to produce that could falsify any modern theory.

That is pretty damning. Do you have an references that one could read up on the exact situation to which you are referring?

I am in astrophysics so....

Regardless I think there is a very real difference between fields where you can leave your experiment on and grow significance with square root time and those that you simply cannot. It is not a matter of difficulty but a matter of biology. One cannot study many disease with the quantity of data to make a robust statistical conclusion. Biomedical research needs to accept this. However simply discounting their research because you think they aren't working hard enough isn't going to change anything.

I agree with your general tone and statement. However it is important to note the inherent limitations of biomedical research. Generally one CANNOT do large scale studies needed to get a statistically robust result. All of physics and astrophysics generally use the 5 sigma discover requirement which means you have to measure the effect to 3e-7. You cannot do this with people as subjects. It is hard to do this with ANY biological subject. Many of the issues brought up stem from this.

I think much of the problem is exacerbated by the public-or-perish mentality but is even more affected by the total lack of reporting null results (when you DO NOT see anything). This skews your overall distribution. It is like not accounting for trials (because you aren't). In biomedical research they need to spend more time quantifying their trials and placing their results in the proper statistical context. Just staying that you are less likely to get parkinson's disease if you drink coffee because we asked a bunch of people isn't the whole story. How many questions did you ask? Was it 100? Did you treat all those as essentially trials?

I haven't read the whole paper but in short: no they looked at each object with sufficient sensitivity to rule that out.

While I agree with your premiss this is exactly what high frequency traders do constantly. This is how they "test the waters" so to speak. The only difference here seems to be the volume of the trades. Money Ball has a reasonable overview of the HFT practice.

* The Atacama Desert - 27 degrees South
* The Chihuahua Desert - 30 degrees North
* The Namib Desert - 23 degrees South
* The Sahara Desert - 23 degrees South

What is your point? Two are tropical deserts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropics) while none lie between 30-35 degrees.