No, it isn't a fundamental problem with science; they changed what they thought when new evidence to the contrary came to light. That's exactly how science is supposed to work.

An accurate description of politics is indistinguishable from absurdism.

So instead of murder they'll limit future policy to the severe beatings the electorate seems to enjoy.

It's a test for future policy development: if they can get away with spouting crap before the election, they know they can get away with murder afterwards.

I'm pretty sure going to the toilet in the middle of the night costs as much as it ever did (unless you count accidentally dropping your phone in).

But wait...if "nothing" compares to you, doesn't that mean he's calling someone a twat?

I'm never going to listen to this song again the same way...

And they say newspapers are obsolete...

Not difficult if you're starting with temperatures in excess of 130C and the air temperature is >100C lower.

Nonsense. Heatsinks dissipate as much heat as they're designed to dissipate; a 1 degree/Watt convective heatsink will create exactly the same temperature differential as a 1 degree/Watt fan forced heatsink (though the latter will be smaller and lighter), that's why they're both rated at 1 degree/Watt. The units are the same, the rating is the same, but you're trying to argue that somehow the ability to remove heat is different...that's like saying a 40W round lightbulb uses less power than a 40W candle-shaped lightbulb.

Fan cooled heatsinks cool down quicker once the load is removed, but that's not really relevant in this application.

I have a tower in my office with six fans that shut down when the air temperature hit 45C on three days last summer...hot air in reduces cooling efficiency with or without fans, simply because the whole system is that much closer to thermal equilibrium (taking it to the extreme, if the air is hotter heatsink the direction of heat flow is reversed. Hit a heatsink with a hairdryer and see what happens if you don't believe me, I assure you it won't get colder because there's a fan involved). But if you're talking about heat buildup inside a case, that's inadequate venting to allow convection, or incorrect thermal design. The 70-150W dissipation of a modern CPU is relatively low compared to a big transistor power amp driving a highly reactive low impedance load (a feat that's been successfully accomplished for about 50 years), passive cooling is only problematic if you don't know what you're doing.

11 years and counting from experience, but that's a 2001 iMac which was designed to use convective cooling. Tower cases aren't, so your suggestion would prove nothing except the wrong thermal design is wrong. But pull the mobo out of the case to allow good air flow, stick one of the heatsinks I linked to on it, and the die temperature of a quad core i7 3770 will hit about 85C at full load, which is high but within spec. Put it back in the case without fans or additional ventilation holes in the top and bottom and it'll catch fire because of heat buildup. Point is it isn't how you cool that matters, the heat source doesn't "know" that, just that you provide enough cooling.

Hence the word "theoretical". No machine can ever be 100% efficient in practice.

You're absolutely correct, thanks for pointing out my error.

Let me introduce you to the convection cooled heatsink. No moving parts, powered entirely by the dissipated heat itself, it just has to have sufficient surface area for the job (and they scale up more easily than actively cooled systems).

No. If you have a machine that's 50% efficient, where does the other 50% of the energy go? That's right, heat. If you can recover 10% of that heat as electricity, your machine is now 60% efficient. Even if you could recover the theoretical 100% of the waste heat the total energy efficiency is still only 100%, so it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.