Orbital dynamics is rather unlikely to be the problem, given the vast pool of data to support it. Our understanding of the tidal interactions between planets and stars, which is the basis of the expected orbital decay, requires rather more levels of inference and are based on considerably more tenuous data. This is where I would be looking for the problems.

Nature paper here. Interesting quote:

For comparison, WASP-18b's infall timescale is an order of magnitude shorter than that of the much-discussed OGLE-TR-56b6, 7 (assuming that Q is the same for both), and gives a current rate of period change of â"0.00073 (106/Q) s/yr. For low values of Q this would accumulate to a detectable change in transit epoch in less than a decade (for Q = 106 the transit time shifts by 28 s after 10 yr, which compares with a currently achievable timing accuracy of 5 s). Thus WASP-18b is a diagnostic planet, either (for a low Q) being an exceptionally rare object in which the tidal decay is directly measurable, or forcing a reappraisal to much higher Q values; either way it will help establish the dynamical ages of the class of hot-Jupiter planets. WASP-18 will also help constrain our understanding of stellar interiors, given that the Q value depends on the dissipation of interior waves excited by the tidal forcing.

So if the orbit is decaying, we'll be able to measure it in 10 years, otherwise there will be useful data to refine theories about tidal forces in the surfaces of stars.

The term "Intelligent Design Creationism" seems to me a little unhelpful.

Intelligent design and (young earth) creationism are in general rather distinct, although the rather large differences are sometimes blurred both by proponents trying to gather support and by opponents who want to simply ridicule both groups instead of trying to reason with them. In order to argue effectively against either of them, you must first identify which of the viewpoints the other party is proposing. Otherwise you just end up talking past one another, which is OK for scoring points with the peanut gallery but does nothing to advance the debate.

(I guess someone will argue that there is no point reasoning with either group. However, in any public forum there will often be someone who is prepared to listen to a carefully constructed argument. On the other hand, this is the internet.)

Comic sans may have its detractors, but it is more readable for dyslexics than many, see for example dyslexic.com, British Dyslexia Association, Wikipedia.

No, I think you have misunderstood the original. Part of the genius of it is that the comic is simultaneously both an homage to and a deconstruction of the superhero genre, as well detailed character study and a good story.

With the exception of Dr Manhatten, the masked heroes are all just normal people. Normal people with no special powers, who used to be well trained in martial arts, but are now getting on a bit. They're all a bit rubbish. And they feel compelled to dress up like freaks and beat up criminals. In other words, they're are not the most sane group of people you might expect to meet.

In case this is not totally clear, lets go through the roster: The Comedian and Rorsharch and psychopaths, Osymandias is a megalomaniac, Moth Man is in an asylum, Silk Spectre is living out her mother's semi-erotic fantasies, and Nite Owl uses the costume to escape his own feelings of fear and impotence (in both senses).

Dr Manhattan, the only super-human, is losing his humanity.

The comic is an homage because it reuses the symbols and stories of the superhero genre in totally familiar forms. Heroes wear masks and capes. Dr Manhattan is explicitly 'the superman', and Nite Owl would like to be Batman. More importantly, many familiar story elements are included, like 'ordinary person suffers trauma, possibly gains powers, resolves to don costume and go out and fight evil' and 'hero in plain clothes attacked by muggers'.

It is a deconstruction because it forces the reader to step back and re-evaluate these symbols and stories. Why is it that we like reading this story over and over again? What sort of motivations would make a real person act in the way these characters are acting? And the answers are not pretty.

However, in the film, the heroes really are a little bit super. They are faster, stronger, and smarter than normal people. Even if only a little. Enough to make a difference.

And so they go out and fight crime because that is what they are: A breed apart, with a little bit of power and a little bit of responsibility to go with it. And so the point is lost.

I still really enjoyed it though.

And, foreshadowing the moment of doubt, on catching the bullet:

"I didn't know if that would work".

I think it goes hand-in-hand with boosting the power of the other heroes. But I still enjoyed it.

A sliderule sits on the base of my monitor , so arguably it 'on' my 'screen'.

Its just a basic one - log scales for multiplication and division, and additional scales for square, cube, and roots. If I reverse the slide, I can also do trig functions. It also has cm and inches along the edges.

For more complex calculations (e.g. compound interest), I have some more complex rules with log-log scales, but I don't use them regularly.