Here is one of the authors' home page. Here is the actual paper.

From the discussion section at the end (emphasis mine):

Contrast this with TFA:

I hate it when this happens, makes people dumb.

Turn off every sig

You may be interested in this piece by an American expat in Amsterdam about paying Dutch taxes
(if you can be bothered to login to nytimes)

I live in Amsterdam. I feel extremely safe. Most people here shrug when one criminal shoots another, as long as no innocent people are involved.

Most criminal activity is probably drug-related, but that's because hard drugs like cocaine are still illegal, and handling large quantities of marijuana, necessary if you want to make a business selling it semi-legally, is as well. International treaties and pressure prevent legalization and thereby decriminalization.

Oh, and another thing: crime rates are higher in big city, is that surprising?

To parent and sibling above:
There's usually a link to a news or scientific article somewhere. Here's a poster personally drawing conclusions as "ridiculously low yields", what good does that do? So I disagree: this is not news.

What is this doing on the front page?

The summary links to a report on an experimental setup. The poster draws his unverifiable conclusions. On Wikipedia we would say "no original research, please".

The costs are obviously high, as these are still in developmental stage. Most of the turbines performed below the expected yield, but for example the "Skystream", which was one of the cheaper models, output 2109 kWh, where 1360 kWh were expected. The test can easily be claimed to show this was a success.

English is indeed not my native language, but still I think scientists working in evolutionary biology would not refer to themselves as "believing in evolution".

I'm curious, if you think "believe" means "to think without evidence", what would you put in "Scientists __________ in evolution"? Or do you not have a word that encapsulates the concept of "see it confirmed over and over again, so accept it as a very good theory."?

Actually, I would say yes to this, because "believing" can imply so many other things (these days?).

Actually, GP was spot on.

Scientists don't believe in evolution, they see it confirmed over and over again, so accept it as a very good theory. Therefore religion is not an alternative for evolution, it's a whole different game.

Nobody will oppose that "there are particles", but what a particle actually is, no one can really say.

I work in quantum physics, and to me, an electron is just a bunch of so-called quantum numbers, such as mass, electric charge etc.

The book is amazingly good, concise and explanatory.

Wasn't there a case when the RIAA downloaded something, tried to sue, but it failed, as they (RIAA) effectively owned the copyright to what they were downloading, so neither of the parties were infringing on anything?