No, in this case, we just laugh at you. You're too obnoxious to ignore.

Nobody wins in this game.

Large apex predators change their environment. Change the numbers of the apex predators and the environment changes.

- So far, so good. Ecology 101.

"Engineers of the ocean" - now we're starting to anthropomorphize. Engineering, at least in the classic sense of human engineering, is a directed, (generally) intelligent effort to change the environment. Now, cetaceans are very likely intelligent (at least smarter than the average Internet user by all accounts), but the TFS doesn't give any indications that the whales are doing this purposely to change things, they're just being apex predators.

Grrr. I hate stuff like this. Perhaps the paywalled article is better, but TFS does not impress.

I see you've not been over to YouTube recently.

Gun control is using two hands. If you hit the target with your 9mm, neither the bullet nor the target are going anywhere.

Though we both agree that a .223 is pretty useless. Overkill for short range defense against humans, woefully underpowered for Zombie attacks. It's really the 12 gauge shotgun that is your friend - safe, accurate (well, you don't need to be really accurate), effective.

I'll bet you're fun at parties.

Oh. Wait.

Perhaps as pure as snow falling from the skies in Bejing. Both the Atlas and Delta systems are based on old military hardware. The Shuttle was partly Air Force. And since the United Space Alliance (USA! USA!) is Boeing and Lockheed which, together, form a substantial part of the Military Industrial Complex, the difference between 'civilian' and military is basically the paint job.

You might want to 'buff up' your humor detector. Appears to be a bit rusty.

Speaking of reading disabilities ... did you catch the part where the Wichita plants uses your darling Union workers?

I think you meant to say 'lower water content'. Alcohol is an azeotrope and is hard to get past 95% purity. Once you do, and you open it to air, poof, the water gets absorbed into the alcohol and you're back where you started from. Pretty expensive stuff.

That stuff is pretty amazing. I have a number of bits of aluminum plate and extrusions scrounged from the Reserve Property Center (Where Boeing sold surplus parts and equipment including entire landing gear assemblies - it was a fantastic place to stagger around and become delusional about what you could build. Unfortunately, the MBAs shut it down a number of years ago. Very, very sad. )

Anyway. the coating withstands scratching, denting, bending and pretty much everything short of a TIG welder. I wish there were ways to get that coating applied in one off numbers for various home projects.

tl;dr

According to TFA, Nature did run it through a similar database. No obvious plagiarism was found. It turned out that the journal she originally published in was not in the database. There are one hell of a lot of journals out there.

Exactly. This.

The road to scientist's Hell is paved with journal articles that eventually have been shown to be incorrect. Just because it's published doesn't mean it's gospel. It is Science after all, not religion - even if half of Slashdot seems to think they're one in the same.

And the end result of this is that Nature, along with other high profile journals, will continue to improve the peer review system. Just like they taught us in Science School. Experiment, look at results, repeat....

Furthermore, peer review isn't all that 'vaunted' - we've known for a long time that bad science gets through peer review. It's just one semi-convenient method of screening. The ultimate screening tool is repeating the experiment. That isn't practical in many cases. Although in this case, it should really have come to mind since Nature had recently asked another researcher to do just that for a less 'extraordinary' result.

Like the American, Vacanti, who started the whole thing.