Yes it does serve a purpose. By choosing to release all info and never redacting then at some level they shield themselves from claims of bribery or bias. What happens if Sony and WB both have information leaks, WB makes a 10M donation to Wikileaks to redact info and Sony doesn't.

I'm not arguing they should or shouldn't redact but strict rules of always releasing all information they receive does serve a purpose.

Lastly nobody forces anybody to read any of it.

Maybe we could put China on double secret probation.

It's pretty painfully obvious if you look at the actual data that this is just a registration error. If you go to the actual site with the statistics http://www.carolinatransparenc... you see a nice predictable distribution by age with a large spike at 112 years of age. This is for the 2012 election so clearly a number of people had their birth date entered as 1900 (probably just 00 and borked Y2K software but meh).

You see the same thing in 2010 http://www.carolinatransparenc... where all the voters happened to be 110 and in 2008 where they were all 2008 http://www.carolinatransparenc....

If you look at the 2014 election results you can see those errors were corrected and there is no longer any such spike. Every precinct in the US is going to have this type of error.

This isn't voter fraud this is imperfect data entry on registration rolls.

Ahh, yeah that makes much more sense and I agree.

I just dug out my marriage license, don't see anything in there about me having to ask my spouse permission to leave.

Maybe it was just a poor choice of words or maybe you really do think one party gets a veto over the other party going off somewhere.

That's nice and all but when can we get the NCIS version. I've been watching their weekly documentary and they have some damned impressive software.

Hey, leave Thor out of this. Sure those other guys can take a leap but don't talk ill about Thor.

The Dept of Education budget was 67.3B last year, your 68.4B number is for 2 years. The projected cost is 34.2B/year so it's roughly half the Department of Education budget. Whether that's a good or bad thing is a different debate.

I blame all the pinko commie anti-capitalists.

There's a huge difference between rationally discussing the solution to a problem and ignoring the existence of a problem. Both result in a solution, one by abdicating the ability to affect the outcome.

The sooner the world starts having serious political and social debates about what (if anything) should be done we'll be better off. Until then we're stuck with a lot of finger in ear lalalalalalalalalalalalalala'ing the issues.

I *believe* you have that backwards. The evidence supports MMGW, you *believe* that to be a myth. If you have any facts by all means share them. I suspect what you have are some number of people whose specialty is not climatology saying they don't believe in MMGW.

Ha, haha, hahahaha.

Well this atheist wishes you both irrelevance, though if he's going to be relevant I'd prefer his brand.

On a side note why is it whenever I read posts like the above, when I click on them, I can be absolutely certain the poster is none other than Mr AC.

Too bad most folks aren't aware of that. If people understood where the word came from they might have a better understanding of what it means to be privileged.

Good lord how is this modded insightful, it's the exact opposite of insightful unless what the modders are saying is the learned something about the OP's character.

First off it's another one of these "I know nothing about the topic but am going to belittle the science" posts. Secondly low pressure has nothing to do with it. As the article stated there was no environmental changes (pressure, wind etc) at the nesting site the day before. The theory is the birds are sensitive to the very low frequency rumblings of tornadoes hundreds of miles away the day before the storm front arrived. Granted that's just a theory but nowhere does pressure gradient enter into it.

They could, but they won't. The slashdot lawn is now thoroughly trampled.