Here's another tip: if it's not correct, you prove it in the field of science, not law.

Unless, of course, you can't. Then sue.
It's only certain kind of people who insist on science being decided on courtrooms. One name for them is "anti-science", because that's what it is, the very idea that if you disagree with a study, you can disprove it without science. Anti-science.

Erhm, one of the most prevalent argument against the "theory of Global Warming" is that it's completely based on models...

Which, of course, is bollocks. There is no theory of Global Warming, or Climate Change. There's theory (and physics model) of Earth's Climate, and climate change is what comes out of it when you add CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas).

As stated elsewhere in this thread, these models can do both projections and predictions, and apparently with a great skill, too. Which means that science works.

Corporations (in finance, mostly) have long used kind of reverse Voight-Kampff test to find sociopaths. Having ethics can hinder making money, you know.

It's not a buzzword, nor is it a holy grail.

It's just figuring out (fast) what treatment is the best for a specific individual with a specific condition.

For example, you take a sample of a persons tumor, and in a lab attack it simultanously with over 200 different treatment combinations. Find the most effective combination and report it to the doctor of the patient. Very likely the same cocktail of medication won't work (as efectively) on any other patient.
On a more general level, there are treatments that are completely uneffective when patient has certain genotype, so checking for that before starting the treatment would be smart move, too. Or the other way around, the treatment is effective only with certain genotype.

We don't need to know "why", we only need to couple a patient with treatment that works. We don't need large datasets, we need individual, or personalized, medication.

Well, it says that the projected increase is 8% for next year... wouldn't that be a sign of people wanting these thingamalings?

I gather all trees know how to use ample sunlight to survive and reproduce, the 'selection' happens when the daily/weekly/monthly dose of photons gets quite low.
So, no, I don't think it' s pure coincidence. Loosing the leafs may have more to do with freezing temperatures and no phosynthesis anyway.

Could you, please, also tell us what are the error bars in climate statistics between 1998-2005, and whether that allows us to define any trewns at all?
Also, could you try to make the same claim starting,say, from 1997, or 1999, just to show if your claim has any robustsness.
Or, perhpas, if you were just cherry picking and misusing the data... you wouldn't do that, would you?

No, no, no...

Money creates jobs, somehow. If we just pour enough of it to business, the business will eventually hire everybody. Forget all that pesky demand stuff, the ideology of greed and oppression presented as economic theory bypasses all the middlemen and makes it simple.

Magic hand, baby, magic hand.

If the whole point of the competition is to provide affordable services/products, but the competitions can't do those, what's the point of being pro-competition?

If the community can provide it, let them. The ISPs can still compete with speed, quality and added services if they want to. And being commercial, they're sure to be able to beat the social(ist) services hands down, without this kind of government regulation...

Oddly enough climate change is something that comes out of the physics models when you put in what we understand of the climate. It has nothing to do with correlation, it's pure mechanical causation. As it happens, the observations do confirm the model.

And it also happens, that the exact same people who were arguing against CFC -> Ozone hole causation and smoking -> lung cancer causation started arguing against climate change. They obviously can fool some of the people all of the time.

Oh, and the actual mechanism of how smoking causes lung cancer was partly revealed a few year back, but is still not completely understood.

The old article somehow forgot to mention, or emphasize, that coal burning power plants don't exactly emit the fly ash, but nowadays capture 99% of it.

The problems begin when it's not reused but stored in a badly designed landfill and leaks into the groundwater. After all, the things that form the fly ash are the things that are not coal, but impurites from the rock surrounding the original coal ore. So they're pretty much as radioactive as the very ground you're walking on.

Coal power has many problems, but radioactive waste is not one of them.

Both South Africa and China licenced 50's German design, that had commercialy failed miserably in the 1980's (when it run out of subsidies). South Africa spent 12 years and 1 billion dollars before finally dropping it last year as completely unfeasible.

China planned originally have their's running last year, but the current target is 2013, if ever.

Pebble Bed Reactors are uncontrollable, and run at much higher temperatures than 'regular' LWRs. They have to be cooled by gas, and hope that no oxygen gets into the reactor running several hundred degrees over the autoignition temperature of the graphite moderator.

BBMR is not modern design, nor is it a viable design: even if all issues were solved and it could produce above the 10 MW of the only working PBMR ever made, it would never produce more than 100 MW per unit, so it would be around 10 times more expensive that current nuclear constructions. Remember, it's not the running of reactor that costs, but comissioning and decomissioning -- Germans estimate it takes 100 years to decomission the only working one!

It was not, repeat not, 9 at Fukushima. I can't find the power dissipation map anywhere, but with (bad) luck it was somewhere sixish (?).
Nowdays TEPCO is probably saying that the tsunami was ove 30 meters high when it hit the pwoer plant, with way it has been raising since the catastrophe...
But the main point is, that after the earthquake and tsunami, the damn energy generators were running for over an hour. So they were not damaged by the events. They failed on their own! Like huge diesel engines that have been neglected for a long time -- they start, in short order burn trough their piston rings and die.
Everything happened because a power plant was left without power! That's what nuclear engineers call safe nowadays?

Come on, guys, fezz up: if a reactor is left without cooling for any* reason for a relatively short time (years, if we look at the spent fuel rods), it will be a bad thing. Any kind of reactor. They are not 'safe', and never will be. Admit that, and we can start discussing the future of nuclear power.

Like the pebble bed fiasco, or the travelling wave wet dream.

Btw, did you know what the quake-tsunami double blow did to Japan's wind power farms? Nothing. They're now madly milling electricity out of the thin air to cover all the nuclear that disappeared from the grid...

But now, according to this judge, Apple is not infringing, so there's nothing for the Apple to license, and thus nothing for Nokia to demand as payment!
And here we were thinking it was obvious Apple was using technology covered by Nokia's patents, it was just a question of fair licensing fees...