If you are so helpful, I will ask about something that has bothered me for a while:
Most of the CFC was produced in the northern hemisphere. Assuming the weather systems of both hemispheres are pretty much separated, why is it that there is a much bigger ozone hole over the southern pole than over the northern pole? I would assume the reverse would be true.

To all the anti-deniers: I don't doubt the fact that CFC caused the ozone hole. It is just that this is a small issue I would like to understand more clearly. If you can't give me a straight answer w/o using curse words, I would ask you to refrain from answering. Thanks!

You should be modded -1 Factual or -1 On-topic :)

Oblig: Google is Evil.

Glad to be of service.

If you'd read the link I posted, you'd see that fasting blood glucose above 130 is abnormal, even for a pregnant woman. Yes, pregnancy causes an insulin-resistant state (in all pregnant women) that probably is meant to ensure enough glucose for the fetus, but combined with a natural tendency for type 2 Diabetes, you can get Gestational Diabetes. And conversely, a pregnant woman who has GDM, probably has a natural tendency for Diabetes, and thus has a higher chance to have Diabetes later on in her life.

I didn't say that getting pregnant makes women more liable to having Diabetes. The thinking today is that women who are prone to Diabetes, may have it unmasked (as gestational diabetes - GDM) during pregnancy due to the hormonal changes in pregnancy and the pregnancy-induced insulin-resistance state.

Of course not, first line treatment for Diabetes is lifestyle changes: Proper diet, weight-loss and regular exercise. Only after failure of these measures do you recommend drug treatment (usually oral drugs, and only later Insulin and other drugs given by injection). The benefit of classifying the patient as having Diabetes, is that there is a better chance of her conforming to the lifestyle recommendations.
If you tell some one that he may have a disease, he will not necessarily listen to your recommendations. However, if you tell him that he has Diabetes and that if he doesn't lose weight he will have to start taking drugs or risk a heart attack, there is a greater chance that he will do something about his weight and diet. Just look at all the people who stopped smoking after having their first heart attack. Nothing like a nice slap in the face (metaphorically speaking) to make someone wake up and smell the coffee.

It's called Gestational Diabetes, and if they have it, they have a greater chance of having Type II Diabetes later on in their life.

Well, it all depends on the disease/condition. Gout is a disease diagnosed by certain symptoms. Having those symptoms w/o high uric acid is still regarded as gout, while high UA w/o those symptoms does not merit treatment. However, there are diseases that are defined by lab results, and not because we are looking for extra patients but because early recognition and treatment can prevent morbidity and mortality. For example, Diabetes is defined as fasting glucose above 126. The reason is that people who have a higher fasting glucose level have a greater chance of complications (heart attack, stroke, kidney trouble, vision loss, etc.). Early treatment may prevent these complications. The same is true for hypertension and other diseases.
Another issue, is screening for diseases before they erupt, for example, mammography for breast cancer. Yes, breast cancer screening may save only 1 life in 1000 over 10 years. However, many other women will be diagnosed earlier and thus may need smaller surgery (for example Lumpectomy. which preserves the breast vs. Mastectomy, which removes the entire breast) and less systemic treatment (i.e. chemotherapy and radiotherapy). On the other hand, some women will have false positive results and the cost and suffering of doing a work up for a benign breast mass should be taken into account when suggesting a screening procedure. This is part of the reason why there is an argument about the age above which to recommend mammography for women (40 vs. 50 years old).
Regarding the cost-benefit ratio, saying that a drug saves only 1 life in 100 is misleading. What is the cost of giving 100 people cholesterol-lowering drugs? Most of these drugs cost pennies and their side-effects are, usually, negligible.
Yes, thresholds for treatment are being lowered. Sometimes because of bad reasons, such as covering your ass from malpractice suits and industry lobbying, but most of the time it is due to greater understanding of disease (esp. the early stages of diseases) and better and safer medications.

So hotel A calculates the cost of a room as X. They price it set at X + 10% (or whatever you want). After 2 months of operation they find out that (some) people steal towels and thus the cost of the room goes up to Y (Y > X). The price is now Y + 10%. Guess what? You steal a towel, everyone pays more! Thanks Clint.

In the civilized world you pay for a product/service, with the terms of the service clear in advance. Neither party can change the terms, because they feel like it*. The hotel cannot suddenly change the price mid-stay, and you cannot add perks at-will. Not all hotels give you the same terms: Some have free Wi-Fi; some charge you $9.99/d. Some have breakfast included; some don't. It doesn't matter. What does matter is that once you agree to the terms, you cannot decide that you can take a towel because you deserve it/the hotel can afford it/you are doing them a favor with free publicity/whatever other great excuse you can make up.
Taking a towel without permission is stealing. Stealing is wrong. If everyone were to do it, modern society would cease to exist (and no, I am not overdramatizing).

* Example: Sony removing the OtherOS feature was Bad. Why? it was part of the advertised features of the product. People paid to have it and they removed it with no compensation.

How the hell do you know that?

Assuming the regular traveler doesn't heat the towels in the microwave, how is what they are doing count as "ridiculous fraudulent charges"? They had 4,000 towels stolen a month. Now they use a system of towel check-ins so they can track them* and prevent theft. If you rent a movie (if you still do such things) and you don't return it, is asking you to pay for it a "fraudulent charge"?
I mean, it's great to rant about "Corporate America" fucking the "Average Joe", but face it, this isn't one of those cases.

P.S. if you've never stolen a towel in your life, you should be even happier about this system. More stolen towels mean higher maintenance charges for the hotel, which in the end means a higher bill for everyone. In the end everyone pays for the towels some of the people stole.

* And like some people noted on this thread, since this is a passive RFID chip, it cannot be used to track you. So don't start with the privacy rant also. kthxbye.

And why is the summery so roundabout?

So we have $40 million + $ 7 million. And of the $47million, $40 million were collected. Very informative!

No, but at least they won't attack it; they will just be indifferent, just like they are to all the other science going on in the world.

It's even worse: some religious nuts are against the LHC, because they think that the point of finding the Higgs boson is to prove/disprove the existence of God (hence, "The God particle"). It's stupid and shifts the spotlight from the actual cool science they are doing.