Computers, iPads, iPhones, cell phones, iPods, you name it. Anything that gets in the way of learning stuff.

We want to make this the most distracted, empty-headed generation ever, don't we?

I am in favour if they are testing for spelling and grammar.

Otherwise, not so much.

The former.

And of course, you are just assuming these craft are secret from, say, the American government. Or even that this in fact is not an American test. And why do you think they can travel the "stellar" system? I thought nuclear bunkers were at issue here.

You just make the latter seem simple to form some ill-conceived reductio ad absurdum.

Anyway I don't buy the story, period (which is why I said "if"). I was just saying that the alien angle is not part of the official story.

UFO means unidentified flying object. The article makes no reference to aliens.

You'd think a slashdot summary would recognize such a distinction. This is not the National Inquirer.

If there were bogeys, they were almost certainly terrestrial.

As a non-physicist, I am trying to wrap my head around the article. Glad it was short!

With the presupposition that verything is caused, meaning everything is an effect, does this further mean that the LHR can sub-atomically trace back the chain of causality to the prime efficient cause (taking the Big Bang to be a causa sui)?

This is no troll - I am not trying to smuggle in any cosmological proofs for God. What I want to know is whether this provisional result is possibly a trace of the big bang itself, or a recreation of the conditions. Or, perhaps, if recreating the conditions is identical to witnessing it.

Hope my post is not nonsensical.

I thought so to, but since I see E. Michael Jones's name on the poster, I am sure it's not.

This is precisely his kind of topic.

Dude, you posted that 40 minutes after my comment. I guess time-travel should be part of my skill set?

Moreover, your revised point is the same as the article: MS is changing its tune (even if merely opportunistically), and yet you claim that the article gets its history wrong ...