I really don't see any reference in the article to consideration of the possibility that these meteors might be terrestrial in origin - blasted into space from Earth's crust by a large impactor, and eventually re-entering, to be discovered and found bearing remnants of terrestrial bacteria.

Nothing in the paper is inconsistent with that hypothesis. All of the attention in the article devoted to possible sources in comets, asteroids, Jovian moons, and the Kuiper Belt, but no consideration given to the closest source of organic materials - the earth itself.

Sounds like a severe case of confirmation bias...

That was only the first part. This was the second, involving 222 High School students:

"The second experiment took the lab findings to the field to test. Two hundred and twenty-two high school students in Chesterland, Ohio were assigned material in easy and difficult fonts across subjects and grades on a randomized basis. The classes included history, English, physics, and chemistry, and ran the gamut of difficulty from normal to honors to AP courses. The measure was normal classroom tests. The findings were similar to the Princeton study: kids reading material in hard to read fonts did better on regular classroom assessment tests than did their randomly selected counterparts reading the same material in easy to read fonts."

A summary of the study is here: http://wws.princeton.edu/news/DOppenheimer_Font/DOppenheimer_DisfluencySummary.pdf

Yet, the human eye has limits its own limits. Beyond a certain display pixel density, the additional detail is not perceivable by the human and therefore cannot result in a performance improvement.

And legibility is not the same as retention. If you're designing a display for an aircraft, for example, that must convey a limited amount of information clearly and quickly, a highly legible display is essential.

If you are presenting information for storage and later recall, it makes sense that the more your brain is engaged in the processing of the information, the more retention you will exhibit.

Here is a link to the summary of the research:

http://wws.princeton.edu/news/DOppenheimer_Font/DOppenheimer_DisfluencySummary.pdf

Yet the news report linked in the post is largely a continuous video loop of a Predator UAV in flight, while, as you note correctly, the Miami-Dade PD has acquired a Honeywell T-Hawk, a Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) with a 14 lb dry weight. Completely different vehicles from what is suggested by the news story.

These MAVs have been proven to be helpful for small-unit tactics in Iraq and Afghanistan, and may prove effective in SWAT operations. This is not a pervasive surveillance technology, it is a tactical aid.

The Miami-Dade PD already operates helicopters with surveillance capability, as do most large police departments.

The main news here is the use of a MAV by a Police Department. It's my belief that the FAA will take a hands off approach, as this is much more akin to a hobbyist's Radio-Controlled helicopter than a Predator UAV. This MAV will not mix with air traffic. It may be "capable" of flights to 10,000 feet, but I am sure its 1-lb camera system is pretty useless at that altitude above ground level. That spec is probably in there to allow it to be used in high-density altitude locations such as mountainous or high desert areas. This is meant to provide an aerial view of rooftops, walled compounds and areas not easily accessible from the ground.

In some ways I blame the Miami-Dade PD for not being very clear in their public relations, to speak to the press and not make clear that this tech cannot be mistaken for a Predator-type UAV.

Although Long Island is separated from the continental US by a bridge, Plum Island has no bridge at all, and is served by a ferry from Long Island.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=plum+island,+ny&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&ll=41.178719,-72.188673&spn=0.033657,0.06978&t=h&z=14&iwloc=A

There's also an argument to be made that a facility on an island is easier to secure.