Sure, but what does that have to do with law enforcement? They're not the "car enthusiast revenge squad."

Are you suggesting the police pursuit DIDN'T cause him to drive over 100 mph? Because I think the police chase still motivated him to drive that fast. Even if they pulled off at the end, that still doesn't explain why they had to do it in the first place. There was no threat of violence here except for the reckless driving that predictably occurs during a high-speed chase.

I'm imagining the guy who designed the Ford Pinto reading this and getting very excited. "When I point that out, they're SURE to give me my job back! So long dry cat food for dinner, hellooo purina select!"

I would love it if Obama or congress would "fix" the NSA but that will never happen. They just don't seem to have the balls for it.

That's true for large clinical trials, but clinical trials aren't all or even most research. For basic research like what this journal seems to publish on, no. It's rare that you'd have an experiment which would take months, let alone 5 years, and it would only be at the very end that you'd get a yes or a no.

For example, a study in that journal is entitled "Predicting blast-induced ground vibration using general regression neural network." The abstract is

Emphasis mine: they're testing if they can predict how the ground will shake after an explosion.

They're not going to spend five years dreaming up a model for it completely on a dry-erase board, set off a stick of dynamite, realize they were wrong, and throw out five years of work. They get preliminary results that are positive and encourage the project to go forward. They make up a model based on data, then refine it with subsequent bombs. If one were completely unable to use the method they propose to figure out how the ground shakes during explosions, they'd likely find that out before months had gone by.

I don't know what the breakdown is between clinical trials and basic research. I'd bet there's more research money spent on clinical trials than basic research (necessary, given certain realities about clinical trials) but that there are more scientists in basic research. So I'd bet that most research out there is actually not really affected a whole lot by the negative results issue: if you get a negative result, you get it before you commit yourself to it, and you move your reserarch in a different direction.

I'd argue that a lot of scientists are actually paid to bring in grants, teach, and publish. It's just a lucky coinicidence that doing science is helpful to at least two of those goals.

That was basically my impression as it seemed that auditing a college student with a small income filing form 1040EZ wouldn't net much of anything even if I did screw it up. I would dread having an audit now given how complex my taxes have become, even with tax software it takes a good 6 hours.

The initial finding of "baby cured of HIV" was surprising for the reasons you just mentioned. You're suggesting the story shouldn't be updated because it's not surprising? Well, unfortunately, you'll get your wish. I'm pretty sure people will forget this "Nevermind, no miracle after all" and will use the initial story as a reason to go off their meds.

From this blog post it sounds like the mother taking her off the drugs was what prompted the initial finding: the doctors would have been unethical to tell someone to take their HIV + kid off antivirals because there's a chance they may have killed all the viruses.

As far as why, the cocktail isn't super convenient. It's a bunch of pills taken throughout the day. Getting a toddler to take multiple pills a day every day is probably a very frustrating thing. I'd imagine the mother (who didn't have any prenatal care and didn't realize she was HIV positive until after birth) doesn't have the best health insurance, so the out of pocket expenses probably really quickly added up.

I mean, that's obviously all small potatoes compared to developing drug-resistant HIV and full blown AIDS and dying. Not excusing her actions, just saying it's understandable.

While that's true, google seems to be fostering innovation by simply buying up any newcomer that does anything interesting and new. If patents were changed, google would obviously meddle quite a bit in how the laws were drafted, and we could see google start to copy innovative stuff people were doing in their garage rather than simply buying them.

I'm not convinced it's a reasonable enough worry to say "lets not overhaul patents" though.

So you admit you are ignorant of the art of the day. BASIC was never intended for working code. This is given in the first word of the acronym: "Beginners"

You'd at least capitalize it as "Vrije Universiteit", because it's a proper noun* and those are capitalized (in either English or Dutch).

*Not just a free university, but the Free University.

And Liberty University is already taken.

Liberty University is called that instead of "Free University" because it is neither free-as-in-beer nor free-as-in-speech. It teaches the religion of Capitalism and the legal principles of the Bible.

"Rocks for Jocks"

No, the article itself mentions the impact difference between the two sides should be less than 1%.

The near side had much more surface in a liquid state during and after many of the impacts. The article claims heat from the Earth was the cause.