The Big Bang wasn't an explosion; it was a rapid expansion of all space. There is no center.

Uh no, the Big Bang explains the ratios of hydrogen, helium and lithium in the observable universe. All the other elements were created when the first stars went supernova. That is rather the point of the nucleosynthesis line of evidence.

Perhaps what should dog her is the fact that thus far, she has failed utterly. Not that I blame her. She was handed a steaming pile of shit, so the odds were always low.

Yahoo has about as much reason to exist as Blackberry. Both are dinosaurs of a previous age.

It remains the case that either my original statement is true, meaning a counter-example for the reliability of fact-based ranking has been identified, or my original statement is false, in which case the statement itself becomes a counter-example because it is widely repeated but incorrect.

Any energy source that does not burn fossil fuels is for pinko commies, and the people designing and building them should immediately be taken out and shot! We must only use oil, coal and natural gas, and we should have a law that allows for summary execution of anyone who brings up wind, solar, AGW, or science. After all, we know God fucking hates greenies and wants us to kill all of them!

Fuck everyone who believes spewing CO2 into the atmosphere isn't a good, nay, incredibly great and healthy thing! We should kill all the climatologists right fucking now!!!!!

I'd say more, but I'm at risk of drowning in my own spittle.

Which doesn't explain why there is little or no chemistry between the actors, why an Englishman was cast as a character of Indian descent, why the cinematography makes it look like they were filmed by a twelve year old with a ten year old digital camera, and why, in general, the plots of both movies, where they are comprehensible at all, are daft and simplistic.

I watched all three completed Star Trek Continues series, and have to say, despite what are considerably smaller budgets, and by and large unknown actors, have done what Abrams and the big studios, with huge resources, have not, and that is to actually capture the spirit of Star Trek.

My point is only that Google will rank conclusions for "truth" as well as more objective facts.

The only TNG movie I ever thought that was worth a damn was Insurrection, which really played more like a two-parter from the series. I agree with the others, in particular Nemesis.

Well, we certainly can't expect to go to Star Trek to see something deep anymore. But really, it is a generic action flick.

The super-duper Transporter is definitely the reboot franchise's midichloreans.

Frankly, I can't even be sure what the plot of the first movie was. There was this big fucking ship that screwed up the space-time continuum, so Kirk was a mean brat who turned out alright, except for cheating on the Kobiashi Maru test, which now earns him a big spanking, as opposed to the commendation in the other time line. And then blowing up Vulcan, Nimoy's Spock telling Kirk that the pointy-eared prick who has been trying to fuck him over is really his bestest buddy, and then big battle scenes and Enterprise wins. Yay!

My impression of both films was a mindless action film with a Star Trek pastiche shoved on top. Just a lot of incredibly short shots, pointless dialog that served only to push the ponderous plots on, and very little beyond a skim of "Trekiness" that would suggest I was watching Star Trek.

My wife and I finally got down to watching fanfic Star Trek Continues series. Now THAT'S Star Trek. I wish someone would give these guys the tens of millions of dollars it took to make Abram's abortions. They could bring in Karl Urban, because the McCoys they've had so far are iffy (who would have known Bones would have been the hardest character to find a new actor for).

Most people would be call the conclusion people are drawing from the settlement rate also a fact.

Of course we have. The response was deliberately paradoxical. Think about it.

Erm... It was intended to be ironic. Well, paradoxical, technically. Compare my final sentence

with the classic "This statement is false".

If my statement were true, it would illustrate a problem with Google's proposal.

But as my statement is false, it is itself a demonstration of the problem, because it perpetuates a myth sufficiently popular that it even has its own Wikipedia page. I was a little surprised that I couldn't also find it on Snopes.

Anyway, it's disappointing that no-one seems to have noticed that. Were none of you even a little suspicious about a post that in one paragraph said "Just because something gets repeated a lot, that doesn't make it factually correct" and then repeated one of the most popular myths there is? Really?

Ah, yes, an excellent follow-up, presented with great subtlety: any writing that makes its point through hyperbole, analogy, figurative imagery, or indeed any other style that isn't literally, objectively, factually, 100% correct could also suffer. Well played, fellow Slashdotter.