The very problem the original author Eschenbach describes, is what the Economist author ( also of unknown background, there's no evidence to assume related statistics expertise ) considers a feature. Given the supposed problems with the temperature record at Darwin, some scientist used a 'statistical tool' to 'homogenize' it. The result became the mirror image of the actual raw data. The yardstick by which the 'homogenized' data was validated was also homogenized data that we now know was 'fixed' using several 'tricks' that an anonymous contributor described as 'botch after botch after botch'.

Further, it's surprising to describe 'cherry picking' in a contributor's work without mentioning, at least contrasting against, the recent Briffa controversy wherein the history of global climate was measured by three trees in an entire valley in Siberia. Maybe it was valid, but if so why did Briffa suppress the source data for a decade?

Since the obvious trend in the Darwin data is a cooling trend, the question remains, what changes to the screen or siting produce /consistent/ cooling even as global temperatures are supposed to be rising? This is supposed to be the hottest October in record so the raw data should illustrate that somehow.

The Economist author also appears to miss the controversial disclosures regarding peer review. With a collection of scientists working to change who reviews peers, who accepts papers, and even redefining what 'peer review' itself is supposed to mean, the final appeal to authority near the end of the piece undermines his thesis by grabbing for a rhetorical stanchion that has rusted through.

One of the best written SciFi series was Babylon 5. Since the Producer was also the Writer for much of the series and the Director (IIRC) I'm pretty sure the network got a package deal ( reduced cost, I'm sure JMS got paid for each role he served in ).

The crux of the question remains, after several years, how do you define /reasonable/ not whether a search warrant was obtained. In most criminal cases a warrant must be obtained first. In international domains where national security is involved, warrants have been the exception generally, not the rule. It's generally considered /reasonable/ that people get their luggage checked when entering the country for example. No warrant necessary for customs or even TSA for domestic flights. Before you can say whether any search is illegal, unless you have settled case precedent at hand, you have to first describe why such a search is unreasonable.

I thought it was bad form or just plain dangerous to mess with Mother Gaia's design? Isn't modified plants against some natural law or something? What if pollen from these flowers drift into someone else's garden? Where's the boatload of decent, thinking, people ready to stamp out these horrors of science?

Fail. New /. system blows sometimes. Should have read:
That's nothing, try suggesting that Linux ISN'T ready for mass adoption as a desktop OS.

That's nothing, try suggesting that Linux is ready for mass adoption as a desktop OS.

I never worked for a company involved for gambling, but my father did. After many years working for a company that did security related work for slot machines, my father then moved to Intel. Largely to reduce time spent traveling IIRC. There should be no reason to be concerned. As mentioned elsewhere, the gambling industry has a high customer standard for security so it's more like a positive point to have experience there.

Sharing a computer is like sharing a toothbrush. Remind them that you're responsible, legally, for any malware or explicit material that accidentally pops up if they browse the web and the liability isn't worth it.

Point in the direction of the bookstore and say "student discount".

I worry less about the bloke traveling eighty in the fast lane than the guy going forty cutting through traffic. It's bad driving that causes accidents, not speed. Since you can't legislate or regulate driving skill beyond certain basics, do-gooders feel the need to chain down everyone.

It's senseless and no the government shouldn't feel responsible to keep me from killing myself through my own stupidity. Kill switches don't stop the road rage maniacs who have probably found a way around the system anyway, they stop the guy trying to get the hospital to save his friend's life or get his pregnant wife to the maternity ward.

There have always been huge holes in the asteroid theory. The vulcanism theory came out at the same time and matches evidence better, it even has correlation. All the asteroid theory has really is correlation: there's a layer of meteorite dust around the time of the dinosaur extinction, ergo a giant meteor killed the dinosaurs.

Unfortunately for the meteor theory, it was found that even such a huge dust cloud would not have killed off much of the eco-system, even taking the web of life into account. The dust from the meteor strike was too course to stay up in the atmosphere for long enough to kill off plant life by blocking sunlight or change the climate

To compensate for this, the theory was adjusted to suggest that the meteor strike set off world wide conflagrations sending up fine ash which would blot out the sun. This is, however a stretch. Combined with the fact that the mass extinction happened hundreds of thousands of years after the Chicxulub impact, the theory seems to be on shaky ground. Even supporters of the meteor theory recognize the problem and are looking for a better candidate impact.

It's been said that the Alverez's had done a better job at selling their theory than on developing it. Their actions in shouting down competing theories set off one of the biggest scientific feuds in modern history.

For a balanced view of the competing theories, check out this site.

There's NO such thing as an unregulated bank. There's no industry as regulated as banking is, not even food. The federal government has tried regulating banks to provide the american dream since Hoover and the more they meddle the more recessions we get.

It's our giant microwave cannon, er, emitting power station. Trust us, we would never point it at anyone....

Yes, the declaration of independence asserts all men are equal and enjoy certain inalienable rights. It doesn't enjoin the American govt to provide for the rights of non-citizens wherever they exist.

Likewise, no where do the documents suggest that the government is expected to protect the rights of enemies of the state at the expense of the citizenry.

At the time the Constitution was written, it was considered legal to shoot enemy spies caught on the battlefield or elsewhere with only a minimum of proceedings. If it was self evident the person was a spy, no trial was considered necessary.

Over the centuries nations agreed to certain rules, admitting explicitly that combatants and agents fell outside civil justice systems. Al Qaeda and their allies purposefully violate all of those rules to advance their goals.

This makes finding the balance between protecting citizens from it's enemies and protecting citizens from their government difficult. Labeling anyone who believes there is a difference between citizens and their enemies a 'problem' does not help anyone in striking that balance.

RTA, Obama said he was going to begin investigating closing the detainee camp at gitmo. This is a far cry from /actually/ ordering it /done/. If bush said this, you'd admit that it was a dodge.