Repeating yourself doesn't make your right. Assuming Uber works the same way in Aus that it does in London all their drivers and vehicles are required to be licensed by the local authorities. Typically this will include more stringent driving checks, criminal records checks, road-worthiness checks, proof of the appropriate professional insurance and so on. See here (sorry, stupid website - can't permalink). Now maybe Uber works differently in Australia, but I don't see why they would. Come back with some evidence, and I'll listen.

People keep saying this, yet I've never seen any evidence it's true. In fact, on the contrary, here in the UK at least, Uber are licensed like any other private hire company. Not to mention the fact that, just about everywhere, running a business without appropriate liability insurance is illegal (and stupid) anyway.

Actually David Attenborough graduated from Cambridge with a degree in natural sciences (specialising in geology and zoology). And, actually, I think that he makes for a far better model of science communicator than these modern loud mouths/wannabe philosophers.

When that happens I'm out of here. I'll go and find a country worth living in.

Except, unlike with guns, the internet is multinational and there's no reason to believe that the government is going to (or even can) force foreign companies with no UK offices to comply. So unlike guns, even if it's illegal, just about every innocent person will continue to use strong encryption (TLS with PFS, for example) on a daily basis - potentially without even realising it.

The terrorists have no problem with breaking the law to kill and murder people on kamikaze missions... but I'm sure they're nice reasonable people who will stop using encryption if we make it illegal.

Actually the "one another" is correct. https://english.stackexchange....

I saw this. What kind of crazy squirrels does America have that can digest glass? Seriously, I can't imagine it does their insides any good!

*insert high fibre diet joke here*

Sorry, here's the full text link: http://rdcu.be/bUz8

Oh, and the actual study in question had nothing to do with the Kuna people. I don't know whether the /. submitter or the CBC journalist got that wrong, though.

It's hard to judge how good the research was because neither tfs nor any of the 3 tfas actually linked to the research paper.

And I don't think you read my comment either. I never said the work was rigorous, I said there's no allegations that the research was non-rigorous or of any other improper practice (emphasis added). I was responding to the AC who seemed to think that the source of funding magically altered the quality of the research without providing any evidence. And you haven't refuted me just by disagreeing.

I'm going to go ahead and assume you have no idea how science works. For starters researching natural products, as these scientists did, is a very fertile starting ground when searching for a "cure for cancer". Unfortunately you seem to have bought into the myth that only big glamorous research is valuable, ignoring the facts that, by definition, we don't know what the outcome of research will be until we do it and that most glamorous research will probably mostly involve work that looks "mediocre" in value to you.

I love the idea that this somehow invalidates the research. The researchers investigated what they could get funding to investigate, there's no allegations that the research was non-rigorous or of any other improper practice. Presumably the results are valid and therefore valuable. Further, presumably this research wouldn't have been done otherwise so we've got some additional research we wouldn't have done otherwise. So what if it supports someone's interests? We all benefit because now we know more about the world around us and what is, and isn't, good for our bodies. Now go and take your ad hominems elsewhere.

You know, I can imagine someone saying something similar to this to the Wright brothers. Just give the scientists, engineers and time the ability to work their magic and there's every chance someone will be able to turn it into a viable business.

Second time in a day I've re-read a post I was replying to and realise I missed the point of the parent. No more /. for me until I've properly woken up in the mornings!