Dude what color is the sky in your world?

Here is a good place to start but it is incomplete:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Water_memory

It does not really recount everything or consider all the repeated experiments since then.

In a nutshell.
A paper was published around 1980 in the Journal Nature using the standard chemistry testing protocols still in use today that suggested that water had some form of memory.
The experiments were meant to disprove homeopathy, but suggested that it may in fact be the real deal. (I have no opinions on homeopathy)
The experiment had been recreated around the world resulting in the same data.
The editor in charge of the magazine wanted the experiments rerun with Randi controlling the protocols.
Remember Randi is not a PHD or a chemist.

Randi came up with a new chemistry protocol where no one person knew what they were doing with what samples. Basically it was a completely blind testing protocol, and there have been a few TV shows on this and it was on 60 minutes and NOVA too.
Now they never ran Statistical error analysis on the new protocol so no knew what the error ratereally was.
The experiment came up inconclusive and could not prove that water had memory.

But the cool thing is this that both experiments have been recreated using both protocols several times and came up with the same data results.
Standard protocol’s says water has memory, and Randi’s protocol was inconclusive suggesting that water does not have memory.
Also Randi’s protocol has only been used to recreate this experiment.
So all other chemistry experiments still use the standard protocols today.

So my beef with Randi is that he butted in to a science lab experiment and never followed up with why the data was different and repeatable.
Although these experiments have been repeated a lot since then research in to why was dropped because of the journal bringing in Randi.

My belief is:
The data would suggest that test results are subjective much like the physic experiments done in Princeton Engineering Labs and may give us additional clues towards solving some Quantum Mechanics and M theory unresolved issues.
Then again it could just bring up more interesting questions.

Dude can you miss my point any more?

I realize a lot of people don’t like to read.
So I will repost this for you and make it easy for you.

And the one time he stumbled in to something interesting with the case against Water Memory he created a perfectly blind study without taking in the error factor.
Then did not follow up to find out why the two studies differed and were both repeatable getting the same data along the two different testing technics.

Funny I never thought the use of dousing would work with my scripts, or software/hardware issues.
That is being a Computer engineer and all.

Why yes I do and there are way too many to jot down here.
Just check everything out he does claiming to be a skeptic.
All he does is recreate an event or phenomena and then make an unsubstantiated claim that it was done that way without actually proving it was done that way. (Sorry I want the smoking gun)
All he does is cause doubt and never follows up to prove his point.

And the one time he stumbled in to something interesting with the case against Water Memory he created a perfectly blind study without taking in the error factor.
Then did not follow up to find out why the two studies differed and were both repeatable getting the same data along the two different testing technics.

So think of him as a guy that creates a device on paper that looks like it would logically work, and then sells it to people without ever knowing if it will really work or not. (A coder that never tests his code)
It might work and then again it might not, but when he is done it is no longer his problem and proclaims himself a genius based on his half completed work.

Then again “skeptics” thought the earth was flat because maps were flat and that is all the proof they needed.
That is why I consider skeptics to be just another type of religious zealot.
Because in science you should have both an open curious mind and a skeptical questioning mind too.

I am sorry but the amazing Randi is just another Con Man Media Whore looking for a paycheck.
Let’s face it he has never really disproved a thing, or even followed up his own research that he started.
Now if he ever followed up anything he started that would really be amazing!

I have to agree
All you should have is a joint checking account for house hold bills, and maybe a joint savings account for vacations.
There is no need to combine everything in a long term relationship unfortunately I learned the hard way after two marriages and two divorces.
Currently I have no joint accounts with my current girlfriend/partner/house mate of 9 years.

As far as the computers go, yours is yours, and hers is hers, and she should be able to have copies of any of her data on your servers.

Let us count the ways of epic failure:
1. Follows enemy combatants instead of friendly soldiers
2. Takes orders from enemy combatants.
3. Makes enough noise to be heard at least a klick away.
4. Runs out of fuel.
The only thing this has over a mule or horse is that it can be deployed on a jump.

Well I would think that Google stock holders would be more concerned that Google does not pay out stock dividends. As far as long term value you can’t beat holding a lot of patents in your corporate portfolio. Also I can think of worse things to spend all their cash on.

Global warming is real.
But there is a lot of arguing about everything that affects it.

Let’s start with the WSJ article which is pretty much a reprint of the same arguments in the 90's.
In the 90's a lot of people with PHD's came out and sited bogus data, and bad assumptions to outline their argument that global warming was a hoax.
A lot of the PHD’s in question did not have any experience in the discipline necessary to come to an educated conclusion.
In fact if I remember correctly the majority of the people with PHD’s were geologists dependent on Oil and natural gas companies for funding.
This was exposed for the crap that it was in the early 2000's.
Now it is back again and it is still crap, and not real science.
And guess what kiddies the WSJ is not a scientific journal.

Now let’s look at the real science behind global warming.
Global warming is caused by many factors but the 2 main factors are: Greenhouse gasses, and solar changes in our sun.
Trying to predict this is still tough because we still don’t have all the data necessary to pin it all down.
So there are still some anomaly’s with the models we use.
What we do know is we can't really do much about the sun at this time, but we can reduce our CO2 output and possibly other greenhouse gasses as well.
There are also natural processes on the earth that produce greenhouse gasses that we can’t at this time control.
But reducing the industrial greenhouse gasses we output is something we can and really should do.

I am sorry but my last job that was not true.
In fact the telecommuters were more visible because they were uninvolved in the corporate politics.
So they were never precieved as a threat, and when the layoffs started they all kept their jobs.