Again, there are ways of funding research anonymously, but the ethical way to do so is for the source of funding to remain hidden from the researchers as well. As for your ideas about research being considered "on its merit" -- that might work in a more ideal world, but it is a naive simple-minded claim which ignores the basics of human nature as well as overwhelming historical precedent.

If donors wish to remain anonymous, they are free to do so, but they must also be anonymous from the researchers. And you can play semantics all you want, but it won't change the fact that the journals requested information they are entitled to request which the researcher failed to provide, which is a serious breach of ethics (not to mention contract).

Yes. It is a conflict of interest that must be disclosed. It is routine procedure in, for instance, medical papers funded by pharmaceutical companies. The summary is sensationalized bullshit, but that part is true.

The source of funding isn't the problem, the only problem here is that he failed to disclose it several times. However, the summary is shamefully misleading, because it makes it sound like he literally got $1.2m in his pocket, which he didn't (and you're quite right, $120k a year isn't in any way a remarkable amount, especially considering that he probably had to pay a large portion, up to 50%, of that as overhead to his institution).

So, you're OK with giving judges more protection than other people, but you're not OK with giving those other people less protection than judges? Did I get that right?

Haha yeah sure, I'm not complaining about any of the past ones since I wouldn't be here without them, I just don't want any future ones. Kind of like how some historians thing the Mongol massacres were cool 'cause they helped move things along (and, you know, pretty much directly led to global European dominance), but probably wouldn't be all that giddy about, dunno, a nuclear holocaust even if it meant breaking the status quo to allow, say, sub-Saharan world dominance.

That was merely an illustration that stable does not mean desirable, not a suggestion that such an outcome is likely.

Sure, and the history of life on earth is one of massive, unexpected mass extinctions, which often followed those massive, unexpected perturbations, because those aren't the kind of perturbations that natural systems can be robust against (hence my qualifier that the perturbations occur "regularly for a time"; you know, things like winter and summer, hurricanes, etc). It's certainly inevitable, but I'd rather not induce that on my own species any sooner than necessary.

Yeah, I'm all for that. In the meantime, however, I'll continue to be a bit pissed off when some arrogant prick on slashdot trivializes all environmental concerns because he's apparently taken "higher-level math or engineering courses" and thinks he understands "how dynamic systems function". The nerve of that dumbass...

Well duh. If all life on earth was destroyed, there'd be one hell of a stable equilibrium, but probably not one many of us would like to occur. Natural ecosystems can only be expected to be robust against perturbations they have faced regularly for a time, which usually doesn't include much of what humans do. As long as we rely on nature to survive, we shouldn't scoff at the idea that our actions can have disastrous consequences on our own habitat.

"Saving?" They didn't just save, they actively advanced. Who do you think was at the forefront of medical, technological, scientific, and mathematical research in the middle ages? Who was it that was actively trying to understand how nature worked, because they believed it to be the way to get closer to god?

This is a complete myth invented by proponents of some surrealistic, twisted form of feminism. It has no basis in verifiable facts.

Nah, won't happen. Why do you think they excluded boys from the project?

Uh, you mean the opposite? If you can demonstrate that there really is an internet subculture where "everyone makes death threats", then surely you have demonstrated that at least in that subculture no reasonable recipient would interpret them literally? Assuming the "threat" is made within the context of that subculture, that is. Reasonableness has to be context dependent, after all.

Cool, when I get an assassin to kill your mother, I'll call on you to defend me in court.

Interpreting "non-trivial" as anything but "hopeless" in your post voids your argument, so I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry.

The total mass of the object doesn't matter given that it has finite thermal conductivity. If you intend to study it with instruments which also give off heat/are near to something that gives off heat, then what matters is how that heat will affect the area immediately around the lander.