The problem with this study is that it's comparing self-selected groups: those who drink lots, little, and no coffee/tea. Their conclusions, drawn from comparing coffee addicts to people who don't drink coffee is a little silly. It assumes that everyone's "baseline" is the same, and ignores the well-known fact that people to take caffeine are, like people who smoke cigarettes for nicotine, often self-medicating for a neurobiological deficiency (i.e. in this case probably dopamine). To compare the levels of someone who self-medicates taken off their medication to someone who doesn't need to self-medicate is a complete load of B.S..

Did you even read the article or look at the game the article is about? The objectives and actions in the game are far too open-ended to be called a groupthink training program like some of the others in the genre may be.

It seems like the way a person was taught to type and their experience with a keyboard would determine to a large extent their speed and rhythm (and accuracy). Not to mention what they're doing besides typing on MSN or whatever. If you're drinking a cup of coffee with one hand... or switching between windows. There are way too many factors at play. Phrenology at least had the advantage of a theoretical framework. Hell, even hand-writing analysis had fewer confounding factors.

These images and this concept have been floating around for years now. The only new pitch is the solar-poweredness. Besides that, this is old hat just sitting on the back burner. Call me when there's a press demonstration

Maybe I'm missing something here, but if the point is to calculate more digits than the last guy, can't the algorithm (efficient or not) just run for a longer time?

What's wrong with having an agenda? Objectivity and having goals as a scientist are not mutually exclusive.

That scenario you just described ought to be put into a YT video, ffs.

This poll could easily have done without "blown up" and "frozen in water". And what about "plasticized and on display for the world to see"?

He didn't have 300k, so I don't think he will get that in return. You're confusing the figures: 300k was what was earned by donations through the site. When he was arrested he only had 20k in savings.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/8457260.stm
I imagine they froze his account, but that he will be returned to his pittance of a savings account.

It's also ironic that you're stereotyping an entire demographic (Slashdot) based on the comments expressed by a vast minority.

If you'll notice at the top of the page there's what's called an Impact Factor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor 3.24 is nothing to brush aside. That in itself shows a certain "legitimacy" of this journal. Also: the fact that this data CAN go both ways is enough to bring the original conclusions (that it is safe) into question and prompt new research.