I'll add that although it's merely a clever proverb that is not perfectly aligned with the discussion at hand, I find the QOTD in the page footer as of this writing to be at least peripherally relevant:

"Don't discount flying pigs before you have good air defense." -- jvh@clinet.FI

The energy production device/method under discussion here may indeed be a fake. You've still entirely missed the point and failed to even begin to attempt to use appropriate evaluation methodology in this situation. Perhaps my earlier reply will prove useful in explaining this in more detail.

Your repeated use of the same misdirection tactic is demonstrative of a lack of creativity, but I have faith that you must have only the best intentions at heart. Would you care to read the cited paper and provide your insights on the relative trustworthiness of the authors? For your convenience, and in the interest of minimizing your risk of misinterpreting the cover page of the paper, I have repeated the names of the authors here:

Giuseppe Levi
Bologna University, Bologna, Italy

Evelyn Foschi
Bologna, Italy

Bo Hoistad,
Roland Pettersson and Lars Tegner
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Hanno Essen
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden

In deference to Slashdot's inability to properly handle Unicode, I have taken the added measure of producing an image of the names. Once again, this is for your convenience.

Please let us know when your evaluation of the these researchers' credentials has been completed. Your expert assistance is deeply appreciated.

This makes a lot of sense. It may be that my habit of frequently re-reading a freshly opened browser tab for a thread immediately before finally pushing the "Submit" button isn't a common practice for others, and my habit probably implies that I have relatively higher personal sensitivity to duplication. The part about the error rate (in a logical fallacy sense) still seems open to speculation, though, as it's largely independent of chronological factors, and is instead mostly dependent upon the ability to ingest and properly analyze sequential commentary that is by design difficult to miss. The best (worst?) example of this would seem to be failure to read even a single comment in its entirety before replying to it in a fallacious manner. Thoughts?

You and I have a lengthy history of ideological differences, some of which have been rather stark at times, at least to the extent that our comments on this site have accurately represented our views. However, I believe the situation you've described (if accurate, as I admit I haven't done any independent verification on it) represents a fine example of a case where our respective desired outcomes are closely aligned.

Caution: extreme run-on sentences ahead, as I believe it is critical to be very specific when discussing matters like imprisonment, and logical continuity matters greatly here.

(1) If this sequence of events is true, and (2) if it were proven that the actions of the elected officials were made in bad faith via intentional exclusion of factual data which should have been reasonably interpreted as favoring continued municipal energy production, with (3) accompanying direct and improper financial influence over the officials in question, and (4) optimally in terms of rating the eventual severity of the consequences, (a) strong evidence of the presence or lack of external conditions which would in retrospect be reasonably viewed as more likely root causes of the cited rapid energy cost increases, (5) I would be delighted to see the mayor and town council members serve lengthy prison terms. Their prison time would hopefully be followed up with personal financial sanctions, of greater or lesser severity depending upon the nature of (a) above, if only to serve as a clear warning to others. Unfortunately, I suspect any funds recovered via such penalties would fail to even begin to approach the total economic damage done to the community.

Regardless of our varied views on appropriate roles of government, and with clear acceptance that I am suggesting judicial and executive intervention on behalf of the people to determine whether egregious abuses of public office and trust have occurred in this case, how do you suggest we might encourage the people who appear to have been wronged to force such an investigation and prosecution if consequently warranted?

I support the "TLDR" here is: if this is true, it seems the community as a whole either doesn't care or doesn't have the capacity to understand that it has been wronged. How can we fix this? Looking forward to your reply.

I must agree with the "less talk" portion of your statement, but the repetitive suggestion of suicide doesn't really appeal to me. May I suggest some music instead? HTH.

It seems the author of the comment you replied to indicated agreement with your position in a follow-up post nearly two hours before you posted comment #48127499. Additionally, I happened to note the difference between the photoelectric effect and GR nearly an hour before your post. I am becoming increasingly curious why there appears to be a higher than normal rate of errors and repetition in this particular comment thread. However, I freely admit that my stated perception of that error rate is clearly a speculative utterance in the absence of a much greater volume of sample data.

Now you've managed to add formal fallacy to your list of errors, and in a most unfortunate manner with an appeal to deductive reasoning where the substance of said appeal is itself clearly disjointed. It appears you originally commented without considering the logical flow of statements you were replying to, and are now more interested in diversion for ego protection than in admission that you erred.

It also seems you're beginning to exhibit a rather emotionally-driven reaction to these points. Do you have any scented candles? Lavender is said to have a calming effect. That said, your decision to link an image of a Glock 17 also reminds me of the calming effect the aroma of Ballistol (caveat: always use in well-ventilated spaces, do not deliberately concentrate and inhale contents, etc) can have on the mind. The cleanliness of a sidearm is a key factor in its reliability over the long term, and few things are more calming than confidence in defensive capabilities.

You're incorrect again, but your quotation provides provides a wonderful demonstration of why context is important. Let's review the original comment in full (emphasis via bold text and consequent implication in brackets are are mine):

Clearly, the comment discusses the potential for Einstein to have received a Nobel Prize in physics for GR. It does not make any claims regarding receipt of a Nobel Prize for other work. Finally, the comment was in reply to a preceding blurb, which reads as follows:

You may put down the shovel any time you like. By the way, are you by any chance employed by a mainstream media outlet? I ask because such organizations have a long-standing history of distortion via exclusion of context.

Perhaps you should focus on the researchers who appear to have, in large part at least, validated the energy production of the device. Are they lying? If you say they are, you must be able to provide proof of that.

Rossi's time in prison was due to uncleared allegations of tax fraud and toxic waste mishandling, which even if true would have little to do with this story. Crying "felon" looks a bit too close to a disingenuous smear tactic in this case.

As an aside, it's worth noting that many people who have been to prison are quite intelligent, and extended periods of confinement can provide plenty of time for thought (invention).

Clearly, the answer is horizontal scaling rather than vertical. We simply need to convert the human pyramid into a human centipede.

The photoelectric effect and general relativity are not the same thing. Please read the GP comment again.

You've managed to miss the point while proving it, which I must say is an impressive accomplishment. The point is that the majority of the population of MX lacks the fiscal resources to purchase Starbucks beverages for precisely the reason you've noted. This is why a reply of "first world problems" is either funny or sad (perhaps both) irrespective of the buying power of a small fraction of the population of any region where a business with relatively expensive products happens to open a storefront. To help reinforce the point, you may wish to reference a list of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita.

What's a former Marine?