Please RTFA before posting. Seriously.

From TFA, and the linked lawsuit:
- She was required to keep the phone on her person (and turned on) 24/7 to handle customer calls.
- Her manager was using the app to track her location during personal time.

Even if it was a company owned phone, and even if she were allowed to turn it off, don't you find that second point significantly creepy enough to warrant a lawsuit?!?! IMHO, it's creepy enough to warrant criminal charges.

Her employer required her to use the company issued phone, and to have it on 24/7 (from the lawsuit).

Your "solution" would result in the exact same thing hers did: termination.

If the allegations are true, it sounds like both her manager and CEO were douchebags. And stupid ones at that.

They should be allowed to know where their property is. She has no case.

Even if that is the case, that is not what they were using the functionality for.

From the article:
"Management never made mention of mileage. They would tell her co-workers and her of their driving speed, roads taken, and time spent at customer locations. Her manager made it clear that he was using the program to continuously monitor her, during company as well as personal time." (emphasis mine)

They were not using the GPS functionality to track the phone. They were using it to track employees both on and off-work.

This is creepy as heck. IMHO, there should be criminal laws against this sort of behavior. This should be a criminal case her manager, not a civil one against the company.

Did you even study statistics? If you want to prove it's not a warp drive you need to do an experiment where it being a warp drive is the null hypothesis.

You are mistaken about what the null hypothesis is. The null hypothesis says there is no relationship between two phenomena. i.e. in this case, that the "device" has no relationship to thrust

You would never try to prove that the thing is NOT a warp drive. You cannot prove a negative assertion. The proper experiment would be to prove it is a warp drive (i.e. to reject the null hypothesis).

A basic intro to all this can be found in the usual place.

Plenty of good science has been done, it's not conclusive yet, you must imagine good science does everything in one fell swoop and takes no time or budget. I guess you didn't study science either.

No, good science will have been "done" when they actually publish their results, including experimental setup, raw data, statistical analysis, etc. and these results are peer reviewed.

What they have done so far is take some very initial observations that are currently unexplained, and decide to go ahead and release these results to the media. That is not "good" science, especially given that every single person in that lab knows damn well it is extremely unlikely this is some magical new form of propulsion.

Wake me up when you don't summarize your position with an appeal to authority.

That is not what "appeal to authority" means. An appeal to authority would be "Dan McCleese says this thing is a warp drive, and he's really smart! It must be a warp drive!"

My appeal is to have someone else independently verify their results. Requiring JPL was just a bit of facetiousness. What I would really want is independent verification by a number of other labs/researchers.

Good science takes time and proper diligence. Releasing unverified "observations" to the media for hype does science a disservice.

No. These tests prove that the device is real, and that it produces force.

No, they didn't.

The tests so far have proven that in certain experimental circumstances readings are observed that might indicate a micro-force being generated by the device

They have not yet proven:
1) The device is actually causing the force
2) The readings are correct (e.g. measuring devices calibrated correctly)
3) The readings are not the result of some other factor they are failing to take account of (e.g. Earth's magnetic field).

To establish these things they first need to:
a) Publish their experimental setup, testing methodology and analysis
b) Have someone else replicate that setup "cleanly" (No, the Chinese experiment does not count)

Dozens of additional experiments from numerous labs will be required to verify this. As it is, I would be extremely surprised if this turned out to be something other than:
a) Experimental error
or
b) Fraud

The "results" they have "released" so far are extremely preliminary. They have not yet been published, nor peer reviewed. Claiming that this device is real is similar to the scientific rigour of claiming Bigfoot is real on the basis of some fuzzy photographs.

Actually, that last line is a little harsh.

Better would be:
Eagleworks is like a really boring X-Files version of scientific investigation. They investigate very fringe science, test it under controlled condition, but alas, it never turns out to be something extraordinary.

My issue with them isn't that they do bad science as much as that they keep releasing this crazy fringe stuff to the media before finalizing experimental testing/peer review. This gets the public all hot and bothered about how NASA is going to solve interstellar travel shortly...but then nothing.

Unfortunately, this also gets in the way of other scientific results as the media/public start seeing Science as the boy who cries wolf but never sees a wolf.

Yes, this probably has to do with continued funding / publicity / etc, but even so, I believe it does more harm than good. Publish actual results. Don't publish "we're not sure what this is (or even if it's not just experimental error), so it might be a warp drive!"

the first real space trial is likely coming soon.

No, it won't.

They haven't even completed the first round of formal experiments. You know, the kind with scientific write-ups and peer review of experimental setup and such.

So far there have been some tiny anomalous observations that may or may not be due to a force we don't understand. They are far more likely due to a force that we understand perfectly, but have failed to take into account while making the observations.

NASA hasn't published anything definitive on this. The have (quite stupidly, IMHO) given some of their initial results to the press, who (of course) blew the story up beyond any sensible measure.

The next thing we will likely see is a better experimental setup at higher power, which will likely explain the completely conventional reasons we see these results. These will be published, and not picked up by the press (cause it's "boring"), and in a few years people will wonder "whatever happened to that EmDrive thing?" Conspiracy nuts will claim government cover-up, illuminati, stolen by bigfoot, etc.

it's definitely premature to declare the device to not be a warp drive.

No it isn't premature. That's the null hypothesis.

Your argument is like saying "it's definitely premature to declare the pen sitting on my desk to not be a warp drive."

It is premature to declare that this device does anything. Once some good science has been done and shown some relevant results, then we can start thinking about changing our opinion of this device. So far, no good science has been done.

Eagleworks is hardly the bastion of scientific accuracy and non-hypebole. Wake me up when JPL duplicates their results.

You can only socialize production, which means the generation of value

By that argument, you can't socialize medicine either.

You could claim that medicine produces value by preventing disease, but someone could similarly claim that a strong military produces value by preventing foreign aggression.

I'm not saying I would argue that way, just that valid arguments exist in favor of that position.

Exactly right! The socialized heathcare of our more enlightened cousins in Europe and Canada don't have any private heathcare firms involved.

Oh, wait...

I'm from Canada...WTF is a private healthcare firm?

The Solar System is awash in water?!?!

That's the last straw. I'm gonna build an ark.

Anyone know where I can get a tape measure that measures in cubits?

Hypocrite.

You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

For Tim Cook she compares completely different circumstances (doing business with a company that has poor human rights vs enacting legislation to restrict human rights).

For Clinton, she gives no evidence whatsoever that receiving money from these countries has influenced the Clinton Foundation's policies in any detrimental way towards women.

This is just typical political grandstanding and nonsense.

So working for a regulatory agency is now a Men in Black sort of thing? "This is the last suit you'll ever wear"

So if they are ever laid off / fired / quit the regulatory job, then what? Go work flipping burgers?

IMHO, the heads of regulatory organizations should be elected officials with a minimum qualification requirement. That way they are more beholden to voters than to either government pressure or corporate lobbyists (in theory).

Humans have been phase-locked to the mean solar day for just over 200 out of the last 6 million years.

Given that human-like species only evolved ~3 million years ago, and modern homo sapiens ~100,000 years ago, your choice of timeline seems strange. Not that it has anything to do with DST, just sayin'

Majority of what population? People living north of the 49th? I doubt it.

I live in Canada, and most of the Canadians I know also think DST is a bad idea.

Unscientific, but still:
http://globalnews.ca/news/1868... - 79% of canadians against DST
https://www.onlineparty.ca/iss... - 60% of canadians against DST

Saskatchewan actually doesn't have DST anymore, they got rid of it in 1966, staying on Standard time year round.

Bruce's thesis is that if spy agencies deliberately allow for weakened security infrastructure so they can monitor communications, then the enemy can make use of those weak points. That there is no way to just let the "good guys hack".

"the NSA has two missions...To secure the computing infrastructure of the US against foreign espionage, and to provide espionage on foreign communication."
If they allow hacks to propagate so they can spy, then communication is not secure. (i.e. they fail the first part of their mission)
If communication is secure, then they cannot spy (i.e. they fail the second part of their mission)

The difference between this issue and military/sports metaphors is that in this case both sides make use of the exact same defensive tools, and those tools could be perfected such that it becomes unreasonably difficult to mount any sort of offense.