To assume it's not an evil plot would require the assumption that United had lawyers so inexperienced that they didn't know they were filing in the wrong venue.

That's a preposterous assumption.

If you think that everyone that has a hand in reviewing or providing comments at the request of the author on a paper should be listed as sources or authors you don't know anything about how scientific papers work.

Conversely if you think the only people involved in a scientific paper are either authors or sources you don't know anything about scientific papers or the process.

Almost NO ONE is going to submit a paper for publishing without having everyone they can convince to help them read it and provide comments. It just doesn't happen. None of those people are sources, authors or included in the bibliography. That would just be plain stupid. If they did that stupid idea the bibliography would be 20 pages of people that read the paper and provided comments or editing help making it utterly worthless.

The more reproductions without someone figuring out what's wrong with the test the more likely it is that it's not the test that's wrong.

This engine is interesting on many fronts, the most important of which is it appears to violate what we know about conservation of momentum and IF it does it's going to actually point to some fundamental constant or principle of the universe that we've missed as long as it's not an experimental error. This is a big hurdle to take so it's going to take a LOT of evidence there is no mistakes with the test or engine.

Could be pretty cool if it turns out real. We won't need to ever worry about fuel for satellites and all you would need to travel to mars or even Pluto or even another star would be an energy source that would last the length of the journey. I wouldn't be surprised to see the DOD put one of these into space ASAP to find out if the work, it would revolutionize spy satellites if they don't have to worry about propulsion fuel.

Then they shouldn't land the plane and make you switch planes. As soon as they land the plane and make you disembark whether you board the second flight is up to you. Otherwise that other plane better not take off without you, you think they would hold the second plane for you?

These fairs are cheaper with layovers are games the airlines play with fairs to maximize revenue. No one should be under any obligation to play along if they don't want to. Suing someone that facilitates exploiting this loophole in their system is nothing more than attacking free speech.

Other than they were jurisdiction shopping in a venue that would be more likely to win because they are headquartered there and the juror pool would be likely to be influenced by that?

The judge didn't rule on venue without it being challenged by the defense. United didn't pick this court by accident.

Do you have a source for these problems with DNA analysis? Because I'd like to see it. It's my understanding that the FBI has always been on the cutting edge with DNA and has been pretty cautious in court testimony about it.

The FBI for years used, in court, hair analysis, handwriting and audio experts that couldn't prove anything. They've all been proven to be pseudo sciences with no actual ability to prove anything with an accuracy better than random guessing. There are a LOT of people in jail based entirely on evidence the FBI submitted using these pseudo sciences. This shouldn't really surprise anyone as the FBI is one of the biggest supporters of "lie detectors". Which is the pseudo science that makes all the other pseudo sciences look reasonable.

The FBI doesn't care if they break the entire purpose of Crypto. They would like the world without crypto at least in their day job. You do something foolish in assuming they don't understand that it would break the entire purpose of crypto. They likely understand that all too well.

If you think that's how science or EPA policy and rule making takes place you are a moron. You've presented an example that's not feasible, not within the required policy frameworks and not even reasonable. Yet you present it like it's rational. Maybe learn about how the rule making process works, if you understood even 10% of that you would know how stupid your example is.

This bill has one intent, to gut environmental science and the EPA's rule making authority and do so covertly rather than just abolishing the EPA that Congress created. But they are to chickenshit to actually try to abolish the EPA because they know the bad press would kill them. Just like no matter how many times they say they want to abolish medicare when the chips are down they won't propose or vote on a single bill to do so because the electorate would kill them. If they weren't so chickenshit they would try to change the law they wrote to alter the NEPA law so it can't be used for CO2. Good luck getting them to not be chickenshit.

Another example, though not as heavily environmental is the Colorado River Compact. Its a federally negotiated water sharing agreement. Arizona and California nearly went to war over the Colorado river water, the president was forced to nationalize the Arizona national guard to prevent it. It is completely within the authority of the federal government to prevent the states from going to war by imposing consistent and reasonable standards on all of them.

I'd also note it's not just the general welfare clause. Pollution clearly falls under the commercial clause as well because the pollution is invariably related to interstate commerce either directly through energy exports or indirectly through manufacturing.

We buy most of our oil, from ourselves. The vast majority of the rest is bought from Mexico and Canada. The largest of the insignificant provider nations is Venezuela. The amount of oil we buy from countries that, "Do not like us", is insignificant.

Nearly 15% of the oil purchased by the USA is from Saudi Arabia (hundreds of millions of dollars a month), arguably one of the countries most hostile to the American way of life. The recent decline in oil prices was precisely because the Saudi's were not willing to lose that 15% market share to tight oil.

Our interest in Middle Eastern oil is due to the lack of oil reserves in western Europe. Even without any US demand on Middle Eastern oil, the US will have a continued interest in the region until Western Europe transitions off of crude.

Which is exactly what the OP implied, generally moving away from fossil fuels by the west. Doing so will nearly eliminate western concerns in the middle east. The US is forced to maintain free market access to those oil supplies because any disruptions affects american prices.

Gotta keep growing the dividend. That's IBM management mentality. Even if they destroy a 100 year old company in the process because they destroy long term prospects they will keep doing whatever it takes to increase the short term dividend.

Welcome to the world where CEO's are paid in stock, they no have incentive to do whatever it takes to bump short term stock price at the expense of long term prospects because their own financial incentives differ from that of the company.

Bulletproof and hardness are different things. One exists the other doesn't.

Nothing is "Bulletproof". The proper term is bullet resistant, as in it can resist small arms fire. About the only thing you could even consider bullet proof is multiple feet of reinforced concrete buried underground. Remember, no matter how resistant it is, there is always a bigger bullet. Most of the bullet resistant armoring sold to heads of state or light military armoring can't even stop high power 50 caliber rounds. It is my understanding the presidential limo has armoring and windows that can stop a 50 caliber round, it also weigh like 12 tons. And just about nothing short of a tank can stop 2 inch or larger rounds.

Once you get up to the 6-12 inch rounds there isn't much of anything that can stop them but the solution I mentioned above. Once you are up to that size the energy that needs to be stopped is just beyond what most materials can withstand.

Armoring is constantly evolving to increase resistance but nothing is bulletproof. Not the vest the cop is wearing nor the cars sold to heads of state.

The only "entitlement generation" that I've ever encountered is the Baby Boomers and it's getting worse as they get older. Their view seems to be that now that they are retiring they are entitled to all the social security money their generation spent while docking GenX and the Millennials their social security to pay the boomers. They also appear to have a great majority of participants that believe they aren't responsible for paying for anything with a cut taxes attitude that disrespects the infrastructure investments they benefited from and has a complete disregard for future generations.

The Boomers are the "me me me" generation.

You sports fans like being fucked. ESPN is going to keep lubing you up and fucking you as long as you are willing to pay whatever it costs to watch your sports team.

You should consider being willing to protest and teaching both your sports team and ESPN a lesson. Maybe just maybe you won't get fucked quite as hard or rough.

I just wish one of the cable companies would stand up to them. Disney has far more to lose than they think. Viacom tried to do their annual bend them over and fuck them with Suddenlink. The cable company replaced the channels and when Viacom was suddenly willing to do a deal after Suddenlink replaced the channels SL told Viacom to go pound sand. SL lost about 100K subscribers. Viacom lost millions in revenue basically forever.

If more of the cable companies were willing to stand up to the content companies and simply pull the channels and replace them there would be competition. Right now the only choice a discerning customer has is to cut the cord completely. I can guarantee that if Comcast decided to dump NBC during their next negotiation NBC would be willing to do any deal Comcast wanted a couple weeks later. The cable companies need to just play hardball and take the subscriber losses in the short term. The lower prices will win them more customers long term and their lack of competition would give them an advantage in the negotiations.