this has nothing particular to do with climate change, or any specific issue. Politicization is missing the point. The problem is bad science. We scientists need to clean our house before complaining about politics.

Those graphs look pretty inconclusive to me. Certainly not as much of an emergency as our corrupt government is.

How hard would it be to grant exceptions to the policy? It's a good policy, no reason it can't be flexible too.

My prediction, 1rst bid: $48 billion for a prototype, expect that to triple in the first year.

I think that fecal transplants are the main method of making gut bacterial changes, right?

FTFA: "We still have nothing to share," the company responded after the third email. Isn't dropbox a website for sharing stuff? Seems strange.

I understand your point to some extent, but governments have the power to imprison people they deem to be a hazard. A private citizen cannot imprison another citizen. The government does have special privileges. I do agree these researchers broke the law though, just like a sheriff who arrests someone unreasonably. The question is how bad an infraction it was.

No, he doesn't see. :-) Don't confuse us with facts. Besides, just because your anecdote shows an anecdote doesn't scale doesn't mean his anecdote doesn't scale.

How do you know if you shoot down a drone that is nosediving at 50 m/s?

The thing is, the problem they are trying to fix is one they created purely out of a spiteful desire on Mr. Jobs' part to poke a finger in Googles' eye. It backfired and Apple looks foolish. I guess I have to say here that I love Apple but chasing Google Maps off the iPhone has to be one of the all time stupidest things they ever did.

It's possible that both of you are right: politicians in Sacramento are self-serving power grabbers, AND global climate change is real and occurring right now and action is needed.

... of corporations? I mean, now that companies are considered to be people, shouldn't their rights be weighed equally against those of their workers?

Nope, wrong. Clinton did the same thing and there were legions of educated, reputable people who fervently defended him. Petraeus deserves the same treatment.

Maybe he deserves the same treatment and doesn't want it. :-) Remember that Clinton was indicted, not for having an affair, but for perjury (attempting to conceal it)? Remember how much damage it did to him, where if he had just come clean (so to speak) it seems to me he would have been much better off. The point is that being ashamed of your secret affair provides leverage to your enemies, whereas just enjoying some good ol' side nookie only damages your marriage (usually).

It's not the lack of ability to conceal the affair that is a problem, it's the intention to conceal it that is a problem.

What the hell are you talking about? I never defended the USA's idiocy, nor did I talk about other nations. I simply said that instead of comparing religion to oppression, we should understand that religion leads to oppression. The USA is highly religious and because of that we do idiotic things all the time. Here is an example.