The fine article says otherwise:

Best case scenario here is that 1,000 Newton/kW is 100% efficiency in which case their current efficiency is 0.1% or worse. If 1,000 N/kW is not 100% then their current efficiency is even worse than 0.1% in all experiments.

Also, note that Newtons measure force while kilowatts measure power so it makes no sense to express efficiency as a ratio of Newtons to kilowatts. For example, a c-clamp rated at 10,000 pounds-force will produce 44,000 Newtons for an indefinite period of time without consuming any energy/power after the initial tightening.

BTW, a 108 gram apple feels a force of roughly one Newton on the surface of the earth. Using 1 kilowatt to keep an apple suspended does seem extremely inefficient to me. Also note that I can keep an apple suspended indefinitely with a table and no ongoing energy expenditure.

Finally note that the one experiment that got close to one Newton/kW was not done in a vacuum. It would not surprise me if that one Newton of force could be explained by the light-mill effect.

I think you mean Lexxdysia. (link)

What you are describing is a photon drive where photons are the propellant. But the fine article explains:

The reason I don't believe it is real is the same reason I don't believe cold fusion is real. They put in metric ton-loads of energy and measure a very small effect. They say they will need to increase the efficiency by many orders of magnitude to create a practical device. I say they probably made a mistake somewhere and the tiny effect they measured is either noise or due to something else they haven't yet accounted for.

They say one of the limiting factors (aside from violating the laws of physics) is the political will to launch a large nuclear power plant into space. The solution is obvious: use Cold Fusion to power the EM drive. There is great efficiency here because they can get two Nobel prizes with only one gadget.

Wall Street will never police itself. It is entirely geared around making as much money as possible with absolutely no concern whatsoever about what is good for society or for the economy in general.

The only real solution is very simple and very easy. Simply tax the transactions. It can be a tiny fraction of a cent per transaction. This will add friction which will slow down this hypersonic trading. The whole thing is ridiculous. These superfast computerized trades are not providing a benefit to society. In fact, they lead to instability which is the exact opposite of what is good for society as a whole.

If we don't do this than the instability will lead to Wall Street crashing our economy again. It is like the RIAA wanting to be paid to make it difficult for people to listen to music. Wall Street is making money hand over fist by making our entire economic system unstable.

A quick Google(makerspace) brought me to the Wikipedia:

I'd like to highlight the entire quote. It explains concisely how a makerspace is a particular kind of workshop in terms of what kind of work is focused on and especially the community aspects of socialization and collaboration. The distinction is important because people are encouraged to come to makerspaces to participate and socialize while workshops in general tend to be closed to the public and usually won't even lend you tools.

A car analogy would be you complaining about the new-fangled term "ATV" which refers to certain kinds of vehicles and you suggesting the older and more generic term "vehicle" be used instead.

The part you are missing is that the effect is very subtle. It only shows up in a statistical analysis after the fact. You can only notice/measure the effect if you repeat the experiment many times and compare the statistics of what is happening with particle B to the measurements made on particle A. If you look only at particle B then you have no clue about what was going on with particle A and if you only look at particle A then you have no clue about particle B. It is only when you combine information from particle B with information from particle A, after the fact, that you see any effect at all.

To learn more search for "EPR paradox". Basically what happens is that quantum mechanics violates locality without violating causality. This violates our common sense which is based on classical mechanics. Since wormholes are also non-local, connecting entangled particles with wormholes is more appealing to our common sense (for certain values of "common sense"). The interesting thing is that quantum mechanics already explains (predicts the outcomes of) entanglement experiments without any wormholes. So if you add wormholes (in any meaningful way) then you might need to change quantum mechanics. This is interesting because it might lead to a way of combining relativity with quantum mechanics which has been the unobtainable holy grail of theoretical physics for many years.

The chances of this working out are very very small. The chances of getting a Nobel prize if it does work out are very high.

Oh for goodness sake, are you claiming these are the only things that have grown rapidly over the past 25 years. Sugar consumption has grown rapidly. Maybe, just maybe, the mother's freakin' diet has something to do with autism. Why, yes it does. That one study does not explain the majority of cases of autism but it is a big red flashing neon sign pointing in a direction to look. In addition to eating too much sugar, which we now know can trigger autism, there are many many other things mothers are exposed to on a daily basis in modern societies that may also be detrimental to the health of their babies such as: an overabundance of drugs (in food and water), other highly processed foods, chemicals from plastics that get into food and water, and many forms of pollution. Perhaps it is related to increased stress or lack of sleep.

Many years ago, some shyster dickhead of a scientist made a bunch of money (from a firm that was already planning a law suit over the MMR vaccine) by concocting lies about a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. The science system worked, the lies were caught, the paper was retracted and the shyster lost his "scientist" badge.

What baffles me is that so many people cling to the results from the exposed shyster who truly was only in it to make a bunch of bucks while they ignore all the reputable scientific studies that don't agree with the conclusion they have already jumped to. I'm reminded of Feynman's description of cargo cult science. One problem with your completely irrational position (on the fence or not) is that it causes us to waste valuable and limited resources following up on things we already know are dead ends so we can't use those resources to look for the real cause of the increase in autism.

Great post! But I take exception to this statement especially in the current context where people think it is wrong that we have the best government money can buy:

I agree that in general we all want to improve our lot in life. I disagree that it is built into our genes for us to screw over our fellow humans in the process. It has been documented in books such as Mutual Aid: a factor of Evolution that cooperation within a species is a much more effective (and prevalent) strategy than competition within a species.

In addition, even if some mild forms of competition within a species are beneficial, I totally reject the carte-blanche you offer to even the most sadistic and psychopathic behavior in the name of "my genes made me do it".

If your assumption that we are for the most part all psychopaths is true then we as a species are completely and totally fucked. The overwhelming evidence is the vast majority of humans are not psychopaths. The problem is that almost literally by hook and by crook we have developed a system where psychopaths tend to rise to positions of leadership in corporations and they have used their power to almost totally subvert the government to their antisocial whims.

If you look up the definition of "psychopath":

you will see that what you described is psychopathic behavior. While this aberration may have a genetic component, that doesn't make it right; it doesn't mean it is widespread; and it certainly doesn't mean we should develop a system that puts psychopaths in positions of great power.

Sure. Tell that to the people who caused the Mars Climate Orbiter to disintegrate in the Martian atmosphere. They are now painfully aware of the fact that the distance to Mars depends on the locale being used.

Speaking of Slashvertisements, I'm running Linux on a Dell 11" 3147 two-in-one. I can use it as a small laptop machine and I can also use it for watching Netflix in the tablet configuration. Although the two-in-one is thicker and heavier than a tablet, it can be better than a tablet for watching videos because there are several configurations where the keyboard acts like a stand so you don't have to constantly hold it.

For me, it was $260 well spent (via the Dell outlet store). I'm pleased with the device even though the Linux support is merely adequate. No multi-touch for the touchscreen and I can't access the accelerometer. AFAIK, everything else works. I wrote little scripts to rotate the display and disable the keyboard and touchpad. I get over 5 hours of battery life while mostly watching videos. I like that the Linux desktop and/or virtual consoles are only a click or two away because I like to tinker. There are a bunch of hardware improvements that would be nice, starting with a lighted keyboard, but for the price, I'm not complaining.

IMO, if the price is decent you might as well buy a laptop with a touchscreen that folds all the way back. I think it is a good use of resources and it makes the device much more versatile. For me personally it is better than a separate tablet and laptop. I may never buy another laptop that doesn't convert to tablet mode.

The Wikipedia article you linked to supports what the GP said:

The abstract of the article you linked to ends with:

FFS, how you can you interpret that in any other way than the failure of science education? The paper says the failure is not because people know too little science but because they don't believe in science because they are surrounded by people who don't believe in science.

How on earth can you interpret the abstract of that paper to be a vindication of science education and a justification of your disparaging comments about Bill Nye? If nearly half the population disbelieves in science and doesn't use science to form opinions on matters of vital importance and public welfare then how is that not a failure of science education? Did you even bother to read all of the abstract?

To make a car analogy, it's like you are saying an advertising campaign for car was a rip roaring success because it created a lot of brand recognition. But sales were dismal because even though many people knew the brand, they had very negative associations with it.

You are correct but not for the selfish reason you imply. Kim Dotcom's assets have been frozen so they were not available to defend this programmer. He is only being allowed money for living expenses and his own legal fees. You may hate Kim Dotcom but he is not stupid. It would have been in his own best interests to pay for this guy's defense (assuming that fact couldn't be use to malign the defendant).