It's actually more libertarian than conservative. You idiot.

They don't burn or destroy the books when they remove them from the library. They sell them to patrons or on eBay or on Amazon, etc. The WORDS live on.

Nope, this is pocketscience.

Which, is why we're opening up the latest /. challenge.

We've slashdotted web sites before, but not retail stores. So what if in the name of science we go to Apple stores and test for ourselves? (We can publish experiments and their results on YouTube ... Oh the iRony)

Think of how helpful this will be; not only Apple designers, but for consumers as well.

Let's test the iPhone 6+ in tight pants, really tight pants, European tight pants, blue jeans, front pockets, back pockets, shirt pockets, skirt pockets and dare I suggest some of the boys over at the Scottish Apple store (or administrators of System V based Unix) try testing kilt pockets.

iLearn by example, so remember we need a control. Somebody is going to have to go to the NYC glass cube, buck naked. We need to know if your iPhone 6+ gets bent or not when the police choke hold you from behind.

So apple fanboys would be best serviced by thick stiffies in tight pants?

Spot on commentary.

You are saying what many Android users are saying around the virtual water cooler ... aka Google hangouts.

"So how the hell did Apple release a phone with the camera sticking out the back, especially when increasing the thickness would have allowed for bigger battery and stronger case?"

FPF - Front Pocket Failure. You are hilarious. Thank you for making me laugh. That is awesome post.

I consume 12 cups of coffee before 10AM (I have a hug poop around 10:30 like clockwork, aka a "billable dump" in the consulting business).

I drink four or more large glasses of soda or iced tea at lunch (I pee right after lunch and about 30 minutes later like clockwork).

At 2PM, I go to the local Starbucks with my co-worker Randy. Where he orders his usual and I pointing to his order and say "I'll have a Randy as well, but with WHIP on top." The employees laugh as they proceed to make two venti Java Chip fraps with +7 espresso shots, one with the whip crème mixed in and the other with it on top (This drink costs more than my lunch). The drinks are gone before we walk the block back to the office.

Then around 6:30PM after most people have left, I make four cups of coffee and spit it with the girl who works late in the office next to me, I make 6 if Randy is still there. (I poop and drive home)

My heart rate is generally between 98 and 110 beats per minute given the amount of caffeine I consume. My brother who does not drink caffeine, same weight, same height, has a heart rate of 36-40 bpm.

Here is basically how science works, you make a "guess" or write mathematical "equation(s)" or develop a "theory" or you build a "model" to explain some part of the real universe we live in.

You then compare your guess against real world observations. If your guess fails to predict or describe reality, it's WRONG.

Every global warming model has failed in this regard. Now, You should be presenting to skeptics how your model correct fits. Not demanding they disprove your guess.

However, I'm game. So just a warning, this is going to sting really bad, but here is proof the global warming models are SHIT, I mean really WRONG. I.e. they suck at describing the real world, fall flat on explaining the last 13+ years of no warming, etc., while the skeptic models, where CO2 is not given an invalid force multiplier do work and match reality.

Climate Scientist Murry Salby Demolishes the Globâ¦: http://youtu.be/HeCqcKYj9Oc

By MILF, I assume you are referring to the Media Input Lense Feature.

We are still talking about Apple, right?

The models/predictions have failed to fit real-world observations? That being umm, a huge component of science.

Could not agree more regarding climate models and state of Antarctic ice. The cooler temps over last decade+ and increased ice doesn't change anything with models. The models are just as irrelevant and flawed today as they were yesterday and in the 90s.

What about when he said in his movie "Inconvient Truth" that next year we'd have a record number of hurricanes and we had ... 1?

Yes, it is a conspiracy.

The best and simplest source is the climategate e-mails, not a news or wiki summary, the actual e-mails. I've read them all. Just a few of the contents (but again, read them yourself):

Conspiracy example 1: There are several "respected" scientists who talk about how they are using site numbers in Siberia instead of geographic locations or latitude/longitude markers, and moving the sites south each year to ensure temp. increase. So basically they say Site 1 was 2.1 degrees Celius at this time in 98, and Site 1 was 2.3 degress in 99. But the site numbers from year to year are not the same location. There are a bunch of e-mails from people trying to peer reveiw the data asking for the exact postions of each site and some very harsh and presonal responses like, "How could you question us?" and "Why would you need this?", to "You have the data you need, others have signed off, validate it already".

Conspiracy example 2: There are several e-mails between a few guys fudging anything from tree ring data, to CO2 multiplier numbers, to the creation of the hockey stick graph (remember that?). So basically, in these e-mails, one of the guys is not against making up false data, but rather he is concerned about making the data to radical. So he is against presenting the hockey stick graph and a few other computer models with a CO2 multiplier that they basically know is BS. His arguement to this group of corrupt people is basically, if we say tempuratures are going to go up this fast in the next ten years, when they don't people will know and the house of cards will fall down. The reply from one professor is "No, if we can get it in people's heads and we can make in an emergency that needs to have government backed research, then by that time we can play off those who disagree as irrational." He continues by suggesting (correctly) that the political funding of research by that time will lead to increased researchers supporting this view becasue they need to in order to keep their funding. Finally he says in the absolute worst case all they have to do is say that it did not get hotter, because of the preventative steps people took that helped, and now we need to do more.

Conspiracy Motivation: In these "scientific" e-mails they often openly refer to the creation of world bodies to regulate and set socialistic policies and other BS. They state the end goal is to restict and control various sectors of world economy.