You'll note in Oliver's piece that the sheriff in the courtroom referred to civil forfeiture as 'pennies from heaven.' His heaven was America's hell.

For those across different ponds, John Oliver's takedown of this horrid practice in the United States shows why this was needed. I'm wondering if this piece had something to do with the response.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Good points, I would also add that methane is lighter (MW 16) than air (average MW = 29) and that which doesn't degrade will rise far enough above surface to not have as much of an impact. Unless it's there in sufficient quantities to react with ozone and deplete the layer (not sure if I'm joking or not, I don't know the status of that research).

Jesus said turn the other cheek. The Pope just said words are like sticks and stones, and it's okay to retaliate. This is one of the few comments from this pope that I disagree with strongly (and I'm not a member of a church, he's been brave and kind in many ways).

That is exactly what I said in my last sentence. What the media states is that 97% of the climate scientists believe anthropogenic sources cause climate change, where the majority do not state it explicitly. Your statement is implying that those that stated no opinion really believe in it but withhold for more evidence, my statement states they didn't make a statement, it could be either way. Which position is more distorting?

I reported the results of a metastudy. I leave it to the authors of the papers who took no position to state what their opinion is, from what the review said, they chose not to for whatever reasons. Perhaps they are being prudent scientists in stating that there is not enough evidence to support the hypothesis, but there may be enough evidence to continue doing research.

By the way, in both cases (32.6% and 31.6%), it was less than one-third, I didn't distort anything.

According to one of the key decision makers at the time (Steve Jobs), the US lost manufacturing precisely because we lack STEM degrees. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01...

Overall I'm fine with Tyson, but he has a bad habit of after explaining how science only advances if one questions, that we shouldn't question the science that is proven. Which is a rather serious flaw in science communication.

The paper surveys papers to 2013, and this is the reference that most of the claims that '97% of climate scientists agree' originate from..

99.9% is a number that you just made up.

If you review the abstract of the meta-study, http://iopscience.iop.org/1748..., you'll see that 66% express no position on global warming, 32.6% endorsed it, 0.7% rejected, and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause (but accepted global warming was occuring). Of the 32.6%, 97% said humans were responsible, which yields 31.6% believe humans are causing global warming, or less than one-third.

Before others jump in, expressing no opinion is not affirmation of the hypothesis, it's stating that 'we don't know.'

Viewing this tweet shows that Arment is a big fan of Scott Forstall, who ran iOS development until he was pushed out after Jobs passed away.

https://twitter.com/marcoarmen...

Not sure if he is chums with him, but taking potshots after your favorite is pushed out isn't uncommon.

As any developer knows, there will always be bugs, and they will be found when you have a billion, and growing, users.

and rearrange v=iR , insert v into power, P = (iR)R = i^2R, then insert i = V/R into power...man I need to drink more coffee in the morning.

Derp, keep power, not current, constant. FTFM.

I always scratch my head on it too, but it works out when you play around with it. Thermal losses P = vi (considering DC only, rms for AC assuming no reactance), Ohm's law is v=iR, rearrange to v = P/i, insert v into power, P = i^2R. If you insert i = V/R into the power loss, you get P = (V/R)^2*R which cancels out to P = V^2/R. To show the power loss is less, start with constant resistance and amps, plug it into a spreadsheet and see the differences. The key point is that you need to keep the current at a constant value, then you'll see that to get the same amps, you'll generate a lot more heat.

The power loss for AC current is less than DC because the voltages are easily transformed reducing P = i^2R. Is there any expectation that will change (assuming the world will not all of a sudden convert to distributed energy...solar isn't that cheap nor is it able to supply baseload)?