Invested in the US government? Really? I guess you are making a semantic argument, but then people in the press wouldn't refer to SS going into "red"... meaning that it is paying out more than it is taking in.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/5/social-security-red-first-time-ever/

In the commonly used definition of an investment, the institution does not/can not go into the red and remain viable. If it does, then that means it has failed, and everybody loses their money.

Your definition of investment seems more in line with Bernie Madoff's.

I agree with the parent. There is no reason for a reviewer to know the authors names/university affiliations. Only the editors should be allowed this information. Are there any journals that follow this practice?

That's no justification to smash the shops and cars of people mostly unrelated to the issues you cited.

Don't try to say that there is a reason for this. Marches/sit-ins/hunger-strikes are peaceful, noble forms of expression. Rioting is juvenile and only hurts your fellow citizens.

Halle Berry would have been too young to show up in this film. Had Storm been one of the first class members, she would be in her late forties/early fifties when they shift to present day stories. Wolverine and Mystique both age slowly, so they can make cameos without breaking continuity.

Right, nothing ever gets past the IPCC...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

Couple of issues:

1) The solar plant is still a PROJECT. So the claim of MW generated and number of employees needed are estimates. They may be accurate, but it is not fair to compare estimates against an existing installation.

2) Generational differences. Comparing an existing nuclear plant to a to-be-built solar plant is unfair. You should compare the solar plant to a to-be built or recently built nuclear plant so that the nuke can also benefit from the same technological advancements.

I'm a big fan of solar, but this type of comparison is not proper.

Similar to how chip manufacturers will compare an existing competitors chip to the theoretical performance of one of their future processors.

It goes a little deeper than just yes and no.

The current climate of the US is shifting away from valuing science and logic. And it is not solely because of the religious right. Look at the dwindling numbers of US-born science majors in universities. Science is just not that popular. (But was it ever really cool?) Look at the reaction to Dr. Summers of Harvard when he put forth a HYPOTHESIS about the small percentage of women in science. He got butchered.

When you look at our society, you can see that people have very bad reactions to ideas that don't fit into their own framework of how the world works. This shouldn't be surprising; humans have been this way for long time. What has changed, however, is that now, people start responding to these challenging ideas, not with logic or reason, but emotional arguments. This happens on both sides. The only difference is that the religous are easy targets.