Another denier argument. All models are far from infallible. They're models; an imperfect representation and they always will be since, at least in this universe, since it is impossible to obtain perfect information about a system. The aerodynamic models for jet aircraft are wrong. The models for bridge and building stability are wrong. Every single one of them are wrong. However, just because a model is wrong doesn't mean it isn't useful. All models have errors, and by accounting for those errors a model will still yield predictive skill. Error analysis is very important in modeling and is used constantly to establish everything from structural integrity limits to likelihoods of future droughts. It's a fundamental component of numerical analysis.

That's not a denier argument. It's perfectly valid to question the models. Just because our "best available evidence" leans one way doesn't make it 100% infallible proof. Not too long ago, scientists figured out they were vastly overstating temperatures over time because they didn't fully understand the heat sinking capability of the oceans (the whole "where's the missing heat?" debate). That variable alone completely rewrote the book on future projections of climate based on current CO2 numbers. Denying global warming may be dumb, but questioning the suppositions and conclusions drawn from the current level of "100% faith in the models" is another. I give different levels of credence to "string theory" and "quantum physics" and "gravity" and "evolution" for very good reasons. Some are rock solid with hoards of reproducible evidence and sustainable models. Others are borderline guesses with models changing annually. Stop pretending that the current "best guess" of scientists is infallible proof.

Check out the Last Policeman series - 3 books based on knowing the world will end in a year from an asteroid impact. Very bizarre and very good reading.

And even more lens flare?

I'll be happy to match your ex-Bush list one for one with someone from the Clinton or Obama groups. Don't pretend it's a one party issue.

Wouldn't "we the people" have standing?

I may not agree with Monsanto's labeling, but I do agree that they should be allowed to sue over it. They are directly impacted by the chance, so why should they not be allowed to fight it?

Many companies do this kind of thing, which leads me to a question for you. Are you sure there wasn't a separate tier, one that not every employee got cards for? My own company does this to us...we outsourced our IT a few years back, and now if you call and tell them you're from a certain location, you get your hand held, and a blow job, while your machine is fixed.

And I have been a constant Linux user since 1994. This cannot be too important.

Matches my experience. The bean-counters manage to squash all original research, unless you can somehow finesse a bit into grants that are for nothing more than industrial development work. No surprise many fields, like CS for example, have completely stalled on the research front.

From what I recall, notch splits the 2.5 billion with 2 other people and his share is about 70%. I can't find a citation right now (grr) but pretty sure I read it back in september.

I was also happy to hear that he shared 3 million dollars with the 25 mojang employees. It is nice when a business owner that sales the business shares something with the employees who made the business a success.

From what the articles have said, part of the reason he sold was he couldn't take the stress and fan anger directed at him (as the company figure head for things he didn't personally have a hand in) made him really unhappy.

The water fountains could be done with the new particle effects.

It's a nice creative build.

I frequently had papers rejected as "not new" without citation and then accepted elsewhere where they told me on request that they checked carefully and found the content was indeed new and interesting. My take is that this may also quite often be "reviewers" that are envious or trying to compete by putting others down, not only ones that are incompetent. Fortunately, I had nothing stolen by reviewers (after they rejected it) but I know people that had this happen to them. As the peer-review system is set up at this time, the best and the brightest need longer to get their things published, need much longer to get PhDs and have significantly lower chances at an academic career as a result. Instead those that publish a lot of shallow and/or meaningless incremental research get all the professorships, while barely qualifying as scientists. The most destructive result of this is that many fields have little or no real advancement going on as new ideas are actively squashed. After all, new ideas would show how abysmally bad at science the current position-holders are. But this is not new. Cranks like Newton had research by others squashed or suppressed, because it was better than his stuff. This is also the reason most scientific discoveries take about one research-career-length to go into actual use. The thing is that the perpetrators of the status-quo have to retire before their misconceptions and mediocre approaches can be replaced. Exceptionally stupid, but all too human.

Personally, I am now in an interesting industrial job, and I still do the occasional paper as a hobby. But I would strongly advise anybody bright against trying for an academic career. Wanting to do research right reliably ensures that you will not be able to do an academic career at all. The core ingredients for a scientific career are mediocrity, absence of brilliance, hard work and a lot of political maneuvering. Oh, and you must not care about doing good science!

Well said sir, well said.

I have only one daughter, and we raised her about how you were raised, and she has turned out very well indeed.

I also have a sister-in-law that is unfortunately headed down the road of your sister, though maybe not for all the same reasons. It is very sad - we still try to get through to her, but the outlook is bleak.

Stick to your guns with your children when you have them. We did, and it does work.

One tip I can give though: The guiding principal I tried to instill is that everything has a cost - it may not be to you, it may not be money (success at sports takes other things than money - time, effort, patience, determination), but there is a cost to everything. Is what you want worth the cost? If so, by all means, go for it, pay the cost and achieve it. But you aren't getting anything for free - that's the real world.

So this court in Argentina declared:
1) This orangutan is a person
2) Decreed that she be banished from civilization immediately. I.E. "Freed"

Didn't anyone ASK this supposed person what they wanted?

Claims are that it didn't source physically in NK. It's not the first time (making an assumption here that it actually was them) they've done shit outside of their actual boarders.