Oh god.. not this kind of crap. You know this solves and explains exactly *nothing* that we have already observed right.

Which would be pretty fantastic!

Bad statistics is bad statistics. Suck it up or get the statistics right. I don't care what side is spinning what. I am always going to call deliberately misleading statistics out. Yea when its deliberate, is because their is an axe to grind. Regardless if that axe "drugs are awesome" or "beer is evil" or "all hurricanes are SUVs fault". It is done far too often in the scientific community by people that should know better.

Yea its old but i have been sick.

WTF are you ranting about? And did you even read my post? Little too much foam in the mouth there dude.

Total bullshit. Funding grants are totally dependent on findings and the track record of your previous findings. It is right there in the text (publicly available in many places) of the grants.

I personally know some people who contribute to the IPCC, I know many more that will never do that again. IPCC is a very very politicized report that is written and rewritten many times, by more senior people down the line. It has a lot less to do with science that it does with politics.

It wouldn't cover the salary of even one worker. Universities charge overheads. The can be anything from 15% to 60%. If you want more than 60k take home, they are going to need to provide far more than 120k per year.

Clearly you don't know many scientists. Scientists, and by association the science they do, has no more integrity than anything else done by people. There are many examples, of bad reviews to people they don;t like, to flat out make shit up. Then there is grant review pannels and well the list keeps on going. Oh and in the US about 1/4 of or salary is suppose to be made up in grants in many universities.

You do know that the gain function of all transistors is not linear. We use a bunch of feedback to make it mostly linear.

As someone with a masters in Astrophysics, we have very detailed understanding of the optics, detectors and their limitations. We often design our instruments or parts thereof.

You know where that 8 glasses of water a day came from. An advertising campaign for a bottled water company. It has nothing to do with anything real.

Perhaps. In my experience its a even split of people going to the hospital. Also i know of almost no one that smokes only pot, they are also typically drunk as well.

Citation required. At least everywhere i have been where there are plenty of stoners, they do just as crazy shit as everyone else. I could cite the police reports to prove it.

You literary just made that up.

Again with the made up shit.

Lets be clear we know alcohol can be bad for you. But we just don't have good data on pot. Mostly because it has been illegal. There is nothing to suggest that if was as widely used as alcohol and as widely abused that it would be any better.

This is what i hate about the drugs debate. The pro side is "totally harmless" the con side is "OMG your going to eat your friend when high one day". The truth is neither, and the best we can say from the data right now is that pot is *mostly* harmless for limited use depending on the person (if there is a history of metal issues in your family you may want to be a little more careful). And this study is another example of the bullshit that can come out with the science label slapped on it.

Err no. Look at the data. It does not tell the story that the headline portrays. If i pick a random person in society, what is it that is currently bad for them? If i do X what is my increased mortality rate? That is the difference. It is like the last study post on /. here. Some very awful statistics there, and a clear axe to grind.

And like so many ST episodes it was some of the crappiest writing out there. Cus if they made the computer once, they couldn't make it again right.

And well we do have exploding bullets. Cannon bullets from 20mm and 30mm cannons explode. Its very impressive to witness.