I sure as hell feel stupid when I lose stuff.
That in no way implies that I feel smart when I don't lose stuff.

It needs to be science before you can counter it. A basic requirement of science is reproducibility. That's what's wrong with much of alternative medicine, and taht's what's wrong with so called scientists like Michael Mann refusing to release fundamental data. If an alternative medicine quack released a study claiming his treatment was effective but refused to release the underlying data due to "confidentiality", exactly how much weight would you give it?

In the case of Mann, suing people trying to get data to reproduce his results places him firmly in the pseudoscience camp. And if the video was so "silly" why spend money to threaten legal action? Maybe because satire is a perfectly fine way to criticize poor science?

It's clear that my drawing parallels between Mann and quacks has incensed you. Sorry, but that's how it looks to me. I predict your next response will be an ad hominem attack.

Sure. Here's a link: http://bit.ly/udox81

MIchael Mann does *exactly* what these alternative medicine people do. He threatens and/or files libel lawsuits against critics. Everyone seems pretty happy to damn this behavior as "not real science" when alternative medicince is involved (and I agree). I'm just wondering why the same yardstick doesn't apply equally to all.

Such as Michael Mann,

Does that logic also apply to climate scientists who resort to legal action against critics?

In 1961, all three operators of SL-1 in Idaho were killed. The cause was one of the operators manually withdrawing a control rod too far. One theory is that it was a suicide-murder due to a love triangle.

Hang on! You didn't include the costs of maintenance in your calculations. Oil and coolant changes, spark plugs, and most of all the labor.
I suspect that the gasoline car will still come out slightly cheaper, but it is a lot closer than you suggest.

If appropriate pollution taxes were applied to both electricity sources and gasoline vehicles, then I suspect electric cars would come out ahead.

IT support works best when they maintain core systems adhering to open standards. That way they can supply mainstream users with standard devices/environments, while still allowing sophisticated users to connect and get their work done. Part of the deal can be that sophisticated users provide their own support for their environments.

For example, while secretaries may be best served by running Windows, it often makes good business sense for dev teams to work on their target environment. A good dev team won't have any problem supporting themselves so long as the infrastructure is solid.

A special class of user is the early adopter. Befriend these people because they are investing time in experimenting with new tech, some of which will become mainstream (and some of which is passing fad). So long as you insist on them supporting their own crazy experiments, their efforts are a net win. For instance, early adopters seem to have worked out that iPads will be the mainstream winner out of the tablet field. That's a whole lot of research and evaluation that IT doesn't have to do.

What about security? I think this is often used as an excuse for trying to (quixotically) maintain some kind of status quo. Of course security is important. Appropriate policies should be enforce by core systems, with the assumption that pretty much all mobile devices are insecure. For instance, there's usually no need for a lawyer's iPad to access the central source code repository, and this is trivial to enforce without descending into a subjective argument about which mobile devices are less secure. They all suck.

The big picture is that the way we live and work is changing. People carry lots of powerful mobile devices, and work and leisure are ever more intertwined. Good IT people will work out a way to support their customers. The rest will go the way of the mainframe operator.

With the introduction of full body scanners, the indignities of security screening have been taken to new heights. Not only is the process invasive to the point of illegality in most countries, but the required steps appear to be calculated to maximize degradation. Subjects are required to stand on certain spots and hold their hands in the air, much like dangerous criminals are treated when arrested.
Every subject (currently) has the option of refusing to be degraded like this, at the cost of a few minutes of their time. If the majority of passengers chose this option, this would act as a massive economic countermeasure against the TSA's attack on basic freedoms and dignities.
And yet, when travelling recently through the USA, I observed exactly zero fellow passengers exercise this option (I always opt out of the scanners). It is apparent that the average US citizen values their dignity somewhat less than a few minutes of their time. One wonders how they chose to spend these minutes that were so dearly bought with their liberty. Perhaps they enjoyed a coffee at Starbucks or watched TV?
What happened to the great principles that the USA was founded on?

Neutrons come from fission, fusion or radioactive decay. All of these processes produce photons and electrons which are detected by geiger counters. If a significant neutron flux was being produced, whatever was producing them would be sending geiger counters crazy.

Perhaps you should educate yourself in basic physics rather than passing on the unfounded ravings of crazy people?

FWIW, in the week of the meltdown exactly one significant neutron flux was detected. This was probably caused by a prompt criticality in the melting core.