This appears to speak to your question, especially the last two paragraphs before the notes section.

The Peppered Moth Story: Vindicated!

A quick search appears to show they haven't folded their cards as yet.

About Irreducible Complexity
Michael Behe Hasn't Been Refuted on the Flagellum
mouse trap illustration vs. 3-glasses-3-knives illustration — Irreducible Complexity, Depth of Integration

I would think that evolutionary theory would predict, and even practically demand, the presence of ID theorists and Creationists of various flavors as part of the scientific community. Every scientific community, and they are segmented, is its own little ecosystem. It has sources of energy (grants), and consumers (scientists) and various forms of reproduction (ideas and new scientists, etc.). Some members of the ecosystem will consume resources, but give little back, or produce poor quality offspring. The herd only improves if the strongest survive. Think of the role of predators taking the weak in any animal stock. In this case it is weak theories and science. By the two communities engaging in adversarial struggle, the weak science is exposed and made stronger. What is passed over in silence by on community is exposed by the other and account demanded. Intellectual rigor increases. Their ways are strange to you, perhaps even irritating. But directly and indirectly they help real science grow stronger, and more innovative. They probably also bring additional funding into the scientific community that it otherwise wouldn't have. And without them, your droll post would have no meaning.

The evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium came about for a reason - to explain missing data - transitional forms, data that couldn't be found but evolutionary theory said should be there. It is certainly a bold approach to the problem - we can't find it because it doesn't exist so, never mind. In a way it brings to mind the Fermi Paradox.

Of course the ID community has a view: Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record

Note to moderators: I am neither kidding nor trolling. Feel free to ignore the post.

I was under the impression that the issue of translating LED light into a broad swath of color was an already solved problem (except for some fine-tuning optimization), using appropriately-sized nanoparticles which hand the energy from the photons around, slicing-and-recombining energy from photons into different sized packets and re-emitting the light at a frequency characteristic of the size of the nanoparticle. Cover the LED with a bunch of these in a range of sizes and you get a smooth spectrum.

Works the other way, too: Coat a solar cell with such particles and they take the random-frequency photons from the sun and slice them up into multiple new photons at a frequency good for the solar cell bandgap, and mash the levtovers into more big photons to re-slice to the correct size. (It's not 100%, since some of the photons get away. But it's more than a 2x improvement over a bare cell, which only takes one slice off each photon and throws the rest away.)

If this is correct, this project looks like just a fine-tuning of making the nanoparticles, or finding materials for them that are somewhat more efficient than what was already being used (which was pretty good).

I haven't been following this all THAT closely. Have I misunderstood the current stuff? Or is this just a little incremental tweak along the cutting edge?

Respect - for stating the facts. I write that not because I might support President Bush, but because my recollection is that you strongly oppose him but still stated the fact. If we can't keep the discussion centered on facts, even if they might be unpalatable to us, what do we have? Too many people here don't do that. Enjoy your weekend.

It might have been gathered from the newspapers. . .

From: Ottawa Citizen, January 17, 1977
Bobbies borrow guns to blast fugitive

RAINOW, England (AP) - Police cornered and killed an escaped prisoner who fled across snow-covered moorlands holding a woman hostage at knifepoint after allegedly killing four members of her family.

Police said the escapee, William Hughes, 30, was shot to death Friday night after the stolen car he was driving crashed into a wall at a police roadblock.

Some of the policemen earlier had to arm themselves with guns borrowed from residents of this central English village.

There's only one way to protect ourselves – and here's the proof

Now I'm curious, from where do you learn your British history? It seems to be an incomplete source.

Mother Theresa would no doubt have printed a medical tool for removing IUDs.

Which would have been totally useless since most of the countries and places she setup shop didn't have access to birth control to begin with.

India, with its huge population, had a large program making IUDs available at no cost to people in the poorer regions who wanted them.

Mother Theresa's work included providing medical treatment to the poor in many of these same regions. Her clinics were noted for removing the government-provided IUDs of women who were there for other procedures, without seeking permission or even informing the woman that it had been done.

Don't you just pull on the string?

Not if you don't want to kill or sterilize the woman.

After some considerable delay, while the terrorists milled about chatting, yes.

If a law abiding person at the scene had been armed, instead of just the terrorists, it might have ended before the terrorists were able to decapitate Drummer Rigby. Personally, I would have found that quite agreeable.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

Despite all your reasoning it is nonetheless true that American citizens are (somehow) able to use firearms to defend themselves on a regular basis.

In some countries this woman would probably have been badly hurt or killed. Do you know how she avoided it?
Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder

Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI

I can see why you might be misled on the subject though: Self-Defense: An Endangered Right

On the other hand, HM seems to (second picture down) know what she likes.

Cheers

Murder is already very, very illegal. No new laws are needed.
Planning murder is already very illegal. No new laws are needed.
Soliciting murder is already very illegal. No new laws are needed.

I believe that level of perfection in the law was reached by 1613. Are you suggesting that in the last 400 years that all subsequent new laws were unneeded? There was no need to ban guns, since killing people was already illegal? No need for any of the anti-terrorism laws, since killing people was already illegal? There was no opportunity to improve matters that are governed by law? No possibilities to improve evidence gathering? No possibilities to improve cooperation between different ministries and agencies? No limits on extremist activity that might inhibit the already far too many people in HM realm that are disposed to commit acts of terror. Also note, by your reasoning there should have been no reason to effectively ban self-defense, since murder is already illegal so no further laws are necessary. I don't think I can agree with that.

I am unaware of any obscure medical diseases that might cause one to burst into thousands of pieces of steel shrapnel to kill dozens of people standing nearby. That is a constant threat of terrorism of the sort already seen in Britain. The absence of regular incidents of such is a result of convictions, not luck or magic stones.

Those numbers can change rather quickly if just one plot gets through.

That would be use of an offensive weapon. There are severe penalties for violating the Queens peace like that.

Since the IRA also engaged in terrorism, there seems to be a flaw in your understanding.

It was terrorism, treason, or both.

The attackers had guns, they pulled at least one on the crowd to keep them back while they went about beheading the soldier.

The quote doesn't say anything about guns, only freedom in general. But since you ask - you are a British subject, which says a lot. 100 years ago Britons were freer to own guns, and don't the crime statistics show lower crime then? I would guess your assessment would be that you would feel freer now than then despite the higher crime rate.

I notice HM is guarded by people with guns. I've even read a report that she has been known to carry a Webley. Do you suppose she feels less free because of it? Do you feel less free because of it?

Interesting that the terrorists had guns. (Isn't that theoretically impossible under current British law?) Apparently nobody but the police had one to stop them. Good thing they didn't decide to go on a bigger rampage - they would have been up against the defenseless. On the other hand, you feel free.

Cheers

A year after Breivik's massacre, Norway tightens antiterror laws

You have a rather special understanding of things if you think taking action to prevent the future murder of people enjoying the Queen's peace in Britain is somehow making things worse. Or is it that you are reacting in fear?

Will you welcome a new overlord from a foreign land if they simply offer you peace for submission?

Your head still seems to be attached. The haircut couldn't have been that bad.