And in this case a right wing think tank also claim they should cut down forests for a laugh and be unwilling to do the right thing even when forced by the government.
I remember reading Junkscience.com's own 'global temperatures'. They had marked temperature differences between summer and winter. Someone ought to tell them the globe is, well, globe-shaped.
It's not exactly a trustworthy source of anything.
The quote doesn't support your claim, dude. Lurn 2 reed.
You're right. Nothing ever is Apple's fault.
The thing is, a normal 1080p 22" screen or 2560x1440 27" screen sucks at text rendering. Just look at any modern phone, and see how beautifully text is rendered. Now look back at your monitor. Even with all sorts of anti-aliasing magic, whether you're on Windows, OS X or X11, it just does not look good. 2560x1440 on a 13" monitor is just about acceptable. Sadly, the industry has been pushing multi-media and 1080p instead of pushing the boundaries, which is why any old computer can run all the new games today, and no one needs to buy a new PC for anything.
Also, what you're looking for is a tiling window manager.
Probably, but since Norway imports both meat and vegetables, it just doesn't matter.
Yes, if local sheep were the realistic alternative, but they're not. The infrastructure for transporting sheep is the same as for vegetables. The army doesn't do sheep farming.
No. Most Norwegian military bases are located in the outer parts of nowhere, and regular soldier pay is worse than lousy (military service being semi-compulsory for men, still). Even if there are restaurants nearby, it's unlikely they could serve most of the soldiers stationed there, and if they could, most of the soldiers wouldn't be able to pay.
Also, the food tends to suck anyway, so a day of vegetables shouldn't make matters much worse.
Are you implying we live in the worst of all possible universes?
So what you're saying is that bread is fear? or circuses are fear, and bread is consumption? Or that nothing is something, which has changed?
In any modern browser: mark a word or phrase, right click it, choose 'search in Google|Bing' in the context menu. Even if you type 400 WPM, you just wasted several times as much time on your stupid comments than you would on doing 'research'. Not only are you a proud idiot, you're also a time waster.
Even worse than the slashvertisements are the slashbots who proudly flaunt their ignorance instead of doing a basic search.
I'm not sure I'd call a 27" monitor an area of science, but it does benefit from today's faster GPUs.
Not quite. We're seeing an exponential growth in publishing without a similar increase in quality. That means the crap to quality ratio is going up.
You've got a good point about negative results, but I don't think I agree with the rest.
There's nothing wrong with peer review as such, but the current research climate doesn't help it at all. In many countries, research grants are tied to "measurable, objective results", e.g. articles published, preferably in highly-ranked journals. And so researchers want to publish as much as possible, in as highly-ranked journals as they can get into. (Leading to an explosion in research, so no one really has the time to follow all the research in their own field, or even doing thorough peer review.) Journals are ranked among other things from how often they are cited. Negative results aren't often cited. Replicated tests are only cited in systematic reviews. Setting aside money for replication would be a good idea, but journals shouldn't need to fear for their ranking for publishing less glamorous articles either (or rather: ranking shouldn't be taken seriously). Most importantly, publishing shouldn't be so strongly encouraged. Far too much is published already, and much of it just isn't very good.
As for online publishing: that has been the norm the last decade, and is absolutely dominant now. Comment areas? Like Slashdot? God forbid.