1. Nobody tested this until just now, meaning our understanding of the Casimir effect was sufficiently incomplete that nobody should have been writing on the topic with any confidence or authority. A real scientist familiar with the topic probably wouldn't have been; but "real scientists" are sufficiently thin on the ground that you could likely have gone through a doctorate in science and not met one. Teachers in particular, at all levels, seem pretty prone to talking and acting like they're hot shit.
2. Nobody thought to test this until just now, which means that some pretty dumb assumptions were made (they're dumb because they were assumptions and incorrect).
3. Nobody thought to test this until just now, and it's a pretty _obvious_ test too, so either nobody spent any time on it or they were extremely myopic. (Something I've seen in many "scientists"' publications these days; overspecialization to the point of virtual uselessness. They're competent to gather data but not design interesting tests.) I'm only vaguely familiar with our knowledge of the Casimir effect (which is sometimes good!), and I would certainly test all sorts of patterns - on each surface - to figure out how that affects the effect.
Of course this discussion is based on the assumption that what the summary talks about is in the article, which I haven't checked, and that the article faithfully summarizes what's in the paper, which I haven't checked, and that the paper purports that this is new knowledge, which I haven't checked. It's quite possible that what's published in the paper is already well-known.
People are commenting that some people eat 500/1200/etc. calories and still not loosing weight. Can someone explain this to me?
Yes. They're deluding themselves about how much they're actually eating.
Or you're wrong about what causes obesity.
Of course they did If you give the government an inch, they take a mile.
Let me fix that for you: If you give anybody (particularly an asshole) an inch, they take a mile. Oh, and cops are generally assholes.
As a Canadian I've been dreading our role in these negotiations. I feel that we really haven't pressed our position sufficiently in bilateral treaties with the US when it comes to commerce (this goes back decades). This is exasperated by the current Federal party in power in parliament (though it's a minority), which demonstrably follows the US lead in many areas.
However, it seems that at least in this case, our government (as distinct from parliament, I might add) is clearly pushing for the Right Stuff(tm). At least as hard as the EU, maybe harder. As an example, it seems that wherever punishments (remedies) for infringers are mentioned, Canada (and usually the EU) has added: [the judicial authorities] "shall take into account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement and the remedies ordered as well as the interest of third parties."
In other words, no ridiculous court cases where a 16-year-old gets saddled with a $750,000 judgement against them because they downloaded a few tracks from Kazaa (or whatever the kids are using these days
DAMNED FUCKING RIGHT. TAKE THAT YOU BASTARDS.
That said, for others who're reading and who might be interested in some high-end, Linux-based packet-processing kit (because really, the prices Cisco and Juniper and the rest of them charge really are past the ass-raping point of the screw-me spectrum), you could check out Vyatta: http://www.vyatta.com/
Nevertheless, assuming for a moment that you're being truthful in your expression, then I have this to say:
This is what is wrong with the world today. Billions upon millions of morons who don't know what they're doing, and people trying to show them how to (or, hell, what the fuck - people trying to beat them into) do(ing) it the right way.
You want these assholes who can't even figure out how to correctly measure something to build the bridge you drive over twice a day? How about the building you work in?
Or I dunno, maybe you'd prefer having _only_ people who will point out errors when they see them working on it? How about your doctor? You want your operating room filled with maybe one smart guy who recognizes an error and six people who don't know any better? And you're saying that, when the smart guy recognizes the error and tries to point it out (no matter HOW he does it, though I'm betting the original poster isn't that much of an asshat at work), he's being a dick?
Christ, what's wrong with you? Seriously?
How do you respond to this scenario?:
Oracle owns MySQL. Oracle shapes MySQL's development very slowly over the course of a decade or two, cementing it in its current niche (and, thus, it will never be a threat to Oracle's ridiculously fat profit margins).
In this scenario, do you think there will sufficient impetus to fork and grow an open-source-only MySQL project (with a different brand and basically a new community starting from scratch)?
Surely you can agree that the desire for such will be radically reduced, possibly to the point that it's not feasible?
Even if it is feasible, surely you can agree that it would almost certainly slow down MySQL's developments in this direction by years? (For many years MySQL has been growing more and more feature-rich, arguable to expand the roles that it can play. I would say pretty much all of their current momentum is in this direction.)
And you can be pretty bloody sure that if Oracle owns MySQL, that'll never change.
"People should have the freedom to hold on to their money if they wish if they feel it is to their benefit to do so. Especially the poor who are usually not the ones who invest in stocks for one reason or another and the only way to mitigate the erosion of their wealth is to spend that cash on something and the poor are the most in need of developing a safety net of cash that they can use to drag themselves up in the world."
The poor don't invest in stocks because THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO.
They don't lose money (directly) from inflation, because they HAVE NO MONEY TO LOSE.
They (must) spend it on the necessities - food, clothing, shelter. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF POOR.