The solution is not more regulation, but simplifying it. If a corporation can make billions, by simply hiring 50 lawyers, or 500, to find a way to make billions, that is huge return on investment. Anyone who expects an efficient and responsive government is dreaming. The only effective solution is to make it so simple, that dodging becomes impractical.
I have gotten more than a few dirty looks for playing buzzword bingo.
It is interesting to me how the topics are chosen to determine what is rejection of science and what is not. For example this week another study came out that organic is not healthier than conventional, yet the anti-free market people reject that science as bogus.
I reject the idea that CO2 is going to cause global warming, but accept lung cancer is caused by smoking and AIDS by HIV. I ignore the creationists, but accept that they are free to believe what they want to on that, but evolution all the way for me.
I have also been an R&D engineer for more than a decade. Somehow the idea that because I accept free-market principles instead of central planning indicates that I am anti-science is total bullshit.
Of course since this is a peer-reviewed paper I could be labeled as anti-science for not accepting this paper, but that is something I am willing to risk.
I would not hate Apple if they were not the control freaks that they are. If you deal with Apple in anyway, they own you. iTunes is exactly the type of control over the users that China and Iran want over their citizens.
Keeping the Internet open is critical for many reasons. Google has been made better by the competition it has faced relentlessly over the years. Google+ is better than Facebook because they have had to innovate relentlessly. Android is getting better because they have to keep making it better because of the competition that exists.
If Apple and Facebook had their way, there would be no competition. Three cheers for Brin.
That most glaciers are less than 2,000 years old gets almost no attention. The Earth is a dynamic place and the energy involved is many magnitudes larger than anything mankind is capable of causing.
The climate is always changing, but we are not the source of the variability.
All of that coral on the planet Earth (yes, all of it) is less than 10,000 years old. All of the coral that was alive 20,000 years ago died when the last ice age ended and the ocean levels changed by > 400ft. All of the Earth's previous coral died as it was too deep to survive the new depths. In the past 1,000,000 years such events have wiped all tropical coral from existence at lest 20 times.
Coral has adapted by loading the ocean up with the eggs and sperm so it can form wherever conditions are correct. This falls into the publicity stunt range of science. They got funding for something they know isn't a problem, but they get money for it anyway.
Has it EVER stayed the same? No.
Were the ocean levels > 100 m (330ft) lower 20,0000 years ago? Yes.
Did the Earth enter the last glacial (ice age) from a warmer climate than today's 115,000 years ago? Yes.
Are CO2 levels causing the Earth's climate to measurably change? No.
I looked at the science, climate has always been changing, but mankind has nothing to do with it.
I would have to say this is unconstitutional, but it plugs a hole in the legal system that is incapable of dealing with properly dealing with inherently dangerous people. Anyone who is willing to destroy someone else for their own pleasure is someone that has no "right" to mix with the public. The fact that the government has not been able to get sentencing to properly account for this is the real problem and this ruling is a stop-gap measure.
In many ways the old west justice of a lynch mob was far more effective at dealing with many types of crime. Once the lynch mob was done there was no risk of repeat offenders. The downside to lynch mobs is the false/positive verdict that cannot be retracted. A solution is needed, but this law and ruling only highlight how poorly the system is at keeping people safe. It clearly does open the USA to the risk of permanent detainment of people that are at "odds" with the government. I am sure that Obama would not mind "detaining" some BP executives for a while as risks to the greater good.