If you think that "scientists" are mostly after money, then you don't know anything about how science works or where funding for science is actually spent.

Usually, this isn't much of a problem, since grants are so competitive these days that they must be based on already previously published results that the potential grantee seeks money to extend and explore the consequences of. No "Nobel Laureate" would be caught dead attempting to copy an idea already developed in published work and call it their own. It would be a pointless exercise that would only make them look foolish to their peers.

You seem to misunderstand what one can learn from a negative result.

A negative result is in a sense like determining that a function is non-linear, Knowing that some phenomenon behaves as a linear function is a very tight constraint upon what one can subsequently infer about that phenomenon, since there is only one way to interpret linearity. On the other hand, simply knowing that a function in non-linear, doesn't place much of a constraint at all, since there are an infinite number of ways of begin non-linear, none of which may necessarily be related to one another. One needs to know more about the precise nature of the function to reach any kind of conclusion, which of course, requires a subsequent experiment. It does NOT tell others "something" about the phenomenon (other than it is non-linear). The same is true of a null-hypothesis that can not be rejected. The outcome tells you NOTHING about the phenomenon you are attempting to study, except the fact that the experiment failed to result in a significant finding. Unlike a rejection of a null hypothesis, the acceptance of a null-hypothesis tells us nothing about the nature of error. If you have no estimate of error, then you are in effect making no scientific statement.

There is a reason why you are wrong. There aren't enough forests to support publishing all possible negative results or enough time to read them. More aptly, there are plenty of "negative" results in the scientific literature. If you count the number of scientific papers that are in disagreement on a particular point, there are a great many of them. Science works best, when there is actually evidence gathered to accept or reject a particular scientific hypothesis. A purely negative result can be obtained without taking any data at all and hence, is of little value in advancing science.

The good ones need ink as well.

Too bad it won't come in time to prevent the adverse effects of global climate change on human food and water supplies in large part induced by more and more people using more and more technology.

You can't shop at the Play Store unless you are willing to be relentlessly bombarded with ads and your entire life's every moved tracked to improve the bottom line of Google Corporation.

Google doesn't just make glasses. They want to own your eyeballs as well.

Who is voting for this guy? It must be a corner of WA where stupid is a virtue.

An average car produces 5.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. The average resting human produces 170,000 liters, or 340kg carbon dioxide per year. With a moderate level of activity, we can increase this to a conservative 500kg. There is simply no comparison. Clearly, this guy is an idiot masquerading as a "representative" of people's needs.

I need to show it to my wife, who just doesn't believe me as to the source of on-line viruses and malware.

Probably not. Like so many of these ideologues, he is just a one trick pony.

The point is that Time Warner was FORCED to compete. That's what we as consumers need to encourage. Then and only then will we truly have "more choices". As citizens and as consumers we need to get government back into the business of making competition easier not harder. We need more "pro-competitive" politicians, who can then stand back and let truly "free" markets work.

Google, please come to Poulsbo, WA and Ocean Springs, MS where the local cable monopolies (Comcast) and (CableOne) have a monopoly stranglehold on service and pricing. I'll switch in a heartbeat.

Is Lenovo really doing anything different than what any business would do faced with a challenging environment? It all seems to boil down to on what bets you place your chips. Even for Lenovo there is not an infinite supply of resources to count on when making business decisions. The real question is how is society as a whole benefiting?

save the money by not banning obscene and profane plate numbers, but instead force them to be put up for auction where those who insist on extreme use of their first amendment rights must pay more for the privilege of degrading the society the rest of us must live in. Lets face it, republicans have forced us into a situation, where we have to come up with money from somewhere to keep civilization going.

If the increases post 2000 have "leveled off", why are the data for 2012 the warmest year on record and (2001–2012) rank among the 14 warmest in the 133-year period of record. all very close to all time highs? This study, at least that pointed to via the article, does a rather poor job at providing the data upon which it is based, since to reach this conclusion it must be modifying in some way the global mean temperature record as provided by multiple sources. Until that is done, one should be circumspect about the conclusions.

Further, the problem with additional sulfur dioxide is that it rains out as sulfuric acid, further adding to ocean acidification, which may ultimately prove a far more significant problem for humanity than elevated global mean temperatures, especially given that mankind gets more than 50% of its protein from world oceans.