18 city, 25 highway.. it crosses one of the vote boundaries.

Yeah, it's unfortunate. That's why I was asking for media outlets who see the value in what they do.. more than drawing readers, but as a public service. :-/

So, did you hear that Brittany Spears likes to walk around the house naked?

... was an entire book about this topic. It suggested that science education should also include subjects on communication.

Maybe, maybe not.

Personally I'd rather see scientists do science and instead have other people who understand the topics well enough to communicate them. Perhaps we could call these people "science journalists," and they could work for media outlets who understand that the value of the work they do.

So I got it installed and tried it out, nothing strenuous at all. I was glad to see adblock plus available for it.

However the next time I started it, it "upgraded" itself to 3.6.6. Anyone else have this happen too?

Just sayin..

correction: CowboyNeal
damn it. :(

* I originated the entry on CowbowNeal

That reminds me of one study I had read which measured the excitement levels of people while playing violent video games as compared to while watching a violent movie. My thought was, where was the control? I get violent just playing tetris. Hell, I leave a session playing Grand Theft Auto calm and relaxed. It's the games like Galaxy Wars that really get my blood boiling and leave me wanting to throw my entertainment system out the window at the end of the day.

Wish I had moderation powers.

+1 (Funny)

The article is correct. Meta-analysis are dangerous and ultimately useless. You won't find a scientist today who regards meta-analysis with any kind of credibility. As I mentioned in a previous comment, they're at best useful for pointing a finger at some idea to say "this is worth more study." But on its own, a meta-analysis can tell you nothing new and can far too easily be manipulated to fit the biases of the reviewers. Either studies are cherry picked to support their preferred conclusion or all studies, regardless of quality, are included and given equal weighting. Either way, the conclusion is not useful and not science.

Cherry picking is one problem of meta analysis, the other is the opposite of cherry picking where every study is included without regard to its quality.

Agreed. As soon as I read they used "meta analytic tactics" my eyes did a virtual barrel roll within their orbital cavities. Meta analysis cannot be used to prove anything. At best they may be able to show that some topic is worth further study, but at worst and as is often the case they are used simply as rhetorical tools to mislead those who don't understand science and statistics.

Shameful reporting.

I don't know what combination of words in there are his actual name but I think it's safe to say that whatever the case, this man was born to be a judge.

Yeah. If I understand correctly, by the time it reaches 10^23 there's virtually no chance that one single molecule of the original substance remains. So 10^30 is even overkill by a few orders of magnitude.

Off by a bit there. Try 99.999999999999999999999999999999%.

But these people are: http://www.realclimate.net/

All this rhetoric and allegory is laughable.