Or better yet, combine the two...

Osamazilla, rising from his burial in the radioactive sea to demolish Tokyo.

I always figured the Android market share was due to AT&T...

Posted from my iPhone

Is the king allowed to use self-depricating humor? If not, would a show on NPR centered on discussions about cars be illegal in Thailand if hosted by the king?

When the stock market crashed in October of 1929, Herbert Hoover was in office. Other than the notable exception of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, his response to the Great Depression was for the most part to do nothing and let the economy take care of itself. He refused to run a budget deficit, and didn't use federal money to stimulate the economy. In fact, he was such a deficit hawk that he ended up raising taxes in order to keep the budget balanced with declining revenues.

FDR was inaugurated March 4, 1933, and by this time the economy was a complete basket case. This was over three years and three months after the market crash of 1929, so your suggestion that FDR's policies turned a small correction into the Great Depression is simply wrong. The US was already three years into the depression, and Hoover's relative inaction, which for the most part would have made today's Ann Rand acolytes happy, clearly didn't allow the economy to heal itself as you suggest.

The official line from Fox News is that there's a new Cold War brewing

So does this journal have a negative impact factor?

It must be socialism!

You mean Pris doing her programmed job or Pris on the run?

And to add insult to injury, Bell Labs no longer exists.

The problem starts with the US Patent Office. Even if the case is a slam dunk in the courts, you can plan on blowing at least $1 fighting the patent. If you're a small business that effectively shuts you out. What we really need for reform is to raise the bar.

My problem is The FA was short on details, so I'm assuming that they have mutually exclusive models that predict values that differ by a few orders of magnitude. If I were running a casino and I were taking bets on the true size of the universe, I could use an analysis based on Bayesian statistics to set my odds, but that doesn't mean that I should consider this number a true age of the universe. Sure, you can through up our hands and say it's Cosmology so we're uncertain about everything, but that doesn't make this good science. I would much rather see the numbers from the different models plotted on a log scale with marker sizes varying with the relative uncertainty or credibility of the models along with limits from any hard data that we actually have.

An example that I'm a wee bit more familiar with (although I'm not an expert) is the neutron electric dipole moment (nEDM). If the standard model is correct, it's really tiny. If other competitors and variations of the standard model are correct, it can be larger by many orders of magnitude. I could do a similar analysis on models for the nEDM and use this value if I were taking bets on the nEDM. But to say that I know the value of the nEDM would be bogus. I only know that it's less than a certain value as determined by actual experiments.

I still don't buy this Bayesian model approach. It sounds more like political science than real science. Scientists are supposed to
(1) make observations
(2) generate a model that explains the previous observations
(3) use that model to predict the results of new observations.
(4) tweak the model and repeat steps 3 & 4
(5) stop when either a multitude of observations yield no inconsistencies, or you run out of funding.

Of course, I understand that with cosmology, testing the model is somewhat difficult and usually involves waiting for a new big science project or new space telescope, but that doesn't mean that we should pretend that this Bayesian meta-model approach makes any sense.

It's a tin foil hat with an Apple premium.

In that case it's a damn shame that the seminal paper on Proton Enhanced Nuclear Induction Spectroscopy was actually published in Chemical Physics Letters. This is probably because they never bothered submitting it to Science. As we all know, PNAS = Papers Not Accepted by Science