I'm particularly interested in what will happen to the EFSA if their claims turn out to be bogus just after Monsanto is sued into oblivion. My guess is: nothing. That seems to be the modus operandi of any group that seeks to destroy something they disagree with. It has a "Rules for Radicals" ring to it. Destroy your opponent in the court of public opinion with the vulture media as willing accomplices. This is a very scary trend.

IMHO, this is a fish/bicycle argument. Maybe if you're in the business of music i.e. in a band, you need to know how to sing in order to reduce the chance of being replaced as the guitar player. However, in my long experience, middle managers who THINK they have programming knowledge simply make life exceedingly difficult for those of us who actually do the programming. The manager types simply want to feel like they have more control. They'll say "Oh, just change the font in this report so the marketing flakes will be happy" not realizing the hoops you have to jump through when placing form over function. That said, it follows that mangers of programming teams should be cultivated from the programming team and not from some newly minted MBA class.

I was just thinking that. How do we know they haven't modified the ARM design to include stuff like backdoor decryption or tracking capabilities?

Krugman: "I point to {insert example of successful capitalism I don't like} and I point to my Nobel Prize. That is all."
Rational people: *facepalm*

It doesn't matter. The union presence in the private sector has been fading for decades. However, the union presence in the public sector has been growing and it seems that they have found an ideal place because taxpayers are not customers and therefore have no freedom to choose a non-union product.

Bruce66423 is clearly "unrepentant" in his reporting by using the word "unrepentant" as though Schmidt has committed a crime. Just as with most socialists, he is wrong in thinking there is some moral law that supersedes actual law and that only socialists get to define what it is. Schmidt A) followed the law and B) met his obligation to the stockholders who foot the bill for Google to exist and expect to make something from taking the risk in investing and that most likely includes the socialists' precious pension funds.

All we need to do is invent a new fiat currency, convince the third world that it has value, and pay them in that. Problem solved.

Time was that a government research project could actually be accomplished within a specified period of time. The Manhattan Project and the Apollo project are two examples. Why should battery improvements be any different than mandating CAFE standards? How does Chu know that a matter of time a few million dollars are all it's going to take? $120 million is chump change by today's standards. This sounds more like a political goal than a practical one. Seems to me that there are too many uninformed people in Washington that think there's always some corporate conspiracy preventing them from reaching their utopian technological goals. This isn't to say that it's not a worthy goal but IMHO, if you really want to make this happen, then you do it Manhattan Project style (walk walk walk walk Manhattan Project style). You hire the top people in the field away from their current jobs, bring them together in one place, isolated with no distractions each competing to solve one problem.

James Burke was talking about this more than 30 years ago in Connections. The final episode is something every modern luddite should watch and learn from.

In the wake of the Italian seismologists who were recently convicted of manslaughter, Mann could easily be accused of scientific misconduct if his predictions turn out to be wrong. Personally, I find people's panic over the hockey stick graph to be akin to people getting excited over Facebook's recent stock jump. http://consumerist.com/2012/10/24/facebook-stock-price-soars-to-about-half-of-what-it-was-worth-at-ipo/ That graph says a lot about having tunnel vision. But let's assume that Mann turns out to be not just a little bit wrong but a whole lot wrong. How many billions of dollars were wasted on schemes like carbon trading? Can the people and businesses who got screwed as a result potentially sue for damages? Who would they sue?

So here's a question: if this sets a legal precedent, will scientists who fail to predict other things get thrown in jail too? What about scientists who predict stuff that never happens? Jail time is rather pointless but what if a bogus prediction leads to people spending a lot of money? Can they sue for damages?

I seem to be hearing the sound of UN flunkies screaming that this wasn't the way it was supposed to work? "AIIIIEEEEE!!! You can't just MANUFACTURE carbon credits!! That defeats the whole purpose of redistributing North American wealth!! Oh, wait, I wasn't supposed to tell anyone that. My bad."

What's interesting is how far off the mark the predictions of electricity-based technology these cards are. Lots of mechanical levers and knobs to control things. Also, miniaturization seems to have been missed.

And teenage boys will still have trouble unhooking them.

What do people consider an "above average candy treat"? Personally, I would consider a Paris Flyer bar above average. http://www.flyerchocolate.com/ For the inexperienced, these would be akin to a Milky Way or a Snickers turned up to eleven.