They only had 2 hives in their experiment?

No, they had four. Two treatment (T1 and T2), one placebo (B, a dummy phone), one control (C). You wouldn't know it though, the data sheet in the paper shows only two columns, one titled control and one titled treatment. No mention of the placebo, no indication that there are two treatment groups, no test statistic (or it's power) is reported, no model is ever described.

(Direct link to paper: http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/25may2010/1376.pdf)

I feel that this notion ingrained in our environmental education that anything and everything human beings do is bad and/or unnatural is just wrong. The universe is a vast place. And in the big picture, we are all part of it. Nothing we could possibly do is out of the bounds of nature on a universal scale. We have as much right to explore, seed, and shape the cosmos as any other creature in the universe. If we disturb the habitat of any other planet, so be it. It's the laws of the universe at work.

Seldom have I seen this sentiment put so well.
I hesitate though, to single out environmental education for an idea that pervades our culture so thoroughly. Whether it's the remnants of a self flagellating religion, the relentless search for authenticity that is the reverse side of our popular culture, baked into the human mind, or a mixture of these and more, teaching kids about pollution is only this strand's most obvious outlet.
There is however, a legitimate question beneath surface: To what degree, if any, should we maintain areas of the universe as 'wild'? Is there an intrinsic value to an area from which we are absent, or does this value, if it exists, come from rarity?

I don't need to be told that it's "billions of times than ever before", or to compare it to the library of congress, I can understand measurements. so how big is the object? 1 nanometer? 1 kilometer? what? the article doesn't seem to say either.

If the object, or objects, were observable, which it or they are not, then they, or it, would be visible; barely.
Does that clear things up?

Because scientist's interpretation of what they see is never wrong! When did science start to feel more like religion to me...

Did you forget a sarcasm tag, because there's nothing in TFA about global warming or evolution that I could see.
Does this fucking troll apply to all science articles now?...

Bill Gates also used to think his MSN proprietary network paywall would have more success than any silly Internet thingie. What he fails to realize is than in an Internet era, where price information travels rapidly, prices converge towards fixed prices. Not this drivel.

It is not the case that the increasing prevalence of the internet unambiguously hinders price discrimination; on the contrary, it makes some forms of discrimination, like those that rely on information asymmetry, more difficult and some, like loyalty systems and the like, easier.
Consider the case of Amazon. One one hand, the ability of the customer to buy books online for the same price from any location makes geographic price discrimination by the brick-and-mortar firms much more difficult. Amazon's Kindle, however, makes books relatively non-transferable, making sophisticated complete price discrimination feasible.

Well there's a reason for that. Eisenhower came from the era when the military had no political affiliation, and didn't vote. Not because they couldn't, but considered it an affront to civilian control. Because of this, Eisenhower was actually heavily lobbied by BOTH political parties to be their nominee for president. As this Life Magazine article from April 12, 1948 entitled "The Democratic Plan to Draft Eisenhower", says, "With this fact also generally accepted most of the important Democrats of all factions, even within the White House, last week agreed on a thrid fact: the one man who can unite the party and take it to victory is General Dwight D. Eisenhower."

Also, the Republican party went off the tracks back in the 60s with Nixon and the Southern Strategy that primarily is based on southern racism, militarism, and evangelical Christianity.

Though I'm as much against stupid governments following the policies of other stupid governments, I think you citizens of the US need to take responsibility for your own privileges of citizenship, such as the casual way in which you can provide arguments such as the above. Sometimes, our crappy governments dare to oppose your crappy government, and we end up having to experience certain problems such as "foreign"-funded assassinations, military coups, "sanctions", economic interferences (eg IMF, WB), covert "operations," or even "civil" wars or pretty much outright military attacks, wars, and invasions...

If you live in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even some poor Latin American countries, this argument might have some validity.

If you live in Canada, UK, any Western European or NATO-member country, Russia, China, Australia, or similar country, then you're full of shit. The idea of the USA bringing about a military coup in Australia to pass silly IP laws is just ridiculous. And with these IP laws, it's not the poor, backwards middle eastern and Latin American countries that Slashdotters are complaining about these dumb IP laws being passed in. It's countries like Australia, Canada, and the UK; countries that are completely free to give the US the finger if they wanted to, and more than strong enough to get away with it. As someone else here pointed out, the French give our government the finger all the time; maybe the rest of you need to start acting more like them.

So basically, your argument is full of shit.

Time to apply the cluebat: * infringing copyright is against the law * if The Industry has evidence that copyright has been infringed, they should report it to the police (because laws have been broken, and it's the POLICE who follow up on law breakers) * if The Industry does NOT have evidence that copy has been infringed, then they cannot reasonably expect The ISP to do ANYTHING it *REALLY* is NOT a complex problem. The problem is, today. it's easier and often cheaper to JUST GO AND SUE SOMEBODY FOR BAZILLIONS OF DOLLARS than pursue the issue in a straightforward and naturally legal manner.

I'm not sure about AU, but in the US copyright infringement, while unlawful, is not criminal. One cannot be arrested for it, convicted of it, or subsequently incarcerated (with exceptions.)
Suing for bazillions of dollars is precisely what the offended party is supposed to do.
Moreover, it's up to the offended party to decide who to sue. If A downloads a movie from B, with software written by C, over a communication medium owned by D, who is to be sued? One; All? If this is a simple problem, then please, offer your solution. Maybe we can get this whole copyright/internet thing sorted out over the weekend

(but don't take my word for it: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html)

If you believe that, you should be foaming at the mouth just as much over Apple.

If I had a Mac I would be.

You're thinking of the PG-13 rating or the R rating. PG is the second lowest rating, and movies rated such are considered harmless by most. Also not that the rating system only actually applies to movies, they are set by a secret group of "parents" in the MPAA, but the structure is so well known it often gets applied to other things, like photographs and web sites and such.

In the US the ratings are as follows: G - General audiences, PG - Parental Guidance, PG-13 - parents strongly cautioned, no admittance under age 13 without parental consent, R - Restricted, no admittance under 17 without parental consent and in the company of an adult, and NC-17 - No Children under 17, kids under 17 can't get in, parents or no.

It's rare for a movie to be rated NC-17 that isn't a porno, in which case they tend to go all out for the X-XXX ratings, as an NC-17 rating for a non-porn is generally a death sentance unless you have a following before the movie even airs.

We don't have attention spans long enough for story ideas that cannot be swiftly resolved with guns. Let's try an jive thing up a bit, eh? You know, like 24, with brainwashing!

I know this is a joke, but the thought of tv moving so smoothly from a show about a villainous agency who kidnaps and tortures the hero, to a show about a heroic agency who kidnaps and tortures the villain has left me too wistful to laugh.