I don't eat there because of their anti-GMO marketing. If you're going to use science denialism as a marketing tool and cater to a dangerous hysteria that makes the world a worse place, then meh, I'll go somewhere else.

Just in case anyone thinks they read this AC's post wrong, yes, you have to pay Elsevier so that they can then get paid to sell your work.

Normally, the person selling a thing first buys it from someone else, like how a grocery store buys apples from a farmer then sells them to customers. In this case, it would be like the farmer paying the store for the privilege for them selling the apples. Elsevier and the other publishing companies have somehow managed to get a situation that violates all economic common sense.

And the thing is, you have to, absolutely have to, have publications in this system. Otherwise, you've done nothing. It's sheer idiocy, which as you can imagine, leads to all sorts of problems besides just the copyright thing.

Everyone knows and agrees that it is a bad system, but not many are willing to work to change it. In physics and astronomy they're doing pretty well making things available to all, but every other field (mine included unfortunately) they still follow these archaic models. Everyone wants to publish in the right journals. Looks good for your career. Everyone's making the good decision for themselves, but a terrible decision as a collective that ultimately screws us all over.

I think it should just be illegal for papers from any research done with any public funding to be restricted form the public. Having to pay a private corporation to read something you already paid for is horseshit.

They want money for 'damages?' Well I want access to the research that MY tax payer dollars payed for. These papers are not being stolen by Sci-Hub, they are being ransomed by the leeches at Elsevier. You can't steal something that is already rightfully belongs to you. These papers rightfully belong to the people. It's completely ridiculous that I or anyone else should have to pay money for a paper three decades old, or pay for something because their institution does not have that particular subscription, or pay for anything else that they already, through their taxes, paid for.

Fuck Elsevier. They are nothing more than a drain on the system. The free sharing of knowledge is one integral to the values of science. If promoting science, and getting what you are paid for, are piracy, then long live scientific piracy.

Instead of asking if people want to get screwed over by telecoms, they should instead ask if people support 'Restoring Internet Freedom.' Since most people will say yes to freedom, their lackey in congress can then pass a bill doing exactly the opposite, but call it that. Just lie more, problem solved!

Europe also has better access to healthcare (including mental healthcare), better social welfare, less class inequality, less gang activity, and generally ranks better on all the other things that lead to violent crime. I'm not sure how you can compare the two situations and blame the guns. Even between areas in the US, gun crime tends to happen more toward urban areas with lots of social problems, and not so much in the backwoods rural areas were everyone and their grandmother is carrying a gun.

Or he means to imply that Trump and Putin really, really like each other. The terms like 'being in bed with' have existed for a long time to describe ties like the one Trump is accused of having with Russia (e.g. Senator Johnson opposes Bill X because he is in bed with Big Oil!). To me this simply seems like a more crass variant.

That said, even if it was homophobic, a fine for a joke is absolute bullshit. What is this, Germany? Besides that, since when has the Trump administration given a shit about homophobia? Do they realize who the VP is?

Well, yes? Institutes like this are places than where the wealthy launder privilege into credentials. Anyone who thinks otherwise has bought into the propaganda. Get a good look at your elected representatives; in a few decades we'll be arguing over which one cheated the least.

Nonsense, the SAT told me all I'll ever need to know about my INT stat!

Sure they could, they'd just charge you for the free delivery afterwards and then refuse to pay the limo driver.

Hawai'i is a place just like anywhere else. Sometimes it's raining. Sometimes you just don't feel like going anywhere. Sometimes you've had a long week and just don't feel like moving. It happens.

A lot of ignorant people say this (from their cushy first world armchairs) but it is a lot easier for people to improve their countries when they're not sick all the time.

In which case, we reject the idea that we live in a simulation. I see no proof that the world was created last Thursday. I can't disprove that either, so in lack of an ability to do anything either way, I take the simpler approach and reject the notion until further data becomes available. The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claim, not those asking for evidence, and anything said without sufficient proving evidence can be rejected without disproving evidence.

Could be. I'm playing a game I got on Steam right now. It is thoroughly mediocre. I want to rate it, but Steam has only a positive/negative system as well, and this game deserves neither. So which do I give it? If I round up, it makes the game look better than it is. If I round down, I am being giving an inaccurate portray of how I really feel. I either am inaccurate, or I make tht game look better than it actually is in the rating aggregate, which will increase the likelihood of Steam making a sale.

In Netflix's case though, seeing as how you've already bought the subscription, I don't see how this will help them, but maybe that is their angle. Either way, as someone who gives far more 2-4 stars for things than 1 and 5 stars (because most things tend to fll somewhere between total crap and absolutely amazing), I do not welcome this change.

What you say about GMOs is incorrect. There is no kill switch; you are either thinking of terminator seeds, which were never implemented, or the nature of hybrid biology, which a more of a fact of genetics than any corporate money making plot. Your lawsuit your linked is about actuallyl says the exact opposite of what you claim. The judge asked the prosecuting organic group to prove their claim that farmers are sued for unintended cross pollination; they could not. Sure, farmers have been sued by Monsanto for knowingly and intentionally selecting for and mass propagating transgenic seed which were the result of cross pollination, but at that is very different from the anti-GMO narrative (which is ironic since the farmers who were sued were trying to get GMOs without paying for them). To use an analogy, if I throw a DVD on your lawn, you cannot be sued for that, but if you take that DVD, mass copy it, and use it in a for profit manner, you can be. Simple as that. Rule of thumb: if an article portrays genetic engineering as injecting an ear of corn with blue stuff, it's probably sensationalist nonsense.

If there's evidence that radio waves are damaging, it certainty hasn't made much in the way of a splash in any scientific circles I'm familiar with.

If you want to claim a scientific high ground, you've chosen some bad examples.