Slap! Haven't unlearned all my lawyeristic ways, even though I stopped practicing 20 years ago. Slap! Must! Not! Think! like a D?&%!

I agree. The so-called "Report" doesn't tell me my current video quality at all, it just gives the average over 30 days over all the customers in my area using my provider (so how does this compare me with my neighbor???). The only one who benefits from this is the ISP who will no doubt tout it in endless commercials. (And by the way, I'm in the 29th largest metropolitan area in the US, and it has results for here).

What I hate is when I go to a website, and then all I get for the next week are ads from that website all over my other screens. Makes me want to scream, and actually is a large disincentive for going back to that website short of an Onion Browser (yes, StubHub, that's why I won't buy tickets from you).

I usually just put a piece of paper over the screen for the duration of the flight. Sometimes I even leave it for the next customer . . .

I think - in extension to this point - that the lawyers suing GM are too lazy/unable to read every document GM could produce in discovery and therefore they simply do word searches among the documents for the 69 words. The other alternative for protecting yourself from lawsuits (besides never using the words the lawyers will find) is to delete all copies of all emails, memos, and presentations that are more than 6 months old. I have heard about a company that tries to use this method to reduce its legal exposure.

Good point. How about splitting Orcs?

Your comment about how to shed chronic fatigue by using the body "properly" is arrogant and misguided at best. Chronic fatigue can be caused by a chemical imbalance, or other medical condition, and all the yoga and body alignment and core work will not cure it. Not that I'm advocating a jolt of electric current through the brain will.

There is much we don't know, but I don't think we have to start wearing our Aluminum foil hats 24/7 just yet.

I'm not sure that posting in prominent journals is quite the panacea you believe it is: there are still far more articles posted each year in Nature and Science than could be tested and verified by competent researchers. And surely you do not suggest we discount all science published in "obscure" areas? The science is not obscure to the ones who study it.

The Economist published an article last fall: Unreliable Research: Trouble at the Lab discussing that scientists may be looking at the wrong questions, and that well respected work may not be reproducible. I work at a university and to some extent, the new grad students reproduce the results that the senior grad students found en route to learning how to use the equipment, but it's not always that way.

The system is working to some extent, yes, it catches obvious fraud. I fear there are many more frauds that are not caught and lead to unreproducible results. I would not claim based on these catches that the system is "working well."

It is really a flawed experimental design. If I have the flu, I go to the doctor or I go to bed, I don't go to Google. If I have a bad cold, and can't decide whether it's the flu or not, I google the symptoms. The sicker you are, the less need to Google. The model might be predictive for really bad colds in cities, or really mild cases of flu.

Point of fact, when I run the browser with Adblock on it, I don't see any of the new Google ads, I just see some white space. I have a different browser without Adblock that I use to watch network TV online, so I know where the ads would be. No argument with me, Google is evil, but now it seems easier to block ads on Google than it used to be.