i did look it up, and could not find a credible source to back up your statement about the fact that Thomas took bribes. Do you have a credible source you could share?

insomuch as i don't consider the advancement of science an agenda, yes.

well, i certainly can't say that you are wrong, but i am much more willing to trust information that is coming from an international science organization than from a somewhat agenda-driven newspaper.

You'd have a much stronger argument if this report was verified by multiple sources, which very well may turn out to happen in the future. For now, however, you are putting as much blind faith in the guardian as your proclaimed "nuke-nuts" do as well. Being skeptical of the first piece of sensationalist journalism is not 'denialism', friend.

not being a real scientist myself, i could be completely wrong here, but it is my understanding that responsible science is done with verification of data, not just blindly releasing data, as humans tend to err. So if TEPCO is making sure their data is correct and testing multiple times to see if the data is more likely to be verifiable, then it seems to me they are being much more responsible than the shock journalists that are more interested in getting people's attention rather than actually informing people of objective truth.

but speculation is only just that: speculation. Any observer can give their opinions on what they think is going on inside, but to report their opinions is irresponsible. TEPCO is being intelligently smart about not releasing anything speculative, only presenting empirical data. Again, it's the alarmist tone of the news surrounding the nuclear incident that sickens my stomach.

exactly. excuse me for being rational, but i'm not about to take an article from the Guardian as hard fact before it's reported on, say, the iaea website. I actually find it rather offensive that a site like /. would post this alarmist nonsense.

If it wasn't for the fetish porn, i wouldn't have kids to begin with.

they add no value to the learning experience

of course they should, and mobile phones as well.

Seems like we have a lot of pot-calling-kettle-blacking going around in this thread. Nowhere in your article does it claim that the breach occurred inside Google's network. For all we know, the external workforce (DART, et al) that works for google outside their networks were victims of the IE6 exploit, had the malware infecting their computers, which had access to other systems in Google HQ. I think that might be unlikely, but still, there is not been any concrete explanation from any source. Seems just to be a lot of conjecture on both sides.

sorry, where in that article does it even mention IE6?

And it's also not surprising that ad services might lag two, three or four years behind where these web technology companies are.

more like 10 years behind. Asking an Ad Vendor to provide me and my fellow developers with valid xhtml code got the response: "We only have iframe and javascript as our current available ad tags."

Brilliant people, these Ad Vendors.

you mean we have to use valid xhtml to get our posts to display correctly? How inconsiderate.

I don't consider a browser to run HTML5 until it utilizes all tags, not just the ones that are carried over from HTML4