When the statement "computer model shows conclusively" is used in a particle physics article, what kind of fail is that?

Uh, anyone with mod points to mod parent up? Or my sibling?

I found some of the comments above gaining the complete fail badge due to the assumption that it's going to be used by some iphone-toting hardcore geek who complains that it doesn't have GPS. FFS. The main page has a KID doing the presentation for the device. I wonder who it's aimed at. It's a $99 device that last for MONTHS on a single set of batteries and has an entire instance of wikipedia on it.
I sponsor a child in India and I've been wanting to get her something special for the last couple of years (missed on the OLPC). This would be perfect. I can send her this with a spare set of batteries and then send her updates and batteries every six months. Not a single negative so far (yes, she reads and writes English).
And if any moron cares to reply that children in India need food more than they need gadgets; note that this is Slashdot and most people here are aware of the true value of knowledge and what it can do for a person.

I could be very wrong but wouldn't shifting the frequency increase the latency of the signal since the original wavefront will be delayed to allow for the compression to happen? Maybe it wouldn't be a great shift (and so not really matter) but I was curious. Anyone with expertise in field care to comment?

Modded insightful? Hello? Is there anyone still here? I know there's supposed to be a good point in there but it got eaten alive and spat back out with copious amounts of troll saliva.