Slashdot Mirror

Exactly. That thing will snap in half the moment it leaves the ground. If it does survive being airborne, it will never survive a landing.

Why? Justify your comment with an explaination.

I'll justify it on his/her behalf: http://dictionary.cambridge.or...

Brennen Center, Washington Post, Atlantic, Mother Jones, UCSD, UW, Cornell, Cambridge. There is a mix a academic original research and easily accessible, but thoughtful articles in that list.

Trialling is standard English. See here. In fact, it is the most precise word to use in this instance. Looks like you need to seriously brush up on their English skills, or at least read more than random websites and comments from illiterate users.

The word usually refers to visible light

Yes, that's exactly my point. And any sampling of dictionary definitions will confirm this.

• Encyclopedia Britannica: "electromagnetic radiation that can be detected by the human eye"
• Merriam Webster: "something that makes vision possible", "the sensation aroused by stimulation of the visual receptors", "specifically : such radiation that is visible to the human eye"
• Oxford: "The natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible."
• Cambridge: "the brightness that comes from the sun, fire, etc. and from electrical devices, and that allows things to be seen"

I would suggest this ubiquity constitutes a standard definition, at least in terms of commonly accepted usage.

In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength

And that's why I called your post an oversimplification, instead of incorrect. It is more accurate to say light and radio are both forms of EM radiation, than simply to state radio == light.

Actually that is an appallingly bad definition from a dictionary for the "common usage" interpretation since it misses the important requirement that it be a huge change. Try a better dictionary like the Cambridge english dictionary if you want a more correct common usage definition - they even know how to spell colour correctly too! ;-)

I would say: just try the Google lookup of "define trainers" for yourself.
I did, and the first hit was http://dictionary.cambridge.or..., which gives as definition:
"a person who teaches skills to people or animals and prepares them for a job, activity, or sport:" and
"[ C usually plural ] (UK) (UK also training shoe, US sneaker) a type of light, comfortable shoe that can be worn for sport"

The second and third hit are directly for "trainers", not "trainer", and give
"A British slang word for Shoes." and
"plural noun / British / shoes that people wear, especially for running and other sports"

So, you are right that it is a British word, but not that a Google search for "define trainers" will not give you a definition.
I'm not a native English speaker myself, and I had no problem understanding the meaning.

Try Cambridge or something reputable instead of what ever you used to find the list of synonyms and rubbish.

tyranny
noun
[ C/U ] us /trni/
social studies - Unlimited authority or use of power, or a government which exercises such power without any control or limits

When a Government is described as a tyranny, the definitions for tyrant (singular) do not apply. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that English is not your first language.

The point is not about threats,

That's not what you said. You said: "The day we need a lynch mob we'll make sure to call you."

lynch mob
noun
a group of people who want to attack someone who they think has committed a serious crime

the point is about jumping on a bandwagon of bashing someone without providing a reason

That also not what the poster said either. He seemed to know Super Kendall's history of inane arguments.

Yes, but "over the bridge" does not use the same meaning of "over" as "Uber is over".

"Uber is over" uses this definition:
(esp. of an event) finished, completed, or ended:
Iâ(TM)ll be glad when the meeting is over.
The game was over by 5 oâ(TM)clock.
I'm worried about the test, but at least it will be all over (= completely finished)in an hour.

Yeah, the definition and necessity of premises are up for vote. In the time of alternative facts, people have decided you don't need them.

I do not understand this Amazon thing it obviously something to do with voice recognition?

I was at a meeting and we had to take notes and at the end of the session we had to hand in our notes to be examined for errors
and there was a word I did not know how to spell. I tried using a Samsung "smart phone" so I am trying to make it spell this word
it said "you can say memo send mum a card. And read the news. What would you like to do. Say hi Galaxy."

BUT you are not allowed to use any technology to complete the document so i am cheating. Bloody smart phone made so much noise and kept on coming back with the wrong word! i could hear people near me s n i g g e r i n g. I ended up using sounds like on a website
  http://dictionary.cambridge.or...

How about the press goes back to being watch dogs instead of lap dogs, shake off the "Democrats with bylines" label,expose the corruption themselves, and undermine the FSB?

Good luck with that. Ever since Journalism schools started teaching students that it's a-okay to write in "order to change the world" instead of "present a view as neutrally as possible and let the reader decide." It's been a problem, one can't forget either that academia has a huge left-wing problem, and that in turn has created an entire echo chamber which believes that it's perfectly okay to do whatever they want in order to win. It's so bad in the soft sciences that people are sending out the warning alarms on it.

The EiC of the local paper ~20 years ago at the high school I went to warned about it then, he's probably spinning in his grave at top speed that his warnings weren't heeded and his buddies taught an entire generation to be opinion writers posing as journalists who need to write articles to support their guy and push a narrative while screaming "fuck facts" all along the way.

Are you incapable of using Google?

http://freakonomics.com/2012/0...

http://journals.cambridge.org/...

http://www.jstor.org/stable/21...

Fixed that for you.

You didn't. You only made it more specific. It is perfectly fine without the bold part.

None of the common dictionary definitions for "steal" mention depriving the original owner of anything.

Firstly, both Cambridge and Oxford specifically define the primary definition of the verb 'to steal' as an action in which an object is taken without intending to return it. Secondly, I was arguing that most people would consider the meaning of this word to roughly equal the dictionary definition (which happens to coincide with the legal definition in most if not all countries). Unless you can point me to a credible study that show the majority of people share your view, I think that is a fairly safe assumption. The redefintion you adhere to is a relatively recent invention by media industry lobbyists.

The fact that someone is familiar with the accepted meaning of words does not mean they've been brainwashed by the media industry.

Indeed. In fact, it suggests that someone has not been brainwashed. However, when someone denies the accepted meaning and tries to spread a redefinition invented by the media industry, it certainly does mean precisely that.

That you subscribe to a non-standard definition suggests that you've been engaging in a practice commonly referred to as "drinking your own bathwater."

Well, I hope you enjoyed your bathwater.

Nope, it isn't. The state condoning it does not magically stop murder being murder.

http://dictionary.cambridge.or...

Trailing punctuation goes inside the quotes, even if it's not part of the quote? Who ever came up with that?

That's not actually true. Only punctuation that is part of the quote goes between the quotation marks.

Non-sequitur. Whether or not our brains could have evolved the way did without meat (baloney), has nothing to do with whether or not being a vegan now is "stupid from a physiological standpoint."

First of all, there's no scientific reason that one should avoid meat (with the exception of meats cured with nitrites.)

Second of all, it's not baloney. We were hunter-gatherers long before we began planting crops. Before we began planting crops, plants that we consumed just didn't have the energy density that they do today. Not only that but wild plants just don't have the micronutrients needed for our own survival, as our livers aren't capable of producing 8 required amino acids, and most plants don't have enough vitamins B12, A, D Iron, and Zinc, and wild plants especially don't. Most importantly however, is that plants lack creatine, which is why brain development in the early days wouldn't have been possible.

Whitepapers:
http://journals.cambridge.org/...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Also essential for muscle growth:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...

So there you have it, three well cited sources for why it's bad from a physiological standpoint.

While I'm sure PETA propaganda says otherwise, but PETA is definitely wrong, likewise so are you.

In fact, if you want a wake up call for why vegetarians can't survive on wild plants, look here:

https://www.geneticliteracypro...

Nope. VW is known for its high build quality and tight manufacturing tolerances, so I presume the must indeed be quite fastidious in their tests. You can see some of it in this film. However, I don't think they do anything fundamentally different to other manufacturers in that regard.

Claiming something is wrong just because it includes discriminating behavior is not a valid argument by itself, as it is quite intellectually dishonest. Unless prejudice against men is found (aka, they aren't being included because they are deemed inferior)...

I disagree. Discrimination based on gender, unless our different biology is relevant, is wrong because it automatically implies prejudice. Look up the definition: prejudice is "an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge". Hence this example is prejudicial against men since they are being rejected out of hand without and knowledge of who they are based solely on the unreasonable criteria that they are men.

I never said that all discrimination is bad, clearly we should discriminate based on ability, but I will claim that discrimination based on gender, race, religion etc. is wrong unless that gender, race etc. is directly relevant e.g. women do not need prostate exams. This is because such discrimination automatically implies inappropriate prejudice either for or against some group. Indeed I would claim that it is you who is being intellectually dishonest because you are trying to use sophistry, such as re-defining the meaning of prejudice, to escape the real issue which is simply whether discrimination based purely on gender can every be justified.

For those who avoid Googling, this thought experiment is by Galileo Galilei.

Something not entirely different: in Otto Frisch's delightful memoir "What Little I Remember" he relates a story about Niels Bohr and him, which can also be read here (search on the page for "thought experiments" or - even better - just read the whole transcript); in "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes this is told as follows:

He [Bohr] was traveling through Germany to determine who needed help. [This was in the 1930s.] "To me it was a great experience," Frisch writes, "to be suddenly confronted with Niels Bohr - an almost legendary name for me - and to see him smile at me like a kindly father; he took me by my waistcoat button and said: 'I hope you will come and work with us sometime; we like people who can carry out "thought experiments"!'" (Frisch had recently verified the prediction of quantum theory that an atom recoils when it emits a photon, a movement previously considered too slight to meaasure.)

His aunt was Lise Meitner, and together they gave a correct interpretation of experiment by Otto Hahn: "We [Frisch and Lise Meitner] walked up and down in the snow, I on skis and she on foot (she said and proved that she could get along just as fast that way), and gradually the idea took shape that this was no chipping or cracking of the nucleus but rather a process to be explained by Bohr's idea that the nucleus was like a liquid drop; such a drop might elongate and divide itself."

I highly recommend Frisch's memoir. From it another Bohr story. Frisch was invited to Bohr's home, and on seeing a horseshoe hanging above the door and said to Bohr: "Surely you don't believe in that?"; Bohr's reply: "Of course not, but I'm told it works even if you don't believe in it!"

A quote by Frisch: "Scientists have one thing in common with children: curiosity. To be a good scientist you must have kept this trait of childhood, and perhaps it is not easy to retain just one trait. A scientist has to be curious like a child; perhaps one can understand that there are other childish features he hasn't grown out of."

Sure, but they weren't exactly out there to write scientific journals.

Nice side-effect, though.

"You presume" -- here you try to build a strawman. I presume no such thing.

"don't provide any evidence" -- here I'm supposed defend the strawman you built.

Maybe you should lookup what a strawman is before you embarrass yourself in the future. You explicitly state that if VW were to be destructed, sales would go to a car manufacturer "that didn't willfully scam their customers, dealers and compromise public health". No such manufacturer currently exist. Hence, you seem to assume that it would somehow magically pop up out of nothing.

"Not a single GM executive stepped down and no criminal charges were filed" Your point? The fact that nobody got locked up for that is a god damn crime itself. There is plenty of room in US prisons for corporate criminals, as far as I'm concerned. But GM had it's cohort of apologists and equivocators to fend off the wolves, and VW has your kind, so little is likely to happen in this case either.

Let's hope so. In the GM case, I think it would be reasonable if at least the people directly responsible for the decision not to improve the part were prosecuted, but it that is a U.S. company and they have paid U.S. politicians enough, they were treated very mildly. VW is a scary foreign company and it has not bought politicians, so they get the full Toyota treatment: a relatively small issue that they're willing to solve get blown up out of proportion to damage their reputation as much as possible and to extract as much money as possible.

Maybe this explains it better than I can: http://dictionary.cambridge.or...

According to this study, America is an oligarchy. Here is a quote (as per the New Yorker):

Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association, and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then Americaâ(TM)s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

When I hear about abuses of power, when I hear about the NSA spying on everyone, when I hear about militarization of police, when I hear about local police departments running roughshod over the Constitution as implied in the parent article, I start to think that something is deeply wrong in America. Then I remember that Americans still have the right to vote in those who rule them. And that is encouraging. But then I realize that most Americans have lost the ability to comprehend the systems of power that rule them. I remember that too many Americans vote based on shallow ignorant views, that they are persuaded by 30 second political TV commercials instead of actual rational argument, which is boring and long and tedious. And I remember that those 30 second TV commercials are expensive, and that politicians must go begging to those with large amounts of money in order to buy those 30 second commercials. And I remember that when politicians accept money from those very wealthy interests, that they become enslaved to them. And this makes me feel hopeless.

Then I remember that if Americans stopped listening to shallow arguments given in 30 second TV commercials, if they started to demand rational argument instead of the shallow blather that has so far persuaded them, then they could take back power from the corrupt wealthy interests who have driven the country into the ground over the last three and a half decades. And that makes me a little bit hopeful.

Just because so many people are retarded and the people making dictionaries want to appease them or themselves, doesn't mean the result is correct.
Do you say jigaton?
jigabyte?
jigabit?
jigaflops?
You may be an American. Almost everybody else in the world speaking English will pronounce it properly.

I'll see your Merriam-Webster and raise you the Oxford dictionary, the Cambridge dictionary and dictionary.reference.com:
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
http://dictionary.cambridge.or...
http://dictionary.reference.co...

Because there's a wide, yawning gulf between breaking into an occupied home at night and breaking the fish & game laws? Seriously, people aren't aware of this? There are hundreds of years of precedent. You gotta crack open a book one of these days and learn about your own culture. "Reason is the life of the law," and all that. Here's a good place to start. Remember, education is always a good thing. Then, you can learn the answer to your question. You're welcome in advance.

Hmmm.... not sure what happened to my attempt at putting html into my commment. Let's try that again (and hit preview before submit this time...)

For chrissake look the phrase up in a dictionary.

Okay, that time it worked.

There are more than a few people who have good reason to believe that we are living in just such an oligarchy already

The knee-jerk assumption that most Americans make when they hear talk about reforming the ridiculously out-sized influence of big money in Congress is "Ok, make a law that restricts donations".

But that's quite possibly the most crude way to address the problem. There are a lot of more elegant reform ideas that I think avid Free Speech advocates can get behind.

For example:

  Small donation matching -- match and multiply only the first $100 or $200 of a donation. This amplifies the power of individual donors (actual people) and dilutes the influence of big money

  Tax rebate or federal voucher -- every voter gets to allocate say $100 toward whatever Representatives or Senators they want to support. Again, this idea dilutes the influence of big money because it makes it plausible for a popular Congressman to run a campaign without relying on big money at all. It encourages Congressmen to please their constituents instead of completely ignoring them, which is pretty much how they behave right now.

  Campaign funding allowance -- Congressmen may opt in for federal campaign funding if they agree not to take money from other sources. This frees up their time to do their actual job as Congressmen and frees them from enslavement to big money concerns.

  Transparency measures -- any real reform law needs to require complete disclosure of funding sources, so the SuperPAC loophole should be closed up in that regard. Boehner says "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."

  Conflict of Interest measures -- implement regulations that prevent Congressmen from taking jobs connected to anyone that was a donor after they leave Congress. Also, perhaps some regulation could be crafted that recuses a Congressman from oversight or certain activities around bills directly related to their donor's concerns.

Anyone who is very concerned about any policy making that could threaten Free Speech rights in the future does not have to automatically avoid anything to do with campaign reform.

Corruption is becoming a huge problem in our government. Big money is beginning to completely drown out the voices and concerns of individual voters (for example, check out this awesome video by Represent.US ). At this point, money is pretty much the only determinant of policy-making in the legislature any more. This is literal. I am not exaggerating.

The result is, instead of a government that legislates based on rational planning around the concerns of Americans, we have a system of irrational legislation. Money is now the dominant driver of policy, not the concerns of voters.

Check out this scholarly paper from the journal Perspectives on Politics, it is a study of some 2000 bills since 1980. The researchers (Gilens / Page) from Princeton and Northwestern essentially show that the opinions of the bottom 90% of Americans have literally zero influence on Congress. -- Their ultimate conclusion is that America, by function, can no longer be considered a Republic. America is now, effectively, an Oligarchy. We are a nation run by a few rich people and the rest of us are just serfs with little or no practical impact whatsoever on our nation's governance.

FYI, the Big Bang Theory isn't astrophysics.

Really? That's odd, I wonder why it's covered in this book and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and this one and... etc.

Please learn a teensy tiny bit about the fields of knowledge you wish to dismiss.

Please learn a teensy tiny bit about the fields of knowledge you're discussing before you correct people.

No. The anti-vax movement has been largely driven by greed, stupidity, and the parents need to "blame" someone.

No. The anti-vax movement has been entirely driven by unethical pharmaceutical behemoths killing/maiming thousands of children in third world countries, unloading worthless crap on ignorant asshats and raking in massive unearned profits on the misery of millions.
  Glaxo Smith Kline was fined a paltry amount after performing unethical "experiments" on children and killing fourteen of them. Would you trust these jackasses to inject your kids? Hell, their own scientists had to be bribed to cover that shit up. Faked vaccine data lessens confidence in Merck products.
  Merck has lied for years about the efficacy of their vaccines. Why would anybody trust them?
Other countries ban defective vaccines, it's not rocket science to shun poisonous garbage that makes your populace sick and decreases productivity for potentially years. MMR vaccine, lookin' at you.
And that's not even counting poor vaccine quality control, a persistent issue for these massive corporations. In that one case Merck got caught before they could offload those 1,000,000 deadly doses on some unfortunates in Africa and collect tax credits for their philanthropy from the IRS.
FFS even the Nigerians are skeptical by now. Looking at the preponderance of shady practices, outright lies and poor quality of your average vaccine peddler it's no wonder the anti-vax movement is gaining momentum. But don't take my word for anything, go get your annual flu vaccine and risk paralysis or worse, and forget about that "immune system" crap the hippies are trying to foist on everybody. Nutrition isn't that important and you have a basement to live in and keyboard crumbs to make.

Which would EXACTLY be those JACKASSES that *YOU THE PEOPLE* elected and put in office to write laws regarding how the FBI, NSA, DHS, ICE, IRS and all the other agencies you hate are to treat YOU.

REAL fucking smart all that voting and standing up and telling them what you want that you've been doing all these 15+ years.... REAL FUCKING SMART. It's no wonder you get them trying to roll out more shit against you. You actually bend over and let them fuck you.

What an idiot. Sorry, how responsive is the federal government to the needs of the People? There have been studies done that show that citizens have little say in how policy is formed. We vote for Kodos or Kang every two to four years and not much changes for the better.

So what am I supposed to do? Sure, I can get involved politically and I do that to some extent. But I have a 40+ hour a week job to maintain, kids at home once I get there at night, and life maintenance/kid stuff to do on the weekends. So I don't have a massive amount of time to spend on making sure government agencies are following the law and acting appropriately. And, frankly, I shouldn't have to! That's why I elect people in a representative government. My elected representatives are supposed to look out for their constituents. I am painfully aware that they do not often do that. But that's not my fault, it is theirs. They were elected to do a job just like I was hired to do my job. My boss does not constantly check up on me to make sure I'm doing my job. If he had to do that, I would be fired. I am expected to know what my job is and do it correctly with minimal supervision.

As you can probably tell, I am sick of people blaming the citizenry for government corruption and/or incompetence. Yes, people need to pay attention, stay engaged and vote responsibly. But big business, intelligence agencies and wealthy special interests have been working for years to rig the game and get what they want. They do it behind closed doors to purposely keep the People out of the process (just look at the TPP for an example). And then there's that fact that the public is lied to and propagandized such that a lot of people don't understand the issues and rely on bad information. So fuck off with this blaming the public crap. Yes, the public has to stay on point. But it is not nearly that simple, and it's not their fault when people entrusted with responsible government let them down.

There's nothing wrong with "cancelled" - it's the correct spelling outside the US!

But all too sadly a really rather accurate portrayal, of the Fox not-News fossil fuelers.

Of course the nuclear mobs are raising the heads and they are the natural enemy of the fossil fuelers. Kill fossil fuel and nuclear investments will basically go 'nuclear' sic. (mining and energy generation). Not to forget certain countries will gain hugely whilst other countries will suffer enormously and for a very few it is a swap from one revenue source to another ie the US would become energy independent, Canada and Australia would make a killing and Russia would swap from one to the other. A whole bunch of fossil fuel export dependent countries would of course go straight down the fiscal gurgler http://dictionary.cambridge.or....

Comprise: to be made up of (something) : to include or consist of (something)
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Comprise: to have as parts or members, or to be those parts or members:
http://dictionary.cambridge.or...

to include; contain
to constitute the whole of; consist of
http://www.collinsdictionary.c...

at nauseum

I think you possibly mean ad nauseam?

It was at the Battle of Nauseum, in Sicily. The Jerries had the drop on us, but old Birdy took up the Enfield and went over the top for God and Country, and don't you know the regiment followed the bloody old blighter... and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

at nauseum

I think you possibly mean ad nauseam?

(Different AC)

It is 100% "proper grammar", and an online article from a magazine editor isn't enough to change that.

I've always been more a fan of "they" for a singular person of undetermined gender but "he" has been around for far too long to start calling it wrong.

from the first page of results for googling "he or she grammar"

It's more than just writer's digest.

Here

If your child is thinking about a gap year, ? can get good advice from this website.

A researcher has to be completely objective in ? findings.

In the past, people tended to use the pronouns he, his, him, or himself in situations like this:

If your child is thinking about a gap year, he can get good advice from this website.

A researcher has to be completely objective in his findings.

Today, this approach is seen as outdated and sexist. There are other options which allow you to arrive at a ‘gender-neutral’ solution, as follows:

You can use the wording ‘he or she’, ‘his or her’, etc.:
If your child is thinking about a gap year, he or she can get good advice from this website.

A researcher has to be completely objective in his or her findings.

and here

He or She in Unknown Gender

For years, if the gender of an individual referred to in a sentence is unknown, “he” would be used as the generic pronoun.

“We don’t know who started the fire,” a police officer might say, “but he will be held responsible.”
It is understood, by both the police officer and any listeners, that “he” could refer to either a woman or a man.

However, as culture changes, so does the language along with it, and many believe that the exclusive use of “he” for a person of unknown gender is sexist. There are a few options in this situation.

An archaic way of dealing with the issue is to use “one,” as in “One never knows what one can expect.”
Using this pronoun is often clunky and results in some strange-sounding sentences.

“He or she” can be used in moderation, but it cannot be used too many times at once: “he or she knows that if he or she needs to talk, he or she can visit his or her professor.”
Some use “they,” but this word cannot be used with a singular antecedent—it is only used with plurals.

and

Traditionally, he and him were used to refer to both genders in formal writing:

If anyone has any evidence to oppose this view, let him inform the police immediately.

Nowadays, we often see gender neutral forms (e.g. he or she, he/she, s/he, (s)he, they and him or her, him/her, them) when we do not know if the person referred to is male or female:

The bank manager could help with your problem. He or she will probably be able to give you a loan. (or he/she will probably be able to or they will probably be able to )

Go to a hairdresser. Ask him or her to come up with a style that suits you, your hair, your lifestyle. (or ask him/her to come up with a style or ask them to come up with a style )

When you get into the building, go to the person on the desk in the reception area. They can tell you where to go. (or He or she can tell you where to go.)

Language changes. There are plenty of words that previous generations used (eg: the "N" word, "Mistress" for the female head of the house) without a second thought - but usage has changed.

As he says (Veritasium) in a comment to his video.

"Some people have been sending wikipedia references saying parts of this video are wrong, but I think it's wikipedia with the misconceptions. For further reference check out this paper: http://journals.cambridge.org/..."

I don't know where this misunderstanding has come from.

Hamstringing. http://dictionary.cambridge.or...
Hamstering is certainly something else, but I'm not sure what.

I agree that there will be down time, I'd personally bring a book or three but nothing more than this. This person is not going to be isolated away from everyone else, so will have locals to try and mimic. What would I bring to read? Probably something like "Newton and The Counterfeiter" for entertainment and The Republic for personal development. Both of these books are thick and you can't read either in a day or two. It would probably be good to have a medical book and journal as well.

I'd never heard the term before, but a quite google query shows that it has been used.
http://dictionary.cambridge.or...

Human beings are flawed, even scientists. People pursue agendas and that which will make them both money and garner attention. The problem is that group think impacts scientists every bit as much as any other profession. The question is, how can we verify science when most of the population don't even understand it? Much like politicians and covert policy, the public has to trust experts in their fields. With so little oversight what can we do?

Science is, eventually, self correcting. It may take months (in this case), decades (cf, Plate Tectonics) or hundreds of years (the nonsense spouted by Pliny and Aristotle). There are probably large swaths of what we take for scientific understanding that are still wrong (or not even wrong). But there is a self correcting mechanism. In this, Science is rather unique among human endeavors.

"Correlation does not imply causation" is not a statement in formal logic which is why I am using the dictionary definition for "imply".
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://dictionary.cambridge.or...

I said why it's not acceptable: because having sex with children harms them. Citation from scientific literature: Early sexual abuse and lifetime psychopathology: a co-twin–control study. I'm on a university campus, so I don't know if it is paywalled or not. From the abstract:

In the sample as a whole, those reporting CSA [childhood sexual abuse] were more likely to receive lifetime diagnoses of major depression, conduct disorder, panic disorder and alcoholism, and were more likely to report suicidal ideation and a history of suicide attempt.

See? No equivalency with homosexuality, just like I said. Gay marriage isn't some first step down a slippery slope toward marrying dogs, sex with children, or whatever else some people imagine.

Greenpeace is like vegetarianism: in principle a great idea but ruined by too many fanatics.

Except in principal vegetarianism is not great. It is scientifically proven to be unhealthy.

The relationship between the CIA and the BND predates the CIA : ) and is at times complex. This book goes into some of the background for those that are interested:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/ac...

and volume 2.

Here's a paper about the wave function and computability (computability beyond P, NP, etc)

Marian Boykan Pour-El and Ian Richards. The wave equation with computable initial data such that its unique solution is not computable. Advances in mathematics, vol. 39 (1981), pp. 215–239.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

Review at
http://journals.cambridge.org/...

Why the American ones, as opposed to English? I'm Scottish, and my native language is English. In the English language dictionaries I've looked up, it says that "wrongly" can be a synonym of "incorrectly". How about the Cambridge University Press? Or the Oxford English Dictionary. Or Merriam-Webster