Slashdot Mirror

the good name of Hanes? don't ever wear their child-labor produced crap.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/NLC_childlabor.html

http://thelegalwatchdog.blogspot.com/2011/01/capacious-crimes-and-creative.html
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-article.html
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles/02/12/08/2244247.shtml
http://www.indypressny.org/nycma/voices/486/news/news_2/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110716/01290815117/vague-law-vindictive-law-enforcement-hide-your-veggies.shtml
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-unbearable-vagueness-of-%E2%80%9Chonest-services-fraud%E2%80%9D/

Point-of-use energy energy generation offers the American people the opportunity for independence from the energy monopolies and the private taxes that they levy (they call those private taxes "profit"). Important, in an era of artificially suppressed wages. Additionally, point-of-use energy offers the opportunity to defund the nastiest of our politicians...a good thing, in a democracy. So support it!.

I should, however, note that his "1 tonne of salt per house per day" figure seems a bit fishy.

Molar heat of fusion for sodium thiosulfate is 50 kcal/kg = 209,200 J/kg. 20,000 kWh * 1000 J/s*kW * 3600 s/hr = 72,000,000,000 J. 72,000,000,000 J / 209,200 J/kg = 344,000 kg = 379 tons. Sorry, I guess I didn't remember the number as well as I thought I did. Of course, if you can harness all the energy, with zero waste, instead of just the phase-change energy, you could probably get it down to about one ton.

http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/international-and-domestic-statistics-compared : banning guns does prevent murders.
and accidents: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
and even suicides: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2007-releases/press04102007.html

having guns does not really do anything to protect anyone.

I propose Kilobots get to work on the home page of their mothership Self-Organizing Systems Research Group that looks straight from the nineties with fuzzy background images and large images for headlines included. I know, I know, substance over style but a little more style wouldn't hurt for a presumable word-class research outfit.

Still pissed about this, eh?

I see your Wikipedia article quote and raise a quote from merriam-webster.

money (as paper currency) not convertible into coin or specie of equivalent value

and a quote from N. Gregory Mankiw as cited in your Wikipedia article.

Fiat money, such as paper dollars, is money without intrinsic value: It would be worthless if it were not used as money.

1. the right to use the mark nationwide
2. nationwide constructive notice to others that the trademark is owned by the party
3. enables a party to bring an infringement suit in federal court.
4. allows a party to potentially recover treble damages, attorneys fees, and other remedies
5. after 5 years, the mark is "uncontestable"

FTFY, and Apple's lawyers clearly know a trademark doesn't have to be registered to be valid, a simple web search would have identified this company (or a search of registered companies), don't try and pass Apple off as ignorant of those basic details.

Apple's lawyers cannot read minds. They do not know the intent of every company as to whether they wish to bring their mark to the national level. The point of registering a mark is to signal to the entire nation that a brand is yours and you intend to use it as well as defend it (see #2). Otherwise, a company or individual would have to contact every entity that has a similar name and ask them if they intend to register a mark? Besides being impractical, not all companies care to bring their brand to national status. It's not Apple's job to ensure that iCloud has their trademark status in order.

Wow. Three replies to a single comment. Either you have problems organizing your thoughts, or you love your jerking knee.

I find it amazing that your definition of "true" trademark dilution is different from every other definition, where associating a trademark with something undesirable is illegal. It's irrelevant that the picture was a "stock image", as there is no such legal status. What matters is that the picture is distinctly recognizable as the NYSE, even without the existence of any other logos.

One of your examples illustrates this well. You can go into any Subway restaurant and take a picture, and it will be recognizable as a Subway, even without logos. The employee uniforms, shape of the counter, posted signs, and even the color scheme all contribute to a recognizable image. Likewise, if you see a picture of any trading floor in the United States, it's almost always the NYSE. The fact that the picture doesn't blatantly say "NYSE" is irrelevant.

It also doesn't matter that the "stock" picture is a different angle, with different people, in different colors. In fact, that image you linked to isn't even the complete registered trademark. The registered mark "consists of a representation of an actual building interior, namely, a securities exchange trading floor." Again, since almost any picture you'll see in the United States of a trading floor is the NYSE, that's pretty distinctive. It's also pretty vague, and intentionally so. Trademarks are supposed to protect a brand from being diminished by an unscrupulous company damaging or hijacking their good reputation. A vague description of the mark can protect from a much wider range of alterations than an exact detail.

The legal system does not have a set of absolute criteria to sort out "right" and "wrong" behavior, no matter how much computer folks might wish for it. Sure, the NYSE may have missed a few uses of their trademark, or chose not to send a C&D for articles they liked, but that doesn't automatically invalidate the trademark. If this case were to ever reach a court, a judge might determine that now, (ten years after registration), folks are more likely to see images of trading floors other than NYSE, and call it a dead mark. It's also not a definite problem that there was a six-month delay in sending out the C&D. A judge might consider that a bit too long to care, or he might just assume the legal department was busy. The legal system is not run by computers. It's sad, but true.

Apparently, though, the legal system is full of the same shit I am.

The map seems to be almost empty at the equator.

I'm sure there's a logical explanation, but I've no idea what it is. Anyone care to enlighten me?

if you think any conceivable spacecraft could bring enough of it in to make a dent in the prices.

    You're overthinking it.

    You don't need any conceivable spacecraft to bring it home. You only need to get it into a geostationary orbit, and thrust appropriately to simulate dropping straight down slowly. There are tremendous options for reentry that don't involve burning the shit out of the hull of your spacecraft (or the payload). It just takes a lot of fuel, which is impractical to lift from Earth.

    But where, oh where, oh where would you find something to give you propulsion?

    That is, of course, if the buyers are on Earth or want it for space purposes. The buyer always determines the destination.

    The future of space travel, including developing new and better propulsion system, will *require* people living in it. Observing and experimenting with it. Making propulsion devices that work, and those that don't.

    Right now, our understanding of space travel is primitive at best. We're like sailors in the Rocky Mountains, planning ships send to the open seas. The only experience we have so far is sending a whole bunch of paper sailboats down a creek, and a few bamboo rafts.

    The people who learned to build ships that could cross the ocean lived on the shore. The built and sailed and learned from each others achievements.

    We don't really know anything about space travel, and we never will, unless we try.

    No, their high resolution picture is a (relatively) low result 2d single plane map. And honestly, I can't even begin to guess at the distances. I'll assume that's what the red shift color scale is, but then that indicates that the colors of the stars they represent.

    I'd assume that we (earth) is the center of the universe, as it's what we can see from here. The coordinates are nice and all, but I don't have a frame of reference to guess which direction is what.

    It would have been nice if they used a 3d engine of some sort, and plotted the stars in that. Or made the information available so someone else could do it. With just the raw data (3d coordinate, direction of motion, direction of expansion, color (RGB would be fine for most of us), and observed size, there'd probably be dozens of 3d representations of it within a week or two, just from the folks on here.

    At least there's at least something here

The first place winner is called "Silencing Awareness of Change by Background Motion" and is the blinking-dots-in-a-circle illusion.

Several versions here: http://visionlab.harvard.edu/silencing/

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Natur.459..820Z

GIYF

I hate to agree with the GGP, but just because of his tone. This type of stuff is seen all the time by specialists when someone writes something already deduced. For example an example outside chemistry, you could see the work by Harvard student Anna Katherine Barnett-Hart. She was widely praised following the publication of "The Big Short" by Michael Lewis for explaining the housing crisis' roots in structured finance products. What she really did was repackage work done by some Harvard faculty into an undergraduate thesis, and BAM, 15 minutes of fame. It was just an easier way to read the same analysis that had already been done, and it got the wow factor of age.

This is not about free speech. The companies MUST file a law suit, because otherwise they loose their trademark.

This has nothing to do with satirical or political or whatever. If they don't sue or at least protest,they loose the trademark.

Nope.

Overview of Trademark Law: "The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent."

So - unless the political activists are trying to sell a similar product or service that will confuse consumers then it cannot infringe, and the companies filing the suits know that very, very well.

You are just trying to justify a sub-class of SLAPP suits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation.

Join the World Community Grid/Harvard Clean Energy Project.

And don't say you don't have a computer.

Ah, young padawan AC.

You should know Matt from his O'Reilly book: Running Linux (now in it's 5th edition).

If you want to know more, go to http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~mdw/

Not just that. Reno pushed cases to the supreme court to establsh precedent, then the white house started lobbying for more crackdowns on "the coming plague of online child pornography."

There were lots of articles about it at the time, including warnings of the toxic effects this increased focus on child porn would have on our society.

I argue that these laws, intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, threaten to reinforce the very problem they attack. The legal tool that we designed to liberate children from sexual abuse threatens to enslave us all, by constructing a world in which we are enthralled - anguished, enticed, bombarded - by the spectacle of the sexual child.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/ilaw/Speech/Adler_full.html

Of course, those articles were dismissed. Still are today, and yet....

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5516511.ece

And I'll be damned if this isn't the very device!

...who said you have to build a rocket factory? An inside-out railgun will do the job easier, cheaper, and repeatedly.

Thank you, I'm not generally inclined to read 32 page scholarly papers posted in a comment thread unless there's more guidance to the info that proves a point than "it's somewhere in there". Page numbers would have been nice.

CAL. CORP. CODE tit. 1, 309(a) (2004) (“in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders" NY CLS BUS. CORP. art. 7, 717(b) (2004) (“the long-term and the short-term interests of the corporation and its shareholders”) All of these from the same footnote that quotes "the interests of the corporation." Referencing someone else's reference isn't citing anything. Page 4, footnote 7 for anyone else reading.

And you stated - "They are both just trying to do their best to maximize their market share and stock price, which is the legal obligation of a publicly traded company" which is substantially different in meaning than "the best interest of the shareholders". While it's obvious that those might generally align, there's no obligation for them to. The issue is substantially more complicated than "maximize market share and stock price", as you yourself noted.

Also, a dominant view is not a legal precedent, law, ruling, or anything other than a generally held view. The dominant view also is that colds are caused by the cold, yet it still isn't true. Scholarly journals are also not legally binding, as I stated before, particularly when it's an exploratory article that doesn't take a definitive position.

if you do want to make a case it's a good place to start ;-)

I'm not making a case. I'm refuting your statement.

Another similar discussion: http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/elhauge/pdf/sacrificing_corporate_profits.pdf

Thanks, but throwing another 130-page document without citing anything in it to prove your point just seems like you're trying to bury your false statement under false references. Unless you were just including it for general reading.

There's plenty of citations in the paper I linked to.
Here's a few:

See, e.g.,CAL. CORP. CODE tit. 1, 309(a) (2004) (“in the best interests of the corporation and its
shareholders”); NY CLS BUS. CORP. art. 7, 717(b) (2004) (“the long-term and the short-term interests of
the corporation and its shareholders”); NRS tit. 7, 138(1) (2004) (“interests of the corporation”); Illinois
Business Corporation Act of 1983 8.85, 805 ILCS 5 (2004) (“best long term and short term interests of the
corporation”); N.J. STAT. tit. 14A, 14A:6-1 (2004) (“best inerest of the corporation”).

As I stated above:

The statutes largely do require corporations to act in the best interest of the shareholders, and in a relationship where the transactions are almost strictly monetary, that is largely taken to mean they must maximize stock value. There is debate as to whether other goals are allowed, and they are allowed mostly due to their potential impact on long term stock value.

When a statement like the following is published without correction in a scholarly journal, the burden of proof is on the disbeliever:

In the corporate law academy today in the United States, the dominant view is that corporate
law requires managers to pursue a single aim: the maximization of stockholder profits.

I won't quote the entire article except to say he's somewhat arguing for your side, and if you do want to make a case it's a good place to start ;-)
Better link:
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2238&context=expresso&sei-redir=1#search="Corporate-Law-Profit-Maximization-and-the-Responsible-Shareholder"

Another similar discussion:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/elhauge/pdf/sacrificing_corporate_profits.pdf

We could standardize.. but thank god we don't or it ends up being unsuccessful. While it is perfectly good for certain safety and civil related stuff, we generally have almost enough effective standardization processes there anyway.

Standardizing most of the other areas that you talk about (consumer electronics interfaces for instance), you might as well just join your local militant socialist movement of lame ass slacktivist revolutionaries and jerk off to ISO standardized german scat porn.

If we standardize on all this stuff, are you going to have a streamlined process for small orgs and individuals to "break" compatibility to introduce improvements into the market? No? Then kiss goodbye any kind of innovation, while you are outpaced by your less idiotic societies and your smart ones leave to less retarded shores. Yes? Well you can't have your cake and eat it too (though Europeans are determined to find a way). You allow people the freedom, they will use it, and things get messy. There is a cost of allowing easy innovation, and it is pretty close to what we have now.

I'm biased towards the latter, but I'm just an ugly American, after all. Now if only the US can figure out that both lack of standards and lack of innovation is a bad thing...

As to your problem. Why the fuck do you care? Why does it matter that there are few universal standards in web dev. Just make your damn website or your program or whatever. Make it with MS SQL and ASP.net if you want and if that's what works. Leave the navel-gazing wankers here, and get to work.

Screw that, we'll just put it on the credit card.

$4 million? A pittance! Apparently a paid registration system costs ten times that.

Servers and hosting cost a few thousand to a few tens of thousands per year, full time developers and admins cost a less than $100k per year. All I can say is that whoever managed to walk off with the rest of the cash has got it made.

Welcome to Government Contracting 101.

$4 million? A pittance! Apparently a paid registration system costs ten times that.

So did the NYTime pay wall.

$4 million? A pittance! Apparently a paid registration system costs ten times that.

Servers and hosting cost a few thousand to a few tens of thousands per year, full time developers and admins cost a less than $100k per year. All I can say is that whoever managed to walk off with the rest of the cash has got it made.

"By that reasoning, Tokai and Onagawa should not have been built either. "far lower than the historic tsunami wave-heights" where did you get this information? I can't find any data on historic wave heights of Fukushima."

There's no shortage [PDF]. The last link is a paper from 2001. Look for information on the "AD 869 Jogan tsunami", the best-known one, or any of the numerous other ones [PDF] that have occurred along the Sendai Plain. Past wave heights are estimated to have exceeded 8m along the Sendai Plain and extended 4km inland in some areas. The tsunami protection at the site was inadequate to deal with these historical, known tsunami events. Furthermore, the published literature has talked specifically about the risks of another event being high:

"The recurrence interval for a large scale tsunami is 800 to 1100 years. More than 1100 years have passed since the Jogan tsunami and, given the reoccurrence interval, the possibility of a large tsunami striking the Sendai plain is high. Our numerical findings indicate that a tsunami similar to the Jogan one would inundate the present coastal plain for about 2.5 to 3 km inland." (Minoura et al. 2001)

This has been known by tsunami researchers for years, and there have been reports in the press that some Japanese researchers specifically warned TEPCO about the risk from a bigger tsunami than they had planned for.

Warning: Following this link may result in your taking actions that benefit the human race. The range of potential negative consequences include a decline in the frequency of Middle Eastern wars due to a lack of interest, a dramatic reduction in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, and the defunding of America's Republicans.

A shameless plug that's sorta-kinda on topic.

Based on the article, it's only 5.5% efficient, so meh.

So do something to help solar energy capture R&D...

Warning: Following this link may result in your taking actions that benefit the human race. The range of potential negative consequences include a decline in the frequency of Middle Eastern wars due to a lack of interest, a dramatic reduction in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, and the defunding of America's Republicans.

There is developing evidence that light pollution actually exacerbates air pollution - it appears to inhibit dark reactions (that's what they are called) that break down air pollution at night, thus increasing it in the day also. See Nighttime photochemistry: nitrate radical destruction by anthropogenic light sources

You misunderstand the law.

"Generic" is a technical term in trademark law. It means using the name of a thing as the brand. For example Apple brand Apples would be generic. Operating System brand operating system would also be generic. Generic brands are never trademarkable.

However, Microsoft Windows falls in the "descriptive" category of trademarks. A descriptive trademark uses some aspect of a thing as the brand. For example "AllBran" brand cereal would be descriptive. Windows brand operating system would also be descriptive. Descriptive brands are trademarkable only if they have acquired secondary meaning.

The brand "AppStore" is pretty generic because it describes an application store though it may border on being descriptive. The Windows brand, however, is very firmly in descriptive territory.

Source: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

My employer (disclosure) has a proposal out for a NASA discovery-class mission to put a boat (yes, a boat) on the surface methane seas of Titan;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8409052.stm
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010LPI....41.1236S
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/01/carnival-of-space-135-proposed-titan.html

It's called the Titan Mare Explorer (TiME) and let me just say, it's the coolest thing that I've ever come anywhere near close to working on. Not much of a Catholic anymore but I say a littler prayer each night that NASA selects this proposal to go forward. (They are due to announce next month. Write your congressperson!)

So it's not impossible, it's actually do-able, and it's not very logical to carp about whether it's convenient or fun for astronauts to go, as we've got a tremendous amount left to learn from automated missions before we contemplate sending people there. Besides, when TiME sends back the first live footage of the ravenous methane kraken, I'm sure everyone will be glad that astronauts were not part of the first payload.

Join the Clean Energy Project and use the idle time of your computer(s) to get us off oil (and so the Middle East) and avoid the need for nuclear plants in your backyard.

Watch the tutorial...is easy.

Remember: The best defense is a good offense. Spread the word - save the world.

(This opportunity to save the human race valid for any sentient being on this planet and all others.)

In a day to day sense, nuclear power is almost as cheap and FAR cleaner than oil. Have you ever lived near an oil refinery? Much less a well? I used to pass one every week going to and form work. It smelled, and left a smile on your car if you stayed more than a few hours. How safe can THAT be to live near. Here is aquick report. I cant speak the the numbers but it gives you a good idea of the impact.

http://chge.med.harvard.edu/publications/documents/oilreportex.pdf

I worked on a naval nuclear reactor while in the Navy. I was a chemistry and RadCon tech. I understand the science and risks better than you do. Sorry if that sounds eilitist, but its true. Just because radiation is involved does not mean it is evil.

quote "By contrast, Ticketmaster's suit challenges the backbone of the Internet, namely the ability of one Internet user to simply link his or her page to other pages, without changing the linked pages in any way." http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/linking/linking/link3.html

Just because the amount of radiation is the same (or less) it doesn't mean its the same type. The scanners concentrate that radiation at one frequency, not over a broad spectrum. That frequency is absorbed not by the whole body, but by the first few millimeters of flest. That means that bit of flesh is getting thousands of times higher levels of exposure then that of the whole body mass exposure of back ground radiation.

This came up in a discussion I was having with someone about this technology. The backscatter scanners use alpha particles. Alpha particles only penetrate about 0.045 mm into skin. That's not enough to penetrate past the epidermis, which is about 0.05-0.1 mm at its thinnest (the eyelids). In most cases it's not even going to penetrate the outermost cells of the epidermis (most of which are already dead).

My question was, don't the cells in the epidermis die and slough off in a few days to weeks, to be replaced by new cells from underneath? If so, the "bit of flesh" that is getting "thousands of times higher levels of exposure" is destined to die soon anyways, and being zapped by alpha particles isn't going to change that appreciably.

In contrast, UV light (the kind you get just walking out in sunlight) can penetrate several mm into the skin. Damage from UV can be in cells which will continue living inside you for months or years. I am against these scanners for privacy reasons. But unless I'm misunderstanding something about the physics and biology of what's going on, it seems like a stroll out in the sun would be more dangerous than these scanners.

I was waiting for something to happen after hearing about the massive solar flare yesterday, but nothing this big.

And how is that supposed to work?

Well, I thought this was a more accepted concept than it is, but I guess not.
For your reading pleasure:
Change in magnetic field: an early warning system to understand seismotectonics
Universality in solar flare and earthquake occurrence
Earthquakes, Solar Flares, and Solar Wind Anaylsis
Whether solar flares can trigger earthquakes

Hopefully, that'll shed a bit more light on this growing theory for you. I don't think anyone is saying that every earthquake is caused by CME's, but when you have massive ejections like yesterdays they can certainly contribute to instability in the Earth's magnetic field, which leads to tectonic shifting.
Cheers!

This motivated me to look up some of Wonyoung Kim's papers. This one is a good overview of his research. Very nice work -- but almost unrecognizable from the Gizmag article.

This motivated me to look up some of Wonyoung Kim's papers. This one is a good overview of his research. Very nice work -- but almost unrecognizable from the Gizmag article.

It really depends on the conditions for the light too. Light can go as slow as 38 mph.

The fastest seismic velocity in the crust is about(rounding up) 8Km/s, That's less then 5mph.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-4DYW4Y1-2&_user=10&_coverDate=01/06/2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1655121280&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5aecbbb1fcd399679228d1a35bda3872&searchtype=a

It really depends on the conditions for the light too. Light can go as slow as 38 mph.

It's not about magnetic field. What exactly happened to Venus isn't quite clear of course, but one of more likely hypotheses is that Venus was too small to sustain plate tectonics (Earth might be borderline) - which could help with a runaway greenhouse effect.

First, that link requires registration. Yuck.

I prescribe Bugmenot to solve that.

Second, IIRC from Pharm School, expiration dates are legally mandated by the FDA to be when the active ingredient(s) degrade to 90% efficacy?

You're completely wrong.

Alternate link to harvard:

It turns out that the expiration date on a drug does stand for something, but probably not what you think it does. Since a law was passed in 1979, drug manufacturers are required to stamp an expiration date on their products. This is the date at which the manufacturer can still guarantee the full potency and safety of the drug.

Most of what is known about drug expiration dates comes from a study conducted by the Food and Drug Administration at the request of the military. With a large and expensive stockpile of drugs, the military faced tossing out and replacing its drugs every few years. What they found from the study is 90% of more than 100 drugs, both prescription and over-the-counter, were perfectly good to use even 15 years after the expiration date.

Now factor in the simple fact that all leaked hydrogen will naturally rise through the atmosphere to the ozone layer, and that ozone is naturally "hypergolic" with hydrogen --the two chemicals instantly react

Not quite, although you clearly know enough chemistry to have confused yourself, or accepted someone else's confusion.

Molecular hydrogen is far shorter lived in the atmosphere than inert CFCs. That's why CFCs were such a problem - they hang around in the troposphere long enough to mix up into the stratosphere. Molecular hydrogen is for the most part scrubbed out by the hydroxyl radical (OH) in the troposphere (via H2 + OH --> H2O + H and bacterial decomposition by soil).

So, any effect of hydrogen leaks on stratospheric ozone has to do with increased water vapour rather than direct reaction of H2 + O3. (Stratospheric water provides the surfaces required for ozone depletion reactions to take place on - polar stratospheric clouds - that's why water is important. See http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/about/ozone.html)

That's not really relevant, though, as estimates put the effect of even substantial hydrogen leaks on ozone depletion so small as makes no difference:

http://www.arp.harvard.edu/sci/climate/journalclub/Pyle.pdf

There was an earlier study claiming it was a problem, but that's basically been debunked, both by the paper above (which assumes there will be significant losses, but finds they don't affect stratospheric ozone) and - much more recently - this paper which estimates that losses will actually be very low, comparable to hydrogen production from our existing vehicles (yes, internal combustion engines release small amounts of hydrogen).

I am an atmospheric scientist, I am not your atmospheric scientist, etc...

And doctors actually do have the same type of old vs young dilemma (Harvard study)

Aside from the fact that I've never seen evidence of a galaxy without a dark matter halo, the Bullet Cluster has two opposing lobes of dark matter, indicating that each galaxy in the collision had a dark matter halo that flew right through the other dark matter halo. Another similar collision also has opposing two lobes of dark matter. If a collision is ever observed with only a single lobe of dark matter, that would be consistent with our hypothesis. (Though the other objections I raised would still apply.)

Added to the links page:
http://colbert.physics.harvard.edu/links.php

I'm still basically writing the website, so there is more stuff coming.