Slashdot Mirror

Interesting, but it brings up more questions than it answers. It says there were approximately 75 cases in the past 7 years where a pilot reported something suspicious that *may* have been the result of personal electronics interfering with systems. But no information on any followup to see if that was actually the case.

I'm not saying that there couldn't possibly be a link (though other articles from the same source do...) I'm just saying that it sounds like no real followup was ever done on those cases to see if they were coincidence, pilot error, equipment malfunction (on either the personal electronics, or aircraft systems) or any other cause.
Seems to me that this would have been of great interest to the whole aviation industry?

NASA anonymous reporting system.... "So what would you think if you were the B777 pilot who's radio communication with air traffic control was interrupted by a passenger's cell phone call? Or if you were the captain in command of a B747 that unexpectedly lost autopilot after takeoff and did not get it back until 4, count 'em four passengers turned off their portable electronic devices?" http://christinenegroni.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/handhelds-on-airplanes-bigger-problem.html

"In 2007, one pilot recounted an instance when the navigational equipment on his Boeing 737 had failed after takeoff. A flight attendant told a passenger to turn off a hand-held GPS device and the problem on the flight deck went away." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/business/18devices.html

TIMSS is both math and science, and our kids generally trounce European students. Asian countries, on the other hand, rule the roost every time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/world/americas/15iht-14students.8345918.html

Read about the Great Gatsby Curve : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/the-great-gatsby-curve/

What would a criminal need to fake your fingerprint at a crime scene?

What would a criminal need to fake your DNA at a crime scene? A piece of hair from a brush or comb or from your last trip to the barber shop? A few flakes of skin that they could collect from you as they brush past you in on a crowded subway terminal or restaurant?

Apparently, this isn't as far-fetched as you'd believe...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html?_r=1

And this is from 2009, too.

"Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.
The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person."

So what message exactly is there left that shouldn't be dismissed

All of it, the only fabricated parts were his own experiences. Yes, it's true that he falsely claimed to talk to people who were poisoned. But people were poisoned, even if he didn't talk to them himself.

Borrowing from another poster, here's the NYT article covering basically all the same stuff. They talk about n-hexane on page five:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html?_r=1

You shouldn't be waiting much longer

It won't matter. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/17/nyregion/ascap-asks-royalties-from-girl-scouts-and-regrets-it.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Nobody said motivation is irrelevant to criminal cases, just that the motive isn't what distinguishes between premeditated murder, regular old murder, manslaughter, etc.

One problem I have with hate crime law is that motive can be really hard to determine so we rely on certain shortcuts that I feel are often misleading. For instance if a black guy is killed by a gang of Latinos, and they are calling him a nigger while killing him, is that suddenly a hate crime? What if the actual motive has nothing to do with the fact that he's black? We don't know, but we let the language they use be a shortcut to determining motive. To me, such superficial things are most likely wrong. In general when you're fighting with someone you tend to say things to hurt them, it doesn't mean you believe them or apply them to the rest of your life.

Back when hate crime was established, it made sense. People would say things like "we need to kill all the blacks, let's go get one." That's spelling out motive. Easy. But today it's become a perversion of justice where we hunt for something to justify a "hate crime" charge. It should only be used when it's really obvious.

If you look at this particular case, Ravi was convicted of this "bias intimidation" even though the jury SAID he probably didn't intend it. Does that make sense to you? From NY Times:

The jury concluded that Mr. Ravi had not knowingly or purposely intimidated the men when he watched the first time, on Sept. 19, 2010.

But it found him guilty of the charge because Mr. Clementi “reasonably believed” he had been made a target because he was gay.

So.. he didn't know he was being intimidating, or he wasn't doing it on purpose.. but he's guilty anyway. Do you see how far we've come from the original intent of hate crime law?

Really? I must have missed the repeal of the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Not a repeal, but a sound gutting:

• ARS
• Reuters
• NYT

Forgot the article link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/17/nyregion/defendant-guilty-in-rutgers-case.html

Just wanted to add, I read this in a New York Times article:

Mr. Ravi had rejected plea deals, because prosecutors would have required him to admit to bias intimidation. His lawyers said he simply did not believe he had committed a hate crime. They argued that he was “a kid” with little experience of homosexuality who had stumbled into a situation that scared him.

So it's not that he refused to accept a slap on the wrist, it's that he refused to have a hate crime on his permanent criminal record. Even if there was no prison sentence, that's a pretty serious thing to have to talk about on your future job interviews, if you really believe you didn't commit a hate crime.

At the very bottom of the story on the retraction, there is a link to a sourced New York Times story, which is nearly as damning as the retracted one. This is called "burying the lede," and it is biased reporting.

Reportedly, the TAL correction also confirmed most of what Daisey claimed; he wasn't there, but the stories turn out to be true after all. The TAL broadcast will be available for download on Sunday

Here's the link to the NYT story:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html

This is were the TAL correction will be available:
    http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/460/retraction

Actually, it's not interesting in the slightest. Israel isn't punished because they didn't sign the non-proliferation treaty. Therefore, they are not in violation of international law, and also not subject to inspection.

Assuming that the Iran is indeed currently pursing the creation of nuclear weapons, something that even US agencies doubt ... What you're saying is that the Iran should just leave the treaty - and it would be in the clear - no sanctions, no war threads, right?

Besides, the states that have nuclear weapons and have signed the treaty are "oblidged to liquidate their nuclear stockpiles and pursue complete disarmament" (Article VI). I don't see much happening on that front, so where are the sanctions against these countries?

What program? What evidence.

I know many believe that's the case, but there's no conclusive evidence - at least none that isn't the "just trust us wink-wink, our all knowing leaders would never lie to you, and we're perfectly trust-worthy" kind. You know, don't let the problem of actual *evidence* worry your pretty little head. Leave that to the big serious folks. [Who incidentally have financial ties to the military-industrial complex and are hauling home cash by the truck-load.]

Actually, even the U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb.

The US is one of the few countries, unlike Europe, where social mobility is very possible.

You apparently missed the news: Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs

I would like to add a few corrections to your post. First, I think Ahmadinejad was honestly elected as well.
Second, in the last 30 years there has been little evolution in the iranian willingness to normalize relations. They always wanted to normalize. What has changed is that they are less willing to do concessions of goodwill without a negotiated agreement(it's no surprise very few people here are actually aware they've done such concessions before). That means, they'll cooperate with the IAEA according the the standard protocol of agreement. If the IAEA wants them to follow the extended protocol 3.1 there will have to be negotiations about normalization. Normalization will mean accepting the civilian iranian nuclear program while the iranians provide extra guarantees that they don't develop nuclear weapons.

What also has changed little is the american attitude: Obama has followed pretty much the same strategy as Bush, even though he created the appearance of a willingness to negotiate. In fact he may have intended to open up on Iran when he campaigned but quickly gave that up.

As about that nuke project, the US and israeli intelligence organisations agree that Iran has not shown an intent to create a bomb. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

No one owns the Moon, or has any sovereign rights to it. The things that are on the Moon are still the property of where they originated. So while from a legal standpoint the Russians can go traipsing around in Neil Armstrong's footprints, literally, the moment they set foot on the Apollo 11 descent stage, they're busted. Of course, it is like the old Zen koan: if a Russian steps on a lander and no one is there to see him, does he get busted?

There have been some rumblings of a new lunar treaty that would make the landing sites off limits to new visitors as a matter of historical preservation. This would apply not only to nations, but private enterprises within those nations (I'm looking at you Google!)

That was Gibson guitars and the feds came in with guns and shut them down twice over some bogus claims.

From the NYT:
Local amphibian fans can be forgiven for not noticing the new frog's unique nature. "I wouldn't know which one I was holding because they all look so similar," said Ms. Newman, who is now pursuing her Ph.D. at Louisiana State University. "But all of our results showed this one's lineage is very clearly genetically distinct."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/nyregion/new-leopard-frog-species-is-discovered-in-nyc.htm

Was it Iran or someone else? It appears most of the hacking (and killing of nuclear power plant scientists) has been done by Israel, Britain, and the U.S.. The more I read the more I think Iran is being used as a patsy by Western warhawks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?_r=2&hp

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/230303.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#Speculations_about_the_target_and_origin

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334001/Iranian-nuclear-scientist-killed-wounded-separate-bomb-attacks.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?scp=1&sq=january 2009 sanger bush natanz&st=cse

Was it Iran or someone else? It appears most of the hacking (and killing of nuclear power plant scientists) has been done by Israel, Britain, and the U.S.. The more I read the more I think Iran is being used as a patsy by Western warhawks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?_r=2&hp

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/230303.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#Speculations_about_the_target_and_origin

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334001/Iranian-nuclear-scientist-killed-wounded-separate-bomb-attacks.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/washington/11iran.html?scp=1&sq=january 2009 sanger bush natanz&st=cse

At least all the keyboards still had the "W" key!

Don't forget that he can appeal the decision. The Home Secretary can agree to whatever she wants, but the courts are not necessarily going to agree. It isn't like the courts and the government always agree on issues regarding rights and security (e.g. regarding a writ of habeas corpus in the UK: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/opinion/prisoners-are-not-pawns.html). Mind you, the courts don't have impunity - they are bound by the law, so who knows how that will fall out.

Oh, and the obligatory IANAL.

The first part involved the actual dumping and eliminating competition.

Indeed. For many years there were multiple export nations selling Rare Earth Minerals. For many years, as the demand was quite low they all sold their goods to a small market. However, when the demand started to rise, China did something that the other players didn't see coming. They started to seriously undercut the prices of competitors. Other mines such as Mountain Pass were run out of business - and due to political pressures on the environmental damage that was being caused. When China became pretty much the only place left selling any reasonable quantities of REM, they bumped the price up by orders of magnitude. This coupled with much higher (and still growing) demand for them makes it a wonderful masterstroke. They then further used it when an incident with Japan caused political turmoil between the two nations - by blocking sales to Japan completely.

While it is possible (and being done) to re-open the old mines and cease the monopoly that is currently held, it takes time to get these things up and running. Even then, China does hold a very major share of known REM reserves, so unless another (very) major deposit is found, it is likely that China will continue to hold an interesting political/trade card to play whenever it wants to.

I'd say it's not genetically modified weed, but the kool=aid you're drinking. Where did you get that oil company-sponsored blog and why in the world do you think it carries any credence whatever? Here's what the New York Times says:

But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companiesâ(TM) returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

âoeThe flow of revenues to oil companies is like the gusher at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico: heavy and constant,â said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, who has worked alongside the Obama administration on a bill that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks over the next decade. âoeThere is no reason for these corporations to shortchange the American taxpayer.â

His statistical reasoning is always well described, so that if you disagree with his results, at least you understand why you disagree. He's got "picks" and a description of the system used to generate them.

The original article is an interesting network analysis exercise, but it is really limited by its assumption of no a priori quality data. (Any time you beat Kentucky or North Carolina or other perennial powerhouses, that's almost always a quality win.) Sagarin and LRMC follow similar logic, but without an explicit network piece.

His statistical reasoning is always well described, so that if you disagree with his results, at least you understand why you disagree. He's got "picks" and a description of the system used to generate them.

The original article is an interesting network analysis exercise, but it is really limited by its assumption of no a priori quality data. (Any time you beat Kentucky or North Carolina or other perennial powerhouses, that's almost always a quality win.) Sagarin and LRMC follow similar logic, but without an explicit network piece.

Sasha Gomez? Is that you?

Made up by liberals. There is absolutely no evidence of this nonsense. It's a myth.

Sure we can. In fact, numerous studies on the matter have been conducted. All the properly double-blinded ones show no difference between people who were being "prayed for" and those who aren't.

http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/alcoholism/medications.html

What worries me are all those reactors which will melt down if there's a full station blackout. This is a generic problem with all GE Mark I reactors, like Peach Bottom in Pennsylvania. One hour to core damage, 14 hours to meltdown. This has been known since 1972. The US still has 23 such reactors.

There have been some fixes over the years. Fukushima had the emergency venting fix, but it didn't work because, with no power, the vents couldn't be operated. The NRC has insisted that all US Mark I reactors have extra Diesel generators and pumps beyond the original complement. On at least one occasion, they've been needed.

Citation needed. If people believed as you did, there would never be any innovation...

Also, you raise a false dillemma. Vast amounts of financial capital in our society have tied themselves up into energy sources they can more easily control. It's a mindset that won't invest much in alternatives, and will invest in politics to keep their control in place (like preventing laws regulating coal pollution).

Actually, I live in a fairly energy efficient house (partially passive solar), so I am practicing that I preach to some extent (not perfectly). The state of the art in home construction these days in cold climates is to have lots of efficiency and no furnace:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/world/europe/27house.html?_r=1
"DARMSTADT, Germany â" From the outside, there is nothing unusual about the stylish new gray and orange row houses in the Kranichstein District, with wreaths on the doors and Christmas lights twinkling through a freezing drizzle. But these houses are part of a revolution in building design: There are no drafts, no cold tile floors, no snuggling under blankets until the furnace kicks in. There is, in fact, no furnace."

I also eat pretty low on the food chain, that saves lots of energy and water and medical costs and pollution and animal suffering and so on.
http://www.westernwatersheds.org/watmess/watmess_2002/2002html_summer/article6.htm

I provided lots of links to people putting time and money into alternatives, and they just continue to improve. The fact that GE is predicting solar will be cheaper that coal in five years despite how coal is subsidized so much (including by not having to pay for the health costs or environment destruction costs) just shows how good renewables are.
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/05/29/ge-solar-power-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-in-5-years/

Coal did not pay its true cost in 1993:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/12/the-true-cost-of-coal/4566/

Coal does not pay its true cost now (perhaps half a trillion dollars a year):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/true-cost-of-coal-power.html
http://www.desmogblog.com/true-cost-coal-half-trillion-dollars-year

And that is what makes it so hard "economically" to sell alternatives.

So, it is indeed hard to compete against such a tilted playing field, true. That is a missing issue in your comment about "so you do it", unpaid externalities.

In fact, if you reread my comment, you will see I said "No one said it was going to be easy"... That is why it is now a socio-economic issue more than a technical issue. We have plenty of technology if we wanted to use it. And it would overall be cheaper to use it overall across our society, and then alternatives would be adopted faster when gasoline was $20 a gallon with externalities priced in (we'd all drive electric cars pretty fast) or when coal electricity was $0.50 a kilowatt-hour (we'd all switch to wind and other renewables plus energy efficiency real fast). But that does not happen because we don't pay up front. Instead we pay on our health insurance bills, or in national debt to fund a war machine, or future environmental destruction that needs to be fixed, and so on...

I would like to see this magical xray cathode tube which can focus all of its output in a single spot/beam/line/whateverthefuck.

Then please see here. That was an article from 1996. Any engineer worth his salt would have checked Google when working on this scanner several years later.

Having been a technician on xray equipment for many years, I can tell you that the tube produces a CONE of gamma energy, and the ONLY way to even make a "collimated" beam, is to use dense plates to BLOCK the scattered radiation from propagating.

This is not correct at all. You are limiting the entire world down to specific hardware that you are working with. That hardware likely was designed decades ago, and any changes would require a complex and costly set of FDA tests and approvals. In the larger world there are mirrors for X rays (for certain incidence angles), and there are now lenses. X ray and gamma ray astronomy depends on these things. I would certainly consider focusing if I need to design such a scanner today.

Besides, your statement is wrong when you debate the "entire output of the X-ray tube." It all depends on where you measure it, and since we have no information on density of X rays anywhere in the system, debating the collimator is not very practical, like saying that a nuclear bomb is safe within 10 meters because this here gizmo reduces the radiation a thousand times. You need to know what the radiation level is before the gizmo.

You need to take into account one simple fact. The TSA scanner depends on scattering of X ray photons. This means that the X ray sensor has to be sensitive enough to detect reflections of the beam from the victim's skin. But X rays easily penetrate skin, so you need a lot of incoming photons to get some that bounce back. This translates into higher beam density. Exact numbers are not known; the tube itself may be dangerous, and its narrow beam may be also dangerous - they don't tell and we don't know.

US intelligence
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html

and Israeli intellence, first paragraph
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-iran-still-mulling-whether-to-build-nuclear-bomb-1.407866

Both saying Iran has not made any decision to make a bomb. And yes, I know you expected another angle :)

Fortunately for them Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, just a civilian nuclear energy program.

Right, and they are only enriching uranium to and past 20% because it gives them a radioactive hardon. While everyone else is burning oil, a country swimming in it is spending billions and facing severe sanctions to build a civilian nuclear energy program because environmental consciousness and scientific curiosity are central goals of the radical islamists running the place.

We can talk about whether Iran would be dumb enough to use a nuke (or give it to one of its friends in Hezbollah or Hamas), but if you take their "peaceful energy" statements at face value, I have a bridge to sell you.

I know it's cool to bash the US and we are partly responsible for the mess there, but posts like the parent show perspective is in short supply.

they have no desire to get nuked

Fortunately for them Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program, just a civilian nuclear energy program. Even Israeli intelligence feels attacking Iran is a bad idea. Though, it'd be real good for the military industrial complex and the financiers.

I'd like to think we'd go along as a show of support

Really, we should kill people in far off lands who don't threaten us because some war-mongers are creating propaganda about fake weapons of mass destruction? Didn't we just learn this lesson?

In the 1980's we all thought the Japanese were going to end up buying the world. Look how that turned out.
Looks like China might be on the same path.
I shudder to imagine a lost decade with a billion men who can't find wives. Starts to make Blizzard look like a crucial company for national (nay, global) security.

It's not a security update. This update is more like a complete rewrite and has very little to do with Microsoft. You see, for their first attempt Ford decided to outsource the project to a company called BSQUARE who put the UI together using Adobe Flash Lite. For some reason, the results were slightly less than stellar.

Anyway, the preliminary reviews of the new version sound promising so I am at least a little hopeful. I am still quite frustrated, however, that I've had to deal with such awful software for well over a year on a brand new vehicle that cost almost $40k.

They don't carry flags saying "Baptist" or "Methodist", they simply converse.

No, but they work for organizations with names like "Lutheran World Relief" or "Baptist Global Response," and their logos invariably feature crosses or other religious insignia. And not only that, but they network together, so that all the Lutheran and Methodist and Baptist relief efforts are communicating and working together, but they don't extend nearly the same effort when interacting with secular groups, which leads to a lot of obviously Christian evangelical groups spending most of their time together. They don't make comparable efforts when working with secular groups, and will often work completely autonomously from them, sometimes with disastrous results.

The Emperor knows this firsthand, as an atheist who has helped coordinate fundraising and other efforts for Lutheran World Relief.

And from what I've seen, athiests (and especially antitheists) continually shout "there is no god!" from the rooftops.

Of course, the only atheists you "know" are the vocal ones - that's because you'd never, ever recognize a "stealth" atheist. Get off the Internet, try to meet some real atheists (you will probably fail, due to the nature of atheism), and stop spreading derogatory lies about entire groups of people. The vast majority of atheists and agnostics will not openly bring up their beliefs, perhaps not even if pressed on the subject, because non-believers are the most persecuted and unpopular group in America, largely because of the intentional ignorance spread by people like yourself and your pastor. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN HIGHLY RELIGIOUS DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, WHERE ATHEISM IS EVEN LESS TOLERATED THAN IT IS HERE. Openly identifying as an atheist is not only extremely improbable behavior for an atheist in any situation, but in a country that does not have a strong tradition of liberalism, it is actually dangerous.

(We have not decided to correct you because you have offended our fellow atheists; The Emperor defends the truth and integrity of all cultural groups, including religious groups whose faith we do not share. But we will not abide libels.)

He's no idiot, not by a long shot.

That is slimly possible, but "idiot" was the polite term for someone who spreads ignorance and libel about an entire group of people. "Bigot," "monster," and "evil" may have been more appropriate, although just "ignorant" probably suffices.

I'm pretty sure that the self-publishing movement of existing authors has had the breaks put on it by the publishers.

Non-compete clauses and so forth.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/publishing-perils-in-the-digital-age/?partner=rss&emc=rss

2. Correct, though from the only tests I heard of in the past none damaged the patient in an unexpected way.

I don't believe that anyone from this particular set of studies was harmed, but I do remember reading about about someone from a previous modified t-cell study where they completed eliminated the cancer cells, but the cell marker was also present on their lungs, so they eliminated those as well with predictable results. Mentioned here.

That's what phase one trials are for, of course, and it sounds like exactly the sort of problem that the work in TFA is trying to address. So, progress.

Before the "walled garden" thing they were always about proprietary and expensive computers. Apple love/hate has gone through cycles on Slashdot.

These days Apple is the poster child for abusive Chinese labor practices.

From today's New York Times:

HOUSTON — A federal jury on Tuesday convicted R. Allen Stanford, a Texas financier, on 13 out of 14 counts of fraud in connection with a worldwide scheme that lasted more than two decades and involved more than $7 billion in investments....

The jury decision followed a six-week trial and came three years after Mr. Stanford was accused of defrauding nearly 30,000 investors in 113 countries in a Ponzi scheme involving $7 billion in fraudulent high-interest certificates of deposit at the Stanford International Bank, which was based on the Caribbean island of Antigua. ...

The prosecutors heavily relied on James M. Davis, Mr. Stanford’s former roommate from Baylor University, who served as his chief financial officer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/business/jury-convicts-stanford-in-7-billion-ponzi-fraud.html?scp=1&sq=james%20m%20davis&st=cse

  Whether his name is James M. Davis or Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, the FBI informant is the key ingredient in putting people like R. Allen Stanford and John Gotti where, in my view at least, they richly deserve to be. I don't know if Lulzsec's guys belong in jail. But if they do, finding somebody to snitch them out is the FBI's job.

The Iraq government spent 85 million dollars buying electronic bomb detector wands which are basically a dowsing rod with some useless un-powered electronics in it, yet the government swears by it! http://gizmodo.com/5455692/ade+651-magic-wand-bomb-detector-is-a-fraud-probably-killed-hundreds http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/middleeast/04sensors.html?_r=2

As mentioned before Israel Doesn't Use Scanners. Since we can pretty much say most terrorists don't really have much "faith" in US reporting / news why do you think they would believe US news sources when one much closer to home is saying the screening is garbage to begin with?

Some how I sincerely doubt any terrorists were fooled, just you :)

"Weight is still determined by calories in and calories out."

Not true. Weight is determined by the insulin response triggered by an increase in blood sugar. Calories in/calories out is a good rough guide but Adkins adherents (and the previous low carb diets that have preceded it, starting with the Banting diet) have known for a long time that the endocrine system is the major player in weight gain/loss.

Gary Taubes has done a lot of tremendous writing in covering this topic.

Check this article out if you're interested for more.

In any major heart or lung transplant the patient's own organs must be bypassed for the duration of the surgery. Usually this is as short as possible because the non-rhythmic pumping in a heart and lung machine can cause plaques to break loose and block vessels. The surgery typically lasts anywhere from 4 to 12 hours depending on how many lungs are involved.

You, sir, are either engaging in hyperbole or you do not know what a theocracy is.

[...] one nation under gawd [...]

in gawd we trust

No?