the Radeon Pro 455 graphics chip in particular to be a "significant boost" over...the Nvidia GeForce GTX 650M, Nvidia GeForce GTX 750M, and AMD Radeon R9 M370X
I bet it is also a lot faster than the graphics on my 1980's BBC Model B too but that's not really a useful comparison is it? It it were not better than the GPUs in machines which are at least 18 months old it would be pretty pathetic. How about the comparison to the new nVidia 10-series mobile GPUs that new non-Mac laptops are getting?
...but the original post said that, and I quote "HFT traders do place orders that they intend to cancel". So clearly they also place orders that they do not intend to get filled. So again I ask what is the difference?
This statistic will not really be interesting until November is over. We are less than half way through it. So really this story is saying that the US has not had a tornado for less than two weeks so what it should be compared to is how often that happens. If they really want to pull stupid stunts like this they should at least try to make it really sensational. They can run a story half way through January claiming that that US has had no tornadoes all year, Britain can have one claiming that the sun has not shone all year due to the clouds and in Canada we'll have the story about snow on the ground all the year....ok so that last one is true otherwise all our igloos would melt but you get the point.
HFT traders do place orders that they intend to cancel, however, if someone successfully intercepted an order placed by a HFT trader, that order would get filled. It appears to me that there was no possibility that Navinder could fill the orders he placed.
So literally the only difference between them is that if Navinder had screwed up he would not be able to cover his loses while the large corporations engaging in HFT can so it is legal for them but not for him? I thought we got rid of this idea that there are one set of rules for the rich and another set of rules for the poor back when we dumped feudalism but clearly someone forgot to tell the financial markets.
He deliberately, willfully and maliciously broke those rules to favor himself and in the process caused other people, who were playing by the rules, to lose money.
Yes and no. He placed trades to make it look like a large amount of selling was about to happen then others place sell orders with even lower prices. He then quickly cancelled his orders and quickly bought the stock at the lower price. However had his orders gone through he would have been on the hook for them.
Compare this to the behaviour of large financial corporations who watch one exchange and when they see a large buy or sell order come it quickly, using high speed networks not available to anyone else, place an appropriate order on another exchange before the large order gets there in order to take advantage of the increase or drop in the price the large order will cause.
Both techniques are dishonest and both cause other people to lose money. However one technique was figured out by large financial corporations and the other by a lone trader. Guess which one is deemed to be legal despite the incredible similarity between the two techniques. If he is guilty why are the large financial corporations who are almost playing the identical game not?
It's a valid claim if they can prove they've been damaged by climate change/warming/etc.
All it says is a right to life, not the right to a comfortable life. Climate change will cause a lot of upheaval that may damage our quality of life but will not actually kill us.
The settlement then becomes a court order to do or not do something that Congress never would have agreed to.
...but can't they just use their immunity to ignore it? I'm curious how the US constitution holds any weight though if the US government is immune to the courts. They might be able to strike down laws but it seems that if the US government takes an action which is against the constitution there are no legal consequences if they are really immune.
What's really going on? There is so much nonsense being spewed...
Yes there is but the evidence that the climate is warming is pretty much incontrovertible. It also seems true that the rise in the last century or so has been extremely fast compared to changes over the past 100k years and the period of rapid rising coincides with our increase in fossil fuel burning so it seems reasonable to conclude that GHGs are responsible for a good deal of the warming.
At least that's my take as a non-climate related scientist.
I see that you conveniently failed to notice that, later on in my post, I compared the Touch Bar version of the 13" MBP to the Surface Book. The MBP was STILL $300 cheaper.
Without a GPU. Sounds about right.
Oh, and from what I have read, the Nvidia GPUs in the Surface Book (and Surface Studio) is OLDER than the AMD Polaris GPUs in the 15" MBP...so why the hate on the MBP
Indeed they are yet because AMD is well behind nVidia the performance seems comparable - google it - but to get that comparable performance you need the top line Radeon Pro 455 which is even more expensive. As for the 'hate' on the MBP it's simple: crap GPU, old CPU, no USB-A (yes USB-C is the future but USB-A is today and I want a laptop today not in 3 years time), no function keys, insanely high price. Compared to the Surface Book the two seem roughly comparable and it boils down to which features you want most.
...but compare it to a Dell XPS 13/15 and you have almost the identical features in a laptop that is a year old and cheaper. You even have USB-C but wisely they give you one port and multiple USB-A so I can use it now and in a few years. If the refresh which is expected in the next month or two gives it a Kaby Lake CPU and and nVidia 10-series mobile GPU it will wipe the floor with the MBP.
I'm sure Apple will survive. Oh, and enjoy WIndows 10, mwuhahahahaha!!!!
I'm sure they will but increasingly on their mobile sales and not their macs. As for Windows 10 what can I say - it really does suck in comparison - but with a machine capable of running VMs (32GB memory? not on a MBP!) and even the built in Linux subsystem for Windows it becomes more bearable and much of the software I use is the same on both platforms and for programming and data analysis I use Linux+python+... anyway.
There are is an important point you are missing and in one important aspect your post is factually wrong. This is one machine which is clearly intended as a direct competitor but there are more out there e.g. Dell XPS range which are strangely absent from the comparison. That was my point: so the MBP outsells the Surface Book (but not the new one because that is only out today) what about all the other competitors?
Your comparison is far from fair. You exclude the touch bar "to keep it fair" while ignoring the fact that the Surface has a touch screen: how is that even vaguely fair? Then you claim that that the 13" MBP has "faster graphics" when it has Intel Iris vs. the Surface's nVidia 965M which is factually wrong. As for the the other features I have never used the TB port on my existing MBP (other than as a miniDP) nor have I any use for USB-C since everything I have is USB-A and a GPU is really important. So for my uses when I compare a MBP to a Surface I'm looking at the 15" model where the cost rockets up to over $4k with the 1TB SSD and over $5k with the 2TB which is insane for a laptop with an old CPU and GPU. While the Surface is similarly expensive it has features I value far more: long battery life, touch screen, USB-A ports and tablet mode. However really I am waiting for the XPS 15 to get a refresh to Kaby Lake and hopefully a 10-series nVidia GPU and then, while I'll miss OS X, it's goodbye Apple.
Obviously the price difference depends on what you need the device for if USB-C an TB3 are important for you great - go get a new MBP. However no matter how you spin it there is no way you can claim that the MBP fulfills a similar market niche to the Dell Inspiron 2-in-1, a Chromebook or the cheap Lenovo model they were also comparing it against. The data do suggest it outsells the Surface but I suspect the real competitors are the Dell XPS series and the equivalent ranges from the other manufacturers.
The thing is that it was testing a relatively new theory at the time (charge quantization), and it is natural that a new theory can suddenly open the floodgates to simple, cheap experiments.
So the only way we can come up with simple experiments is is theorists tell us how things should work first? Really? How can you possibly be an experimentalist with that attitude? How about Rutherford scattering? That was done by an undergrad student for a quick summer project and the theoretical prediction at the time was utterly wrong.
Do you really want to disprove classical electrodynamics with a simple EM cavity? Come on.
Yes of course I want to! How can you possibly claim to be a scientist and NOT want to do that? Finding a major flaw in our fundamental understanding of physics could lead to solutions to any number of theoretical problems we have today. Doing that with a simple experiment which somehow everyone overlooked would just be the icing on the cake. Do I think this is likely, no of course not, and certainly not for this EM drive. But to not even want to? Come on!
But the EM drive is not based in any theory...A big part of doing science (which I actually do for a living) is choosing what ideas are worth experimenting.
There is a huge problem with this approach: you are immediately limiting yourself to ideas which theorists think are possible. The best example of how this can go very wrong is the Scanning, Tunnelling Electron Microscope. Several groups had come up with the idea well before the inventors but each time had calculated that they needed an impossibly narrow tip and so stopped working on it. The inventors did not do this they just built the device without doing all the calculations first and it worked. There was an immediate backlash from the previous groups saying that this was impossible because they would need an impossibly sharp tip but the evidence was, in this case, overwhelming that it did indeed work. Eventually they figured out that the electrons tunnel from the point of the tip closest to the sample so while you cannot pick where that is (unless you have a really sharp tip) it doesn't matter so long as they just tunnel from a single point.
Science is indeed about choosing which ideas are worth exploring but that is based on either theory OR good preliminary data indicating that there is something interesting to study. If you have good reliable data indicating that a theory is wrong you should never just throw up your hands and stop to wait for the theorists to catch up - you go ahead with more experiments and lead the theorists. It has been a while since that has been the case in particle physics - probably the 1950s and 60s - but it is important to remember that sometimes experiments lead.
Macrumors is making a claim that is not supported by the data they link to. If you click though to the data all these say is that it has generated more revenue that a random selection of four other laptops.
Given the prices that Apple charges for these things the revenue per laptop is going to be significantly higher than other manufacturers so there is nothing in the data which indicates they have outsold other machines given that the usual interpretation of that is "sold more units". In fact if you look at the Dell Inspiron 2 in 1 a quick Google search suggests that the price of this is between $330-$1,000 in Canada compared to the cost of a MacBook Pro which is 5-10 times the price (of course this depends a lot on the configurations sold). Hence, in terms of sales volume, the Dell Inspiron 2 in 1 may actually be comparable to the MacBook Pro although it is clearly in an entirely different class given those prices.
Thus given a cursory inspection of the data it seems that the claim that the MacBook Pro has 'out sold' all other Laptops is completely unfounded. For a start you would need to look at sales volume and then you would need to compare it to laptops similar to the MacBook Pro such as the Dell XPS etc. not the cheapest possible laptops you can find where the low price requires ~5 times or more the sales volume. To support this you'll note the the closest in the data to the MacBook Pro is the Surface Book which is also closest in price.
The reason why discoveries are made with expensive experiments is that the cheap experiments have already been done. Seriously.
...and yet there are plenty of counter examples such as the use of scotch tape to create graphene, or the invention of the scanning tunnelling electron microscope which was thought to be impossible because you could not make a sharp enough tip etc. While it is often the case that expensive experiments are needed to discover new physics it is not true to say that this is always the case and if you close you mind to any possibility that a cheap and simple experiment may uncover new science you may miss an important discovery.
And this people are doing experiments with the simplest, cheapest device ever: an electromagnetic cavity. This has been tested to death for more than a century.
I'm pretty sure that an EM cavity is not the "cheapest, simplest device ever". It is certainly not cheaper and simpler than scotch tape which has almost been around for almost a century. If you are only rejecting the EM drive because it is "too simple to be true" and not for the host of other reasons (such as lack of evidence, no testing in space, no good evidence to rule out charged particle emission etc.) then you are taking a non-scientific approach. Your argument would apply equally to the invention of the STM, graphene and even things like the Milikan oil drop experiment. They were all really simple experiments which used material which had been around for a long time and so, with your criterion, they cannot be correct. If you are going to judge the value of things solely by how expensive they are then accountancy, and not science, may be a better career for you.
But, keep in mind, no backsies. Really, as an immigrant to Canada in a far far away time in my life, I remember the ordeal and under no circumstance, I would want to go back and live in a socialist world. Yet again I am living in California...
So if you were allowed to leave and return why shouldn't others? That's a tad hypocritical don't you think?
Assuming the Americans googling "canada immigration" (though they actually meant emigration)
No they actually meant immigrate. They want to emigrate from the US to Canada. However Canada is only concerned with those who want to immigrate here regardless of where they emigrated from. Hence we have an immigration service which is what they wanted to search for. Searching for 'canada emigration' would return pages about how to leave Canada which would not be helpful since they haven't even arrived here yet.
You are missing the point here. I agree the EM drive appears to be highly dodgy pseudo-science and has not provided evidence even vaguely commensurate with its outlandish claims. But that is WHY it is unbelievable: there is no convincing evidence and some very serious questions it has to answer.
Arguing that "everyone" agrees that this physics can only occur at the Planck scale is an appeal to authority equivalent to: "believe me because I am smart". That is not a scientific argument because even the brightest person can be wrong e.g. Einstein removing the cosmological constant or all the alchemical stuff Newton was into. The same applies to your argument about the tabletop experiment: there is no requirement that physics experiments have to be of a certain size or complexity to make new discoveries. Just because that's the only way we know of at the moment does not preclude someone else coming up with a smart idea or observing unexpected behaviour.
So I'm not saying that you should in anyway believe the outlandish, unsupported claims being made by the EM drive group just make sure that you reject them for the right reasons and not just because lots of other people have.
Don't worry - the UK are busy building aircraft carriers without any jets. So perhaps if you bring the jets the UK can provide some ammunition and Canada can provide the fuel? Clearly the reason recent conflicts have required coalitions is so each government's incompetence can be cancelled out.
Slashdot Mirror
Between the iPhone 7 and the latest Laptops it's clear that Apple doesn't have the 'vision' behind it that it did.
That's why they need glasses! ;-)
They also failed because...they were way overpriced. .... The battery life sucked. The capabilities also sucked.
Why would these cause it to fail? It already sounds like it's a perfect companion for the new MacBook.
the Radeon Pro 455 graphics chip in particular to be a "significant boost" over...the Nvidia GeForce GTX 650M, Nvidia GeForce GTX 750M, and AMD Radeon R9 M370X
I bet it is also a lot faster than the graphics on my 1980's BBC Model B too but that's not really a useful comparison is it? It it were not better than the GPUs in machines which are at least 18 months old it would be pretty pathetic. How about the comparison to the new nVidia 10-series mobile GPUs that new non-Mac laptops are getting?
...but the original post said that, and I quote "HFT traders do place orders that they intend to cancel". So clearly they also place orders that they do not intend to get filled. So again I ask what is the difference?
Thanks but how is your comment at all relevant given that the claim was about tornadoes in November and not all year?
It's presumably still your property even if it is underwater.
This statistic will not really be interesting until November is over. We are less than half way through it. So really this story is saying that the US has not had a tornado for less than two weeks so what it should be compared to is how often that happens. If they really want to pull stupid stunts like this they should at least try to make it really sensational. They can run a story half way through January claiming that that US has had no tornadoes all year, Britain can have one claiming that the sun has not shone all year due to the clouds and in Canada we'll have the story about snow on the ground all the year....ok so that last one is true otherwise all our igloos would melt but you get the point.
HFT traders do place orders that they intend to cancel, however, if someone successfully intercepted an order placed by a HFT trader, that order would get filled. It appears to me that there was no possibility that Navinder could fill the orders he placed.
So literally the only difference between them is that if Navinder had screwed up he would not be able to cover his loses while the large corporations engaging in HFT can so it is legal for them but not for him? I thought we got rid of this idea that there are one set of rules for the rich and another set of rules for the poor back when we dumped feudalism but clearly someone forgot to tell the financial markets.
He deliberately, willfully and maliciously broke those rules to favor himself and in the process caused other people, who were playing by the rules, to lose money.
Yes and no. He placed trades to make it look like a large amount of selling was about to happen then others place sell orders with even lower prices. He then quickly cancelled his orders and quickly bought the stock at the lower price. However had his orders gone through he would have been on the hook for them.
Compare this to the behaviour of large financial corporations who watch one exchange and when they see a large buy or sell order come it quickly, using high speed networks not available to anyone else, place an appropriate order on another exchange before the large order gets there in order to take advantage of the increase or drop in the price the large order will cause.
Both techniques are dishonest and both cause other people to lose money. However one technique was figured out by large financial corporations and the other by a lone trader. Guess which one is deemed to be legal despite the incredible similarity between the two techniques. If he is guilty why are the large financial corporations who are almost playing the identical game not?
It's a valid claim if they can prove they've been damaged by climate change/warming/etc.
All it says is a right to life, not the right to a comfortable life. Climate change will cause a lot of upheaval that may damage our quality of life but will not actually kill us.
The settlement then becomes a court order to do or not do something that Congress never would have agreed to.
I doubt that this will be the end of humanity...
Just wait until he appoints an anti-vaxer as head of the CDC. Life was so much simpler when the only anti-vaxers were those who hated VMS.
What's really going on? There is so much nonsense being spewed...
Yes there is but the evidence that the climate is warming is pretty much incontrovertible. It also seems true that the rise in the last century or so has been extremely fast compared to changes over the past 100k years and the period of rapid rising coincides with our increase in fossil fuel burning so it seems reasonable to conclude that GHGs are responsible for a good deal of the warming.
At least that's my take as a non-climate related scientist.
Let's push the true cost of our ignorance down to our kids and our kid's kids.
Don't worry - with the education they are getting they are sadly far better equipped to deal with ignorance than we were.
What is the speculation based on?
Science.
I see that you conveniently failed to notice that, later on in my post, I compared the Touch Bar version of the 13" MBP to the Surface Book. The MBP was STILL $300 cheaper.
Without a GPU. Sounds about right.
Oh, and from what I have read, the Nvidia GPUs in the Surface Book (and Surface Studio) is OLDER than the AMD Polaris GPUs in the 15" MBP...so why the hate on the MBP
Indeed they are yet because AMD is well behind nVidia the performance seems comparable - google it - but to get that comparable performance you need the top line Radeon Pro 455 which is even more expensive. As for the 'hate' on the MBP it's simple: crap GPU, old CPU, no USB-A (yes USB-C is the future but USB-A is today and I want a laptop today not in 3 years time), no function keys, insanely high price. Compared to the Surface Book the two seem roughly comparable and it boils down to which features you want most.
...but compare it to a Dell XPS 13/15 and you have almost the identical features in a laptop that is a year old and cheaper. You even have USB-C but wisely they give you one port and multiple USB-A so I can use it now and in a few years. If the refresh which is expected in the next month or two gives it a Kaby Lake CPU and and nVidia 10-series mobile GPU it will wipe the floor with the MBP.
I'm sure Apple will survive. Oh, and enjoy WIndows 10, mwuhahahahaha!!!!
I'm sure they will but increasingly on their mobile sales and not their macs. As for Windows 10 what can I say - it really does suck in comparison - but with a machine capable of running VMs (32GB memory? not on a MBP!) and even the built in Linux subsystem for Windows it becomes more bearable and much of the software I use is the same on both platforms and for programming and data analysis I use Linux+python+... anyway.
There are is an important point you are missing and in one important aspect your post is factually wrong. This is one machine which is clearly intended as a direct competitor but there are more out there e.g. Dell XPS range which are strangely absent from the comparison. That was my point: so the MBP outsells the Surface Book (but not the new one because that is only out today) what about all the other competitors?
Your comparison is far from fair. You exclude the touch bar "to keep it fair" while ignoring the fact that the Surface has a touch screen: how is that even vaguely fair? Then you claim that that the 13" MBP has "faster graphics" when it has Intel Iris vs. the Surface's nVidia 965M which is factually wrong. As for the the other features I have never used the TB port on my existing MBP (other than as a miniDP) nor have I any use for USB-C since everything I have is USB-A and a GPU is really important. So for my uses when I compare a MBP to a Surface I'm looking at the 15" model where the cost rockets up to over $4k with the 1TB SSD and over $5k with the 2TB which is insane for a laptop with an old CPU and GPU. While the Surface is similarly expensive it has features I value far more: long battery life, touch screen, USB-A ports and tablet mode. However really I am waiting for the XPS 15 to get a refresh to Kaby Lake and hopefully a 10-series nVidia GPU and then, while I'll miss OS X, it's goodbye Apple.
Obviously the price difference depends on what you need the device for if USB-C an TB3 are important for you great - go get a new MBP. However no matter how you spin it there is no way you can claim that the MBP fulfills a similar market niche to the Dell Inspiron 2-in-1, a Chromebook or the cheap Lenovo model they were also comparing it against. The data do suggest it outsells the Surface but I suspect the real competitors are the Dell XPS series and the equivalent ranges from the other manufacturers.
The thing is that it was testing a relatively new theory at the time (charge quantization), and it is natural that a new theory can suddenly open the floodgates to simple, cheap experiments.
So the only way we can come up with simple experiments is is theorists tell us how things should work first? Really? How can you possibly be an experimentalist with that attitude? How about Rutherford scattering? That was done by an undergrad student for a quick summer project and the theoretical prediction at the time was utterly wrong.
Do you really want to disprove classical electrodynamics with a simple EM cavity? Come on.
Yes of course I want to! How can you possibly claim to be a scientist and NOT want to do that? Finding a major flaw in our fundamental understanding of physics could lead to solutions to any number of theoretical problems we have today. Doing that with a simple experiment which somehow everyone overlooked would just be the icing on the cake. Do I think this is likely, no of course not, and certainly not for this EM drive. But to not even want to? Come on!
But the EM drive is not based in any theory...A big part of doing science (which I actually do for a living) is choosing what ideas are worth experimenting.
There is a huge problem with this approach: you are immediately limiting yourself to ideas which theorists think are possible. The best example of how this can go very wrong is the Scanning, Tunnelling Electron Microscope. Several groups had come up with the idea well before the inventors but each time had calculated that they needed an impossibly narrow tip and so stopped working on it. The inventors did not do this they just built the device without doing all the calculations first and it worked. There was an immediate backlash from the previous groups saying that this was impossible because they would need an impossibly sharp tip but the evidence was, in this case, overwhelming that it did indeed work. Eventually they figured out that the electrons tunnel from the point of the tip closest to the sample so while you cannot pick where that is (unless you have a really sharp tip) it doesn't matter so long as they just tunnel from a single point.
Science is indeed about choosing which ideas are worth exploring but that is based on either theory OR good preliminary data indicating that there is something interesting to study. If you have good reliable data indicating that a theory is wrong you should never just throw up your hands and stop to wait for the theorists to catch up - you go ahead with more experiments and lead the theorists. It has been a while since that has been the case in particle physics - probably the 1950s and 60s - but it is important to remember that sometimes experiments lead.
Apple *do* know their target markets after all!
Macrumors is making a claim that is not supported by the data they link to. If you click though to the data all these say is that it has generated more revenue that a random selection of four other laptops.
Given the prices that Apple charges for these things the revenue per laptop is going to be significantly higher than other manufacturers so there is nothing in the data which indicates they have outsold other machines given that the usual interpretation of that is "sold more units". In fact if you look at the Dell Inspiron 2 in 1 a quick Google search suggests that the price of this is between $330-$1,000 in Canada compared to the cost of a MacBook Pro which is 5-10 times the price (of course this depends a lot on the configurations sold). Hence, in terms of sales volume, the Dell Inspiron 2 in 1 may actually be comparable to the MacBook Pro although it is clearly in an entirely different class given those prices.
Thus given a cursory inspection of the data it seems that the claim that the MacBook Pro has 'out sold' all other Laptops is completely unfounded. For a start you would need to look at sales volume and then you would need to compare it to laptops similar to the MacBook Pro such as the Dell XPS etc. not the cheapest possible laptops you can find where the low price requires ~5 times or more the sales volume. To support this you'll note the the closest in the data to the MacBook Pro is the Surface Book which is also closest in price.
The reason why discoveries are made with expensive experiments is that the cheap experiments have already been done. Seriously.
And this people are doing experiments with the simplest, cheapest device ever: an electromagnetic cavity. This has been tested to death for more than a century.
I'm pretty sure that an EM cavity is not the "cheapest, simplest device ever". It is certainly not cheaper and simpler than scotch tape which has almost been around for almost a century. If you are only rejecting the EM drive because it is "too simple to be true" and not for the host of other reasons (such as lack of evidence, no testing in space, no good evidence to rule out charged particle emission etc.) then you are taking a non-scientific approach. Your argument would apply equally to the invention of the STM, graphene and even things like the Milikan oil drop experiment. They were all really simple experiments which used material which had been around for a long time and so, with your criterion, they cannot be correct. If you are going to judge the value of things solely by how expensive they are then accountancy, and not science, may be a better career for you.
But, keep in mind, no backsies. Really, as an immigrant to Canada in a far far away time in my life, I remember the ordeal and under no circumstance, I would want to go back and live in a socialist world. Yet again I am living in California...
So if you were allowed to leave and return why shouldn't others? That's a tad hypocritical don't you think?
Assuming the Americans googling "canada immigration" (though they actually meant emigration)
No they actually meant immigrate. They want to emigrate from the US to Canada. However Canada is only concerned with those who want to immigrate here regardless of where they emigrated from. Hence we have an immigration service which is what they wanted to search for. Searching for 'canada emigration' would return pages about how to leave Canada which would not be helpful since they haven't even arrived here yet.
You are missing the point here. I agree the EM drive appears to be highly dodgy pseudo-science and has not provided evidence even vaguely commensurate with its outlandish claims. But that is WHY it is unbelievable: there is no convincing evidence and some very serious questions it has to answer.
Arguing that "everyone" agrees that this physics can only occur at the Planck scale is an appeal to authority equivalent to: "believe me because I am smart". That is not a scientific argument because even the brightest person can be wrong e.g. Einstein removing the cosmological constant or all the alchemical stuff Newton was into. The same applies to your argument about the tabletop experiment: there is no requirement that physics experiments have to be of a certain size or complexity to make new discoveries. Just because that's the only way we know of at the moment does not preclude someone else coming up with a smart idea or observing unexpected behaviour.
So I'm not saying that you should in anyway believe the outlandish, unsupported claims being made by the EM drive group just make sure that you reject them for the right reasons and not just because lots of other people have.
We just had a Slashdot article [slashdot.org] about only 1 in 4 articles on Wikipedia being free from bias
Being free from bias is not the same as saying that it is factually correct.
Don't worry - the UK are busy building aircraft carriers without any jets. So perhaps if you bring the jets the UK can provide some ammunition and Canada can provide the fuel? Clearly the reason recent conflicts have required coalitions is so each government's incompetence can be cancelled out.