My sister's dog (who is the devil) has an obsession with eating them. We don't really know why. One time, my sister caught him kind of sniffing at one, and when she went to try and get him away from it, he picked it up, ran away, and swallowed the thing before she could figure out what he was doing.

First off, a couple of people DID make comments about her. Secondly, if someone's promoting one of these two being the focus - I'd say it's the photographer, who (literally) focused on the male subject, while putting the female subject outside the depth of field.

You kind of liked your own bad joke a bit too much there, Jack. If the joke had made sense to begin with, then the (ha!) would have been fine. But you were kind of stretching for the joke, and then adding the (ha!) just seemed a little sad.

Here's what explaining the joke would have looked like:

I actually wasn't explaining why people wouldn't get it. I was stopping myself from getting flamed from the few who would actually understand my joke. Because, as I stated, the p-value in the article is in fact much less than .05, so me saying p>.05 is actually FALSE. But I still thought it'd be funny. And at least…

I actually hadn't until after I made my joke. It's just the consequences of being a student in a research-based field. And being an uber nerd, such as I am.

The probability of something being false evidence IS a p value. That's the point of p values. A p value of .05 means there is a 5% chance that your data is occurring by chance (this is all defined by the amount of overlap between the population data and the test data).

Is it bad that my favorite part of that is that it actually has the p values in the article? If only news articles actually explained confidence levels of things they're reporting on, so we don't have to go check their damned sources before we know if the story is at the very least statistically significant.

And that's exactly how it should be. Science is about making discoveries, and then testing and retesting them until we know exactly how they fit within our theories, or how our theories need to be modified to accommodate them. If science merely accepted new discoveries blindly, we would be...well, science would be…

p>.05? Throw it out!

Don't mean to be a stickler, but why not call it by its real name, Jesus, bleibet meine freude?

Thanks for getting there first, so I didn't have to.

It's true, the model in the video isn't light propulsion. I realized that as I was posting it, but kind of hoped you'd let me get away with being lazy and not finding a real example of light propulsion. Kudos to you for not letting me do it. But light can push things, here's a much better example.

Just one little nit I'd like to pick. While space is "weightless," that's an effectively meaningless statement. Weight is simply the amount of force gravity applies to an object. This is determined by the masses of both objects. Mass is what makes something hard to move, not weight. Weight makes it hard to pick or…

My issue is that the hardware was never the problem with the original iPad. It was the software. It's still using the exact same software that's designed to be used on a 3.5" screen, not a 9.7" one. Until they change that, the iPad remains just a giant iPod touch, and nothing more.

@truthtellah: It's a reference from an Orson Scott Card book, I can't remember which one, but it's one in the Ender's Shadow saga. One of the characters is in captivity, and another is in hiding trying to find out where the one in captivity is being held. He passes messages to her via online message boards using…