We never see what's in front of the boat the the camera was in. No offense to the people in the video, but how do we know the white object wasn't being pulled with fishing wire from another boat?

... What would be wrong with preferring realism over impressionism, expressionism, or experimental paintings? Seems to me that that's a totally valid opinion/preference to have.

You don't need a good camera to take a good photo, but many phone cameras are bad enough that the image quality itself can detract from the image. You can import the photo into Photoshop, or you can use Instagram. The photo itself doesn't change, but the poor image quality is masked by the filter.

Filters are used to mask the shortcomings of the camera. Instagram is a good tool for that, particularly on phones that don't have a good camera.

Maybe I was unclear; by scientific culture I am in fact referring to the current environment in which science is practiced. I don't mean to say that there is anything wrong with science itself. Rather, this information suggests to me that perhaps the current scientific environment is in some way encouraging scientists…

Perhaps, but I can't think of a way to determine which is correct.

Yes but this seems to be saying that the rate at which retraction is increasing is greater than the rate at which total scientific paper output is increasing (unless my math is wrong, which wouldn't be surprising). It seems to indicate that there may be something fundamentally wrong with scientific culture.

I agree with Michael Long's comment, but my two cents (even if it is basically the short version of what he said) : you need to know the rules and master them before you can know when to break them.

Well no. You missed option three, which is: content providers change their distribution model so that people can get the content they want when they want it for a reasonable price.

I don't remember, I think lifehacker or gizmodo had a post about it in the last couple of weeks.

I wasn't aware that that amount was flexible. However, I meant with regard to contributions that would apply to 2011.

Maybe I don't fully understand the concepts at work here, but doesn't this argument assume that alternate universes exist within one another, as opposed to being separate?

Same here, or maybe something similar to the iPad app that lets you nod to advance to the next page in a PDF.

If I have assets but no income, should I continue to contribute to my retirement account with my shorter-term savings, or should I hold on till I have a steady stream of income again? On the one hand I want to maximize my retirement savings but on the other I don't really know how long I'll need to stretch my money.

I wasn't aware that this was ever really a question. Since when has anyone tried to enforce this kind of contract with criminal charges? Am I just not enough of a jerk to have thought of it?

Ironically, iOS folders don't look like real folders. Obviously, I understand your use of that example, but still funny.

The takeaway is that Facebook is the problem? Why not follow the causal chain in the other direction and assume that those with poorer study skills and concentration tended to cave and submit to distraction?

Oh, I thought you meant some kind of legal battle, some kind of injunction, or the like. I suppose they could do that, but I imagine that wouldn't help them, long-term. How long would it take for their company to go bankrupt if scientists unilaterally refused to use their product? I think science could hold out longer…

What kind of fight can they put up though? They can't force people to use their publication.

That's a big "if." If I don't use company property to access personal information then my employer has absolutely no right to require that I had over that information. It's especially inappropriate when used as a prerequisite to employment.