My second reply to your comment was meant to pre-empt this kind of response. Mea culpa.

Gosh, you know, let me say this, before our exchange devolves into the typical online member-measuring competition: I don't wish for my first comment to be thought of as personal at all, or motivated by malice. The only reason I commented because it is interesting to me the way information can breed misinformation, as…

Respectfully, it sounds like you've got just enough knowledge to fuel your skepticism, but not enough to really inform it. I would say this is a case where a little bit of knowledge can be, unexpectedly enough, worse than none at all, the reason being that you only *think* you've got a more educated perspective on the…

"Often"? "Looked at a lot of"? Let's see the syllabi for the courses you studied in that give you this learned perspective. (I *also* studied comparative primate morphology in college, and know just how little the cursory coverage given these topics in undergraduate courses are like the training received in graduate…

I don't know if there are any good reasons to use photos of children AT ALL in newspapers. If they're under the age of majority, there's no reason to subject them to public scrutiny as the subject of photojournalism. And they can't enter into contracts, so shouldn't be used as models. It seems to me the deleterious…

For this into this kind of thing, see also "The Wind Whales of Ishmael" by Philip José Farmer.

It'd would have been a different business altogether if the title had been, "The 7 most intriguing debunked arguments for..."

"We still don't have a working theory of consciousness, giving rise to the notorious Hard Problem"
Notorious for not being a problem for the researchers who study consciousness.

Come on, George. There's so much that is genuinely baffling in this world of ours; why not focus on that stuff instead of rehashing…

I'll be playing this on silent rotation in the children's nursery.

Serendipity; I was just looking at the "Satanic Laws for Good Conduct" earlier this week: http://thewonderreflex.blogspot.com/2014/01/satani…

"I think I got hacked!"

Plenty of good stories to tell out there.

I secretly want SLATTERY to be the real performance. The Mandarin pretends to be an actor pretending to be the Mandarin, and runs his criminal empire from prison. (Iterate: KINGSLEY pretends to be the Mandarin pretending to be an actor pretending to be the Mandarin. Circles within circles.)

(Looks around for aloe. Because the burn.)

I take your point, but this isn't a moment where added precision is helpful. For as stated: If "y" is the energy *lost*, it cannot be negative. If you posit that "y" is "negative energy", you are conjuring some new kind of physical substance that I wasn't referring to.

We're talking about perpetual motion here, not science; about claims of 'over-unity' processes, not claims that science has achieved epistemic completeness.

Sounds like a just punishment.

Suggestions for shows similar to Scandal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adven…

THESE are snotrocks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyura_chi…