Not sure how psychology is taught in the UK...

But at least where I was 10 years ago, psychology was a statistics-heavy degree. It put you miles ahead most other graduates outside of the math department. Maybe it's the kind of attitude on display in this article that pushed psychology to fiercely legitimize itself through math, but statistical analysis and quantitative analysis are huge parts of the degree in many schools today, which has allowed me a career in IT and (currently) software business analysis (with no degree-based IT experience or training).

More broadly, t I think this is again a problem with the idea that people who are in school now should be literally placing bets on the usefulness of a specific degree 10, 15, 30 years from now. In 2000, the big degrees were in finance and pre-law, both of which now are suffering from massive over-supply issues. Right now it is Comp Sci and Engineering, two very specific skill-sets that are already showing signs of over-supply, at least at the entry-level. While "doing what feels good" might not be the best strategy, it seems those of my cohort who came out of college with no specific job or field in mind are doing the best and are the most satisfied with our jobs... excluding the teachers.

But that's my two cents.

Well, now we need something else to complain about...

It doesn't have a 10-key? Is Dell intentionally selling a crippled laptop in order to make Windoze machines look better?! </sarcasm>

It's one thing to use cherry-picked data to build a case supporting one's bias...

But quite another to take data from another group and applying bad logic to support your bias. The stats, unless there is more in the NPD survey than reported, do not support the basis of the article. With the data presented, it states that in Q4'2011, people who never owned a smartphone were more likely to buy an Android-based phone than any other, while people who already owned a smartphone were... more likely to buy an Android-based smartphone, albeit at a lower percentage.

However, there are no listed statistics to back up the assertion that people who owned an Android-based phone were turning away from the OS to purchase an iPhone. Comparing two disparate groups and stating that it demonstrates any kind of movement away from the Android is low IQ at best, outright pandering to Apple at worst. The only conclusion you can take is what is presented, which is that Android is winning the mind and market share of those who are new to smartphones, while Apple, with a head-start in the smartphone biz, is holding 43% of all upgrades.

A more salient question that would actually answer the question of loyalty is to compare pre- and post-upgrade phone choices. Only if after looking at the data and see iOS with a larger share of the post-upgrade user base than the pre-upgrade, could you conclude that Android has a problem retaining users. Until that happens, all we can conclude with the data in this article is that the author fails basic comprehension of statistics. And if the information was present in the NPD survey and was not included in the article as the basis for the conclusion, it shows that the author fails basic journalism.

We do realize...

That 11 billion US is less than what you would find between the couch cushions of the US economy,right? Saving that much is literally 0.1% of the GDP in 2009. To put it another way, that's a tad less than $40/year/US citizen, presuming that the savings quoted is yearly. Not exactly earth-shattering, or even enough to make most industries sit up and take notice.

And that's probably assuming that all the finds pan out, regulation stays away, and the US economy recovers enough to bother with manufacturing instead of outsourcing it to China and other locales.

I realize Andrew has a bone to pick with British government and society, but a proper frame of reference will go a long way in winning over hearts and minds.

The only concern is the water table...

Here in the good ol' US o A, two groups are getting in a tizzy over natural gas and fracking: Energy companies and NIMBYs. On the whole, both have valid points: The energy companies are engaging in "extract at any cost" behavior, even when going through aquifers and water tables, and the NIMBYs are a bit too NIMBYish. Sadly, our paralyzed governments are sitting this one out, so litigation is king.

The latest we've heard is that even after being told not to for the last 10 years by the government, the energy companies continue to use diesel fuel as a solvent for many of their fracking operations. Now they are being sued, and trying to defend themselves with the ever-popular "We thought when you said not to use it, you meant that we could use it!" defense. Good times. Of course, it's only a problem with the fracking operations that aren't using the proper containment techniques, and nothing goes wrong. But a few water tables have been spoiled, or at least contaminated enough to require expensive filtration costs for the city or water authority.

But, 85% of the time, that doesn't happen (number randomly pulled out of my backside), so instead of putting some decent regulations in place (no diesel or other difficult to clean out solvents without some kind of insurance that will cover clean-up/mitigation costs, prompt reporting of accidents and "incidents" to local authorities, and transparent bidding/contracting processes), the energy companies are going whole hog where they were let in (rural areas, poor areas, etc), while being completely blocked in other areas.

The only other concern is that in some areas of the country that are a slight bit more geologically active than the area I call home, there has been increases in micro-earthquakes, usually detectable only by sensitive instruments or animals, with one or two real earthquakes (4ish on the scale) that might be attributed to fracking operations.

While I have no axe to grind myself...

This article was premature in the same way that most men are their first time out. We are just over 72 hours from the quake and tsunami, with nothing yet contained, and someone is going off half-cocked about how this is a win for nuclear energy concerns the world over. However, let's toss a little (boric) acidified seawater on this reaction.

First, as of 6 AM Japanese local time on Tuesday, officials confirmed that a third explosion had indeed damaged and weakened the containment of Rector 2, making any build-up of pressure in the reactor core that much more dangerous. Additionally, after the explosion, the radiation level climbed to at 11,900 μSv/h, which is approaching dangerous territory for anyone at the plant.

Second, Reactor 4 was suffering from a runaway fission reaction and nuclear material was actually burning in a fire, releasing much larger amounts of radioactive materials into the air than any previous situation at the plant. While Reactor 4 wasn't running, it still contained spent rods, which seem to be having a grand old time right now. (Update: While I was writing this, Japanese officials indicated the fire had been extinguished for now.)

Third, due to the containment breach, threat of further explosions, the aforementioned fire, and rising radiation readings, Japan was considering an evacuation of all workers from the site. Let me repeat that. They are considering a wholesale evacuation of all technicians and support personnel from the site, effectively ceasing any and all recovery and containment activity. In essence, the plant is being given up for dead, and it's entirely possible that Reactor 2, at least, will suffer a containment-busting explosion and/or meltdown, resulting in the release of uranium and plutonium into the air, let alone their decay products.

Fourth, if this does occur, a little known problem could be the cooling pools used to store spent rods. As Rector 4 is demonstrating, they still have enough energy left in them to burn and release radioactive material. The problem is that they are in cooling pools are lightly protected and poorly contained, and only have enough water over top of them to remain unexposed to air for a week or two. Clearly, a full-scale meltdown would make any kind of mitigation impossible, and they would soon begin burning and releasing even more radioactive material into the air at a rate much greater than the relatively contained reactor cores.

So, while I don't personally find nuclear power abhorrent or otherwise unpalatable, it seems like this piece was exceedingly short-sighted and resulted in the tarnishing of a reputation that had to this point been decent. It's unfortunate that someone clearly let personal bias trump the facts on the ground and didn't even let the events settle down to a point that experienced people in nuclear physics would say the threat was contained. Poorly handled by Mr. Page.

A better article would have been something like this: While we don't know the extent of the damage and fallout (har) of the Fukushima nuclear incident, we know that nuclear power is safe most of the time, assuming we aren't dumb enough to build on the coast in a tsunami-prone area that is very near a large fault. Such self-evident things, sadly, only become apparent after calamity strikes.

If there was a outed pool...

I would pick him to be the next one caught in a two-man grope fest in a public bathroom, possibly complete with snorting cocaine off some male hooker's twig. We have a wonderful history in the US of the most strident anti-gay voices being the most closeted folks in this great nation.

To those who say, "Nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide..."

Sometimes, people are using the internet for more than porn and kitten pictures (shocking, I know). While there are sites like LinkdIn to use for "business" contacts, it's not nearly on the level that Facebook is. However, that doesn't mean you want to or should be mixing business and pleasure. Additionally, some people do try to keep their personal lives separate from the public and/or employment piece, if only to prevent someone using things unrelated to work against them (see the Tiger Woods saga... err... wait, you can't talk about that here... see the growing list of employers who use interns and such to troll for personal details like affiliations and memberships on the internet when considering you for employment).

Idiots who post pictures of the keg stand from last weekend and make it available to everyone have it coming when a spouse or significant other sees them also making out with the cute blonde who isn't them. A teacher who does not want to or is professionally restricted from being "casual" with students is entirely another. Should a teacher than completely avoid any form of online networking and become the 21st century equivalent of a hermit, on the off chance a student might find them? Or should sites like Facebook comply with common sense, user requests and the law to give users the control over who can see what on their profile? It's not like whatever you post on the site is prevented from being used in data mining operations if you set it to "Friends Only." Facebook can pretend to make money on it's dataset with the user in it.

It seems like little to ask, just like it's little to ask the old phone book companies to keep your name and address unlisted, or asking to be on the Do Not Call list to cut down solicitations. Not only that, but there is something to be said of the dystopian ideal that all information is free and freely given on the internet. But if it is, when some script kiddy steals your credit card info from a secure site that turns out to be anything but, are you saying, "Fair game, kid. Go spend to your heart's content?" No, you're calling the cops to nail both the little schmuck and the company you did business with to the wall, and then send them away to experience the tenderness of some dude named Butch in a prison shower.

Plus, do you really want to parrot the likes of Bush and Cheney and other American right-wing idiots by saying, "Let us pry into everything about you. If you're innocent, you should agree that our efforts to catch the 1 out of 50,000,000 who are a threat to you are completely in line." Granted, the UK is now known far and wide as the most frightening example of a self-inflicted police state. Let's hope everyone else can learn from that.

The more I read about this stuff...

The more I think that the governments of the Western world are trying to let the criminals and terrorists win. That way, they can claim extraordinary powers on the grounds of it being a state of war. Thankfully, while the US does have it's problems and does seem to be trying to chip away at the edges of civil liberties, it's not as quick as the UKs decent in to the Orwellian nightmare. It does seems like 1984 is being read as a how-to manual rather than a warning by various members of the government class. At least as far at this goes, the US has the well-enshrined 5th Amendment, which specifically indicates that no citizen can ever be compelled to self-incriminate. And that part of it is not worded in ways that make it open to multiple interpretations, like the 1st, 2nd, and 4th, to name a few.

"...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

I would suggest that all of you who don't want to live in a police state move further west, to the US or Canada, but you'd probably be detained either at the UK or US border for being undesirables in some way, shape, or form.

If you need me, I'll be buying land in the NW Territories of Canada....

It's an odd thing, us Yanks

Here I am a liberal, at least by most definitions used on both sides of the pond, and I find the actions by Jacqui Smith to be reprehensible, just as I have always found Michael Savage. I do realize that the US Constitution and the first ten rights, the Bill of Rights, are loosely based on the Magna Carta, with (slow) expansion to classes beyond the landed gentry. With that in mind, there is a reason for Yanks to be a bit apprehensive about what we see happening in Britain all the time when it comes to the treatment of the citizens by the government. So much of what we do is based on English law, that if you guys can water down what used to be a strong document, what could be done to the Constitution?

Even though I don't think anyone on the public list that Britain has "named and shamed" is worth much more than the sludge in a chemical toilet, I believe that as long as they don't try to incite violence or commit violence in the name of the their cause, they are free to spout off their crackpot theories. We'd even let Mrs. Smith talk around here, though most would probably cringe and ignore her, just like anyone with more than a primary school education does with Mr. Savage. The point here is that for an American, regardless of (most) political beliefs, the idea of the government making any moves that look to be suppressing or slandering a person is frightening, even if they are a foreign national. One could argue that Mrs. Smith, by putting him just on a "No Entry" list, isn't suppressing his voice, but it does look like the thin end of a wedge. One might look at it and think to themselves, "Should I ever voice an opinion that might be contrary to a ruling party's opinion in Britain, lest I get a lifetime ban as well?"

I don't condone Mr. Savage's actions at all, and he is just milking this publicity cow for all it's worth. He knows his crowd, and they are very... simple. They are very reactionary and likely to act rashly against anything they view as British regardless of how this pans out now. It might be as simple as boycott (which, given the median listener's income, probably means one less order of fish and chips from the local pub every month for every member of the Royal Family), to something as irritating as rude behavior to anyone perceived as being British in their area, even if they are a naturalized citizen of America, or downright harassment of travelers.

I don't know what kind of publicity it got across the pond, but after the French told Dubya to screw off and take his warmongering elsewhere (which went well), there was a fringe movement (including xenophobic bills in the House and Senate) to remove the name "French" from various legal definitions (french fries and french toast to be renamed "freedom" fries and "freedom" toast). That's the kind of followers that this idiot Mr. Savage has, and while it seems quaint and silly, for every 1,000 people who find it to be just harmless fun, there is that 1,001st person who takes it up as a personal grudge.

I guess it still is part of the American psyche that everyone is free (insomuch as you don't try to kill us, for varying values of "kill") and that outside interference in our policies of state or citizen actions are not tolerated (you have King George III to blame for that one, and the War of 1812 just reinforced it). "Don't Tread on Me" is more than just a rallying cry of the Revolutionary Amry and a former motto of the US Marine Corps, as it still does sum up the general US ethos when dealing with the world. Just don't ask me to defend the foreign policy of Dubya. The man wasn't much more than a jumped up brat with too much cocaine on the brain. Elections are such double-edges swords.

It was, now it's unknown...

They carbon-dated the shroud in 1988 or so, and the results proved to show that it couldn't be older than 800 years. But about 15 years later, some guy took exception to a paper contesting the carbon-dating results, but then went on to show in his own critique that the paper was right to contest the results. Apparently, the corner of the shroud they tested had cotton and medieval dyes from a repair job, invalidating the results. So now no one knows again. And honestly, even if it was from roughly 33 AD, crucifixion was a common enough practice that any number of people could have been wrapped in a shroud and then later found.

Paranoia confirmed

I never have clicked on a TinyURL link it my web life. There is something inherently absurd about following a link that you can't see the full path of. Also, it smacks of bad practice and terrible user education. Things like this just perpetuate the malware and spam problems. Bah. Where's my porch and rocking chair....

A title

Lots of numbers being thrown around here, all assuming either the US or UK standard household plug. Be that as it may, it's possible they are also talking about a specific distribution model, a type of fueling station that is able to deliver industial levels of power through a "hose" to your "tank." Light on detail the press release is... but with the right equipment, it's probably possible to push a large amount of current through to a battery that is designed for maximum surface area to cut down on charge time. Now, whether the technology is actually there, doesn't cost as much as a house, and is reliable, that's a whole other matter. It's nice to dream, though.... and I tend to err on the side of dreaming big and seeing what can be done rather than focusing on what can't be done. Remember, it wasn't more than 50 years ago that the idea of a computer thousands of times more powerful than what they had then in a package that fit in a small box would have seemed ludicrous.

About that whole Mythbusters thing...

Actually, Mythbusters recently went and redid the bullet through the scope myth. After taking all the suggestions given in good faith by their viewers, even if misinformed, they tried again. Using Jamie's impressive skills at shooting through a scope, nothing worked. However, the ballistics expert they had on-site brought in a "secret" weapon for one last try. Out came an armor-piercing, tungsten-core round. One shot later, and they had a ballistics dummy with a pretty serious eye wound... and a bullet lodged 2" into it's brain. Now, there was no skull, as it was just ballistics gel, but one could make the assumption that the shot would have been a mortal wound without immediate medical attention. Keeping in mind how a sniper is supposed to operate, it would be quite likely they would bleed to death before a medic could reach them.

Otherwise, good article, and congrats on Cal for owning up to falling for the journalistic ploy of emotional manipulation. Misstating the intention of the article in the first couple of paragraphs is a cheap, but effective trick. Journalists are way more amoral and ruthless than your typical sniper.

Makes me hungry...

Pass me some tasty PETA members. I mean, while turkeys might be bright and have differing personalities, PETA consistently shows us they belong down at the bottom of the food chain with yeast and bacteria. And at least those two provide us with tasty beverages and cooking supplies.

Honestly, any group that thinks the American Humane Society is filled with animal-hating miscreants and has members who feel that eating yeast is animal abuse is obviously of negligible sentience.

Err

A couple of things. First, any test of intelligence, be it the much maligned IQ test, or the SAT and ACT for American college candidates, or the GRE, MCAT, LSAT, etc for graduate studies in various fields in the US, is adjusted occasionally to make the 100, or whatever the numerical scale is, to be the median of the bell curve. This is either done by altering the test to make it more difficult (or easier if the sample is consistently scoring lower than the old median) or by changing the scoring scale. So it is quite possible that through revisions of the testing procedures and scoring that the median today would have been 1 or even 2 Standard Deviations above the median in the past. Plus, while we might think otherwise due to things like Darwin Awards and news stories, I think that the general intelligence of the population have increased from what it was 100 years ago.

As to the IQ test in and of itself. People consistently rail against it, hating the idea that some words and figures on paper foretell how smart or dumb you are. Couple that with the other pop psychology out there and the focus on "other" intelligences, whether as a way to get grant money or to really try to make those who are "average" or "below average" feel better, and you have the confusion that is present.

However, there is a vast body of research and test results that indicate that IQ is positively correlated (as one goes up, so does the other) with job performance, school performance, GRE, SAT, and GCSE scores, longevity, income, and emotional health, while negatively correlated with crime, juvenile offenses, depression, smoking, being obese, and traumatic injury.

Now, these all range from correlations of +/- 0.81 (technically accounting for 66% of the variablity seen) to as little as +/-0.19. However, they are statistically significant, even if the effect size can be anywhere from large to small. Again, this is correlation, not causation. It's very difficult to ascertain causation when you can't set up multiple groups and introduce variables and controls. There are ways, but they are math-intensive. Without reading the actual paper by this researcher, I can't say what conclusions were drawn and why, and if the press (even the Reg) is misreading, misstating, or distorting the research... or if there was a poorly written press release by the researcher or journal.

Really Mr. Smith...

So, accusing people of wearing a "mask" while posting online in an anonymous forum under a name that could apply to a couple hundred thousand people or more is not hiding something? Give it up. If you want to really be truthful, you could just post the relevant details, like your address, full name, tax status, income, and any other relevant details so people could appreciate just how wonderfully honest and truthful you are. You know, as should all the other CoSers who live in Clearwater, FL and on that boat called the Freewinds (currently sealed and docked due to a blatant disregard for US law and general human safety because it was stuffed to the gills with asbestos).

I mean, if you have nothing to hide, you should let it all hang out, right? That's why there are all the attempts to seal civil court records that are generally public domain or suing people into the ground using abusive practices. That's obviously the work of people with nothing to hide. If you really want to be recognized as a "religion." that's fine. But you realize it's public domain to be a religion. There is no copyright or intellectual property to be suing people over in court. The Catholic Church, everyone's favorite whipping boy, doesn't sue non-Catholics for use of the Bible in works critical of the Church's beliefs. They also have a clear hierarchy that is visible to anyone who cares to look. Who's the leader in theCoS? It is a board like a corporation, or one person. How were they appointed? Was it a vote, succession, anointed, name drawn from a hat? What texts do they use and what public policies do they support? Are they funding any outsides entities to do work on their behalf in the PR or Gov't spheres? What is the overall leadership structure? Centralized, decentralized, broken down by region, church, book sales, etc?

Those are questions that need to be asked, Mr. Smith, and claims to privacy indicate you have something to hide and crimes that you don't want aired, using your logic. Come clean, expose yourself to the sunshine you require of everyone else in the world when they dare speak a word against you. Just like every other real religion. Otherwise, remain a fringe cult, known for preying on the weak-minded, large-account suckers you do. Get all the negative publicity and weaken and demean your own reputation, doing more damage to yourself than all your critics could ever do.

To be honest, it's very entertaining to watch. It's like a slow motion implosion. I'm guessing the next "step" is that a high level "leader" will be thrown under the bus by the CoS to "prove" that they don't tolerate corruption and abuse of power in their hierarchy. That will obviously show that they are really a kind and gentle religion, with none of the maniacal grasping for power and influence that has dominated the other Western-sourced religions over the last 4000 years.

Until then, you will have no respect and people will be suspicious of your church and it's claims. And you will never achieve any type of status, other than fringe cult, and go the way of the thousands of other start-up religions that have sprouted in the warm, moist, and dark regions of the human mind and domain, just like mushrooms after a rain.

There really needs to be an eye-rolling type icon for the side. Paris it is, cause even she isn't weak-minded enough to join the CoS.

@ Ryan

Over stateside, our wireless networks do work on a locked principle. We have a very well set standard of "buy a 2-year contract, get a phone for almost nothing." After that period, I believe that we could network hop, though since not all the providers use the same system, you are limited. With the vast geographical area, a provider that is awesome in NE might not be so good in the Midwest, and we have enough rural and underpopulated land that it isn't covered by major carriers without roaming, so you have local carriers, or regional ones. Same thing with broadband and other things. We have this "vast expanses" excuse that the providers keep using to justify the high prices for lower service than the rest of the civilized world... and to an extant, it's correct. I just don't think it's quite the premium they place on it.

But, this C Block is a little different. What it means if you don't have to have a licensed device, or there's an open license, that allows anyone to set up in that spectrum... I don't know if it's set up to require a fee or something to be paid to Verizon, but I think it means that Verizon can't lock anyone out if they are willing to play by the rules... though I don't know who sets those rules. So, this isn't just for cell phones, but anything that goes wireless, which before was TV signals. Though, I would be happy with a wireless signal that could penetrate the concrete bunker that is my apt building, so I can actually have reception.

@ E

I think the point being missed is that unlike biofuels, this is waste product that was already being produced, and will continue to be produced regardless of whether it can become profitable. The problem with biofuels as they currently stand is that they take food product out of the food supply or encourage the slash and burn of rain forests and marginal temperate lands to create more arable land, at the expense of plants that were doing a better job as carbon sinks. The prize goes to the person who can take waste from agriculture, like cornstalks, soybean plants sans soybeans, etc. and turn those into alcohols that can be burned for fuel, or takes native plants that have an annual life cycle, or perennial root system, such as sawgrass, and just mow it once in a while and make alcohols out of that. Those require little to no attention from farmers, no fertilizer, pesticides, or huge outlay of carbon-creating technologies to produce. They just happen, because they are native, and aren't food products, meaning that it does not impact commodity prices (see wheat, which is not being planted for crops like soybeans, and more commonly, corn, here in the US), and it becomes much closer to truly being carbon neutral.

As to cow shit, it happens anyway. We can get into some big ruckus about how cows shouldn't be kept, grain is better than meat, milk is cruel/indigestible, etc., but lets be honest with ourselves, eco-nuts.... people still want their meat, there are a large number of people who can process lactose without problem (myself and other people of N. European decent, as well as other locales around the world that started to drink animal milk after being weaned), and grass-raised livestock, besides being tastier, are again, taking plants that we don't/can't eat, and turning them into caloric substances that we can consume and get nutrients out of.

So normally, cow shit, when shat out, will sit in the sun or trench, release it's methane slowly, cause odious clouds to billow over freeways and towns depending on the wind, as well as run off into waterways and poison them with massive amount of phosphorous and nitrogen, causing vast algae blooms in water ways, lakes, and ponds, which in turn die and cause releases of methane and CO2 as it decomposes, and in lakes and ponds, can cause an O2 debt in the water in the winter when it freezes, causing huge die-offs of the fish. This can even happen in the summer for really polluted lakes in lakes that don't normally freeze over. Said fish die, and besides being a environmental disaster, can spread disease among birds and mammals who eat said fish, causing more problems along the food chain. See the issue?

So, take the cow shit, put it into an enclosed tank, add enzymes or other starter material to cause digestion of the shit, collect gases, which you can then use for a multitude of things, like powering your farm, selling to the grid, or in this case, power other people's homes directly. The dried materials left over from digestion, as in the article, can be used to create cow bedding (not 100% certain why, but okay...) or, as I've seen another farmer do, create flowerpots that can be placed into the ground to provide a planter than will be consumed by the plant as fertilizer. Also acceptable is to be spread on a farmer's field as a fertilizer to grow more food crops. Another ingenious use they are trying in the Midwest of the US is the connect a methane supply up with an alcohol fuel plant, and burn the methane to produce the vast amounts of electricity and heat needed to turn plants into alcohols. It's a little better than coal and gas, though nuclear would work too, as it's technically zero emission... at least gaseous emissions of CO2 and methane and CO. Mind the glowing 55 gallon drums, please.

So, this is the evolution of power production. I think the problem is people are expecting perfection yesterday, and can't understand why it hasn't happened yet. It's a process. Carbon neutral has existed since the 1950s... but people get all NIMBY when you propose a nuclear reactor to be built within 3 billion miles of them, and think they the waste will be piped directly into their children's cereal or something. But hey, I just think that if France can do it and they still aren't mutants (well, no more than before) then the US and UK should be able to figure it out pretty well.