With Osama Bin Laden dead, conspiracy theorists will find a way to say it isn't him at all.   Sure, a 6'4" thin guy can be replaced by decoys rather easily but science has come a long way since the September 11th, 2001 attacks that took Bin Laden from being a famous terrorist to being infamous - though given recent developments in the middle East and Africa, Bin Laden has ironically done more to promote democracy in the region than anyone, since the establishment of two democracies in retaliation for regional support for Bin Laden has had a domino effect.

Visual identification by a SEAL team (not seeing his face but actual facial recognition technology), and confirmation by a local is good, but not always enough to satisfy everyone.  

David Crotty at the scholarly kitchen says that Science 2.0 is a failure.   Like many who use it off-the-cuff, I don't know how he is using the term - I usually do a global replace of 'Smurf' for Science 2.0 in these instances because Science 2.0, like Smurfs(1), seems to be whatever people want it to be.   If you are not old enough to remember the mythology of Smurfs, it makes less sense, but you can more topically replace Science 2.0 with "jobs created or saved" in the stimulus package last year and get an idea what I mean about definitions tailored to suit the environment that exists at any given moment.

Science 2.0 Featured Author Greg Critser isn't satisfied being a respected journalist for the LA Times, the Times of London and the New York Times along with selling a lot of books, so he has branched out into the world of being a celebrity chef.

Yes, I said celebrity chef.   In television, actors and managers generally tell the talent it is a bad idea to be in a show with kids and dogs.   I suspect celebrity chefs have a similar rule, namely that you don't try to make pasta live.