Didn't See it Coming...
The only positive result indicated in the article in the New York Times is the 2 or 3 times out of 10,000 that an individual supposedly changed the settings on a random number generator. As one of our critics pointed out, some 'experts' try to examine claims outside their area of expertise - I think a jet propulsion engineer studying the paranormal confirms his view in this case, don't you?
As you may be able to tell, I'm not exactly ready to change my worldview on this idiocy, and as far as I'm concerned Princeton will regain some of its prestige when this delusional 'scientist' retires.
PEAR's loss is our gain.