Again, I can't seem to pull up the full text of your article through google scholar. Even your summary though states an additional warming contribution of 0.3C by 2100. Sorry, but I don't class that as catastrophic. What's more, simply doing a google scholar search for articles on "permafrost methane climate" and taking the first four full articles give the following, with absolutely zero effort taken to pluck out ones that support my particular claim:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/4/045016/fulltext/
According to our results, by mid-21st century the annual net flux of methane from Russian permafrost regions may increase by 6–8 Mt, depending on climatic scenario. If other sinks and sources of methane remain unchanged, this may increase the overall content of methane in the atmosphere by approximately 100 Mt, or 0.04 ppm, and lead to 0.012 °C global temperature rise.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000326/full
It's a more sweeping assessment so it doesn't have a nice short quotable for our particular point. It's most concise point is in Figure 7 which I'm not sure how to link into here as an image. You can check for yourself though that even the highest error margins on methane releases touch natural emissions till long, long after 2100, matching the IPCC millenial timescale statement I cited earlier.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018680/full
A detailed study of one mire show that the permafrost and vegetation changes have been associated with increases in landscape scale CH4 emissions in the range of 22–66% over the period 1970 to 2000.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/36/14769.full
We attempted to incorporate in this study some of the latest mechanistic understanding about the mechanisms controlling soil CO2 respiration and wetland CH4 emissions, but uncertainties remain large, due to incomplete understanding of biogeochemical and physical processes and our ability to encapsulate them in large-scale models. In particular, small-scale hydrological effects (36) and interactions between warming and hydrological processes are only crudely represented in the current generation of terrestrial biosphere models. Fundamental processes such as thermokarst erosion (37) or the effects of drying on peatland CO2 emissions (e.g., ref. 38) are lacking here, causing uncertainty on future high-latitude carbon-climate feedbacks. In addition, large uncertainty arises from our ability to model wetland dynamics or the microbial processes that govern CH4 emissions, and in particular how the complicated dynamics of permafrost thaw would affect these processes.

The control of changes in the carbon balance of terrestrial regions by production vs. decomposition has been explored by a number of authors, with differing estimates of whether vegetation or soil changes have the largest overall effect on carbon storage changes (39–41). These results demonstrate that with the inclusion of two well-observed mechanisms: the relative inhibition of respiration by soil freezing (42) and the vertical motion in Arctic soils that buries old but labile carbon in deeper permafrost horizons, which can be remobilized by warming (3), the high-latitude terrestrial carbon response to warming can tip from near equilibrium to a sustained source of CO2 by the mid-21st century. We repeat that uncertainties on these estimates of CO2 and CH4 balance are large, due to the complexity of high-latitude ecosystems vs. the simplified process treatment used here.

And I was able to find the full PDF for your own original sink on the subject:
here
We conclude that the ice-free area of
northeastGreenland acts as a net sink of atmosphericmethane,
and suggest that this sink will probably be enhanced under
future warmer climatic conditions.

All of the above seem to fairly well corroborate my earlier citation to the IPCC's own summary of the current knowledge on permafrost and northern methane impact on future warming:
However modelling studies and expert judgment indicate that CH4 and CO2 emissions will increase under Arctic warming, and that they will provide a positive climate feedback. Over centuries, this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
From FAQ 6.1

If you want to more simply claim that there exist studies, with noted high uncertainties, that under the worst case emission scenarios that show a possible significant release of methan prior to 2100 and possible catatrophic releases after, then I agree. If you want to claim that the consensus is we are facing catastrophe in our lifetime, as your first post claimed, then I most point to the overwhelming scientific evidence linked above that simply does not agree, once again chosen at random and with no effort to cherry pick only results that match what I want. I must note I lack surprise though as the IPCC had already been claiming the same of the literature and existing evidence.

I'm intrigued by the different strategies they seem to have taken with regards to different markets.

The US market has been covered here already. Living off the grid, buffer for power outages, etc.

But they appear to market the Powerwall as a decentralized buffer system for our regional/national grid, as a means to shave off the spikes in power usage at times when both wind and solar fail to meet expectations. Seems like a virtual power plant of Powerwalls would be an alternative to gas turbine plants. Add some pumped-storage hydroelectricity in Norway and the Alps, and the need for standby power plants would be vastly reduced.

Additionally, they are probably aiming at the time when diminishing feed-in tariffs for PV panels make it more attractive to charge batteries instead of feeding into the grid.

However, even if they manage to sell only a handful of Powerwalls, it'll force all the other players to get off their fat asses for once. Politics managed to kill the local solar industry and the big players came up with fuck all in terms of meaningful innovation over the last years.
Yes, I'm looking at you, Siemens!

I have solar now, so I'll answer.
Today, if you want battery power at home for storage of solar, wind, even micro hydro generated power, you have one real choice....lead acid batteries.
Pros (compared to lead acid)-At best, lead acids are large, unsightly, need an enclosure, need a charger, have a 1000 cycle life span, need maintenance, can't be frozen or allowed to get too hot, use acid, are expensive to dispose of, and are more expensive than this (better?) technology by almost a factor of 4. I recently replaced my battery bank of just over 1KWH for around $1200-$1400, while he's advertising 10KWH for $3500!
Cons-likely lots of 'rare earth minerals' needed, which cause massive pollution where they're refined (China), unknown rate of failure/fire, other unknown problems, and anti-renewable energy people's heads exploding trying to come up with new reasons that renewable energy sucks.

I now know too much about a soda can...

I now have junk data taking up storage space in my brain... I'll eventually have to format and reinstall

Typical "special characters" are boring, and long passphrases are tiresome.

For maximum fun and security, try a passphrase that mixes vocabulary, grammar, character sets, and input methods from multiple languages. It helps if you learn how to touch type in at least one of the other languages.

For example: лщкуhaぺれけるちゃてるьгяглф死

This is a very simple, easy to remember phrase that can be entered manually if necessary in under 10 seconds. I suspect it would be rather resistant to most brute force attacks. (If you're able to make sense of this example passphrase, congratulations!)

Of course, some password storage systems may not be willing or able to accept this sort of creativity, but such is life.

I had never heard of that before -- pretty cool idea although I've got enough storage available and a fast enough connection that just downloading in advance works fine.

Since you use the present tense "is", I assume that one of the forks is still active? Wikipedia says the original was taken down "under MPAA pressure" (imagine that -- strongarm tactics from the MPAA!).

Your video, Robotic Bicycle Storage, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Darwin says someone is going to forget to unstrap their toddler from their bike seat before pressing "close" on this baby. Hmmm... "Bikes and Babies - secure short term storage and thrill ride."

Robotic Bicycle Storage has been added as a related post - related requested by Payback on that post.

I think there is a lot of truth behind this and, in my opinion, Ms Holten does share in some of the responsibility for at least the existence of these pictures. Being a young and likely naïve person without much relationship experience (which can apply to both men and women), she allowed her boyfriend to take those intimate pictures. Loss of private information is not a new occurrence and there have been some big stories about data theft or loss in the past decade or so. Ms Holten must have realized that these intimate pictures might still have ended up on the internet even if her boyfriend hadn't posted them: phones get lost or stolen all the time; personal computers and cloud storage services are not always secure, etc. Ms Holten seems like an intelligent woman, so I think one can assume that she was at least aware of the risks and, at the time, accepted them.

If Ms Holten's boyfriend had taken the pictures without her knowledge and then released them to the internet, she would clearly, at least in my opinion, have zero responsibility. That is not the case though. She willingly allowed the creation of the original erotic pictures and accepted the risks associated with their existence. That does not make her any less of a victim, but she is partly responsible for the existence of the pictures; if the pictures didn't exist, her boyfriend couldn't have put them on the internet and she wouldn't be subject to the ridicule she is receiving now.

A good example is sharing your banking username and password with someone. This is intimate information that you might only ever share with someone that you trust completely. Even so, many banks are very clear that this is a violation of their terms and conditions and can result in you being held responsible for any monetary losses incurred from unauthorized use. Another example: Enterprise administrators are constantly admonishing users for writing down their network credentials and leaving them lying around. While someone shouldn't use your credentials without your consent, that doesn't mean they won't and therefore you have the responsibility to protect that information. To me this is a demonstration of common sense: don't expose information that you can't afford to lose control of. With that said, Ms Holten's boyfriend absolutely committed a crime and should be punished. Furthermore, it's likely that many of the unsolicited emails that she received overstepped the line between opinion and harassment. I have no argument with that.

Lastly, releasing nude images of herself in order to regain control of her life is admirable and shows courage, but it's naïve to assume that it will shame or impact, in any way, the lives of her harassers; the media headlines about her "getting revenge" are laughable and nonsensical. Ultimately, the new nude pictures probably just gives her harassers more material to enjoy. Still, if it helps her move on, power to her. After all, it is her choice. I'm curious if Ms Holten will post a follow-up about the response to her new images.

Your video, ♫ Jones Big ASS truck rental & storage facility ♪, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Touchy subject. Can't really say or comment about the issue. But given that most incidents have a reactive counter-measures, there is also a pro-active method to ensuring that such sensitive photos aren't somehow leaked.

People take for granted the ability to store the photos that they've taken in the cloud. This is convenience that a lot of people like, myself included. However, by storing a digital photo onto the cloud, two things happen: the photo is there "forever" and the photo can be stolen, nearly irregardless of security.

As far as security, the first and only line of defense is the password. Unfortunately we live in a day and age where password won't work no matter what you use -- complex, generated, correcthorsebattery (or whatever it was), and what else there is. Given time, the password will be cracked and the account compromised. We, as human beings, prefer convenience and are willing to give up security in order to make it easier for us to remember the billions of accounts that we have laying around -- Twitter, Google, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat. Having that one-password-fits-all kind of system, the line of defense is very thin and can break easily.

The pro-active method for intimate photos is to simply not store them onto the cloud. Instead, back them up into cold storage. Put it onto a backup drive and unplug it when it's not in use. It'll be inconvenient for many. But in most cases, it'll make it very difficult for anyone to steal those photos that some treasure so much. Once the photos are backed up, delete them off the device.

So yeah, most people would say to not take the photo in the first place. Unfortunately for me, I'm one who would say that too. Dammit...

It's unfortunate for anyone whose intimate photos are stolen. I know these victims must remain vigilant and strong to fend off the morons who make stupid comments about it. But the mind can only take so much verbal abuse. The sad thing about it all is that it doesn't matter whose at fault or who is to blame. Everyone loses.

Sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose combined and it is immediately separated in the body by the saliva in your mouth. Glucose is fine for your body, it is the energy storage system that metabolizes into glycogen in the liver. Fructose, on the other hand, is a toxin that is metabolized in the body similarly to alcohol, as ChaosEngine said. Essentially it is treated as a toxin and turned into numerous by-products which do things like: delay your leptin response (you feel full later, thus making you eat more), increase your high-density lipo-protein (increasing your cholesterol and storing fat in your liver), and decreasing your sensitivity to insulin (leading to type-2 diabetes).

As to what artician said, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are treated exactly the same in the human body. In fact, here is a list of all of the things that companies call sugar to hide it when it is the exact same thing: brown sugar, caster sugar, fruit sugar, organic sugar (in fact sometimes they just put organic in front of any of these things to make it seem better for you but trust me, it isn't), evaporated cane juice, evaporated cane syrup, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, glucose-fructose, brown sugar, honey, molasses, golden syrup, high glucose corn syrup, agave/agave nectar, corn sweetener, fruit juice solids, cane syrup solids, fruit juice concentrate, invert sugar, maltodextrin and even fruit juice.

All of the studies done in the last 15 years have shown that sugar is sugar and calories are not calories. All of the kinds of sugar that have quantities of fructose are bad for you, except when they have fiber. This is why fruit is still good for you while fruit juice is the same thing as soda.

The only things that you do not have to avoid as a sugar are these: brown rice syrup, dextrose and glucose. All of these things are completely glucose, no fructose whatsoever. Therefore, they are largely safe. However, large quantities of glucose can give you a large liver because of the stored glycogen.

Some links if you don't believe me:

Comparison: http://www.foods4betterhealth.com/what-evaporated-cane-juice-sugar-vs-evaporated-cane-juice-8645

Aspartame: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4127 ; http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/

HFCS vs Sugar: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

Dangers of Fructose: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

Nah, much too small for Bay, he doesn't bother with anything less than 1000lbs.
Also reminds me why I always used Cellular Ammunition Storage Equipment if possible when playing Mechwarrior.

Adrenaline has a very strong impact on memory storage. If you have it surging through your veins during memory creation, those memories become extremely easy to access, and far clearer than otherwise mundane events in your life. This is part of the reason that war vets have such a hard time with PTSD and flashbacks.

I dont doubt this guys words...he would have had to have gone over this story a hundred times to his superiors and with the grand jury case, of course it is rehearsed...what do you want? To hear him speaking to someone directly after the incident?