If only her name was Polly Dent.

It's not just Apple; Samsung and HTC are just as bad.

The sad thing is that you could easily pay all these people a decent wage and it would barely make a dent in their profit margins.

As for clothes, I try to buy locally made stuff as much as possible, but equally, I don't really care about clothes, so I hate spending money on expensive clothes (other than outdoor/sporting gear.... I spend stupid amounts on that )

So he beat up a lot of people and didn't take anyone into custody. That won't put much of a dent into the crime problem there in Hell's Kitchen.

Also, didn't read anyone their rights.

@deathcow-yes...the super hydrophilic surface should act that way in most fluids. Not sure about scratching, but it makes sense it would lose its property with enough scratches, but bending/dents should be fine.
@Kalle-yes, and also easier cleaning, and fewer barnacles. I must add, this is not a material, it's a surface preparation/etching done with lasers, but could be made into a plastic sticker/wrap. That's what they did with the near microscopic "shark skin" surface pattern, which is designed to stop barnacles/microscopic sea life from attaching, but it is also fairly new and not in wide use yet. The thing that makes this better in my eyes is it can be applied directly to the metal, and should be easy to repair in dry dock.
I wonder which is better for repelling sea life.

I'm guess from you're tone your American, or at least only figure Americans are going to be reading? You note that 'we' can't get to the moon, while Chinese rovers navigate it's surface. You note with alarm what coastal Florida will face from sea level rise, and not an entire nation like Kiribati. When we look at a global problem we can't ignore technology just because it's Chinese, or focus so hard on Florida's coast we ignore an entire nation in peril.

Sea levels aren't going to be fine in 2099 and then rise a foot on the eve of 2100. They will continue to rise about 3mm annually, as they have already for the last 100 years.(on a more granular level slightly less than 3mm nearer 1900 and slightly more nearer 2100 but the point stands). Coastal land owners aren't merely going to see this coming. They've watched it happening for nearly 100 years already and managed to cope thus far. Cope is of course a bad word for building housing near the coast and at less than a foot above sea level. It's like how occupants at the base of active volcanoes 'cope' with the occasional eruption. All that is to say, the problem for homes built in such locations has always been a matter of when not if disaster will strike. The entire island nation of Kiribati is barely above sea level. It is one tsunami away from annihilation. Climate change though is, let me be brutally honest, a small part of the problem. A tsunami in 1914 would've annihilated Kiribati, as a tsunami today in 2014 would, as a tsunami in 2114 would. And we are talking annihilate in a way the 2004 tsunami never touched. I mean an island that's all uninhabited, cleared to the ground and brand new, albeit a bit smaller for the wear. That scenario is going to happen sooner or later, even if the planet were cooling for the next 100 years so let's be cautious about preaching it's salvation through prevention of climate change.

Your points on food production are, sorry, wrong. You are correct enough that local food growth is a big part of the problem. You are dead wrong that most, or even any appreciable amount is to blame on climate change now or in the future. All the African nations starving for want of local food production lack it for the same reason, violence and instability. From this point forward referenced as 'men with guns'. The people in Africa have, or at least had, the means to grow their own food. Despite your insistence that men with guns couldn't stop them from eating then, they still did and continue to. A farmer has to control his land for a whole year to plant, raise and harvest his crop or his livestock. Trouble is men with guns come by at harvest time and take everything. In places like the DRC or Somalia they rape the farmer's wife and daughters too. This has been going on for decades and decades, and it obviously doesn't take many years for the farmer to decide it's time to move their family, if they are lucky enough to still be alive. That is the population make up of all the refugee camps of starving people wanting for food. It's not a climate change problem, it's a people are horrible to each other problem. A different climate, better or worse growing conditions, is a tiny and hardly worth noting dent in the real problem.
CO@ emission restrictions do not equate to global economic downturn, they could just as easily mean global economic upturn as new tech is adopted and implemented.
I stated meaningful CO2 emission changes. That means changes that will sway us to less than 1 foot of sea level change by 2100 and corresponding temperatures. Those are massive and rapid reductions, and I'm sorry but that can not be an economic boon too. I'm completely confident that electric cars and alternative or fusion power will have almost entirely supplanted fossil fuel usage before 2100, and because they are good business. Pushing today though for massive emission reductions can only be accomplish be reducing global consumption. People don't like that, and they jump all over any excuse to go to war if it means lifting those reductions. That's just the terrible nature of our species.

As for glaciers, I did read the article. You'll notice it observed that increasing the spatial resolution of models changed the picture entirely? The IPCC noted this and updated their findings accordingly as well(page 242). The best guess by 2100 is better than 50% of the glaciers through the entire range remaining. The uncertainty range even includes a potential, though less likely GAIN of mass:
. Results for the Himalaya range between 2% gain and 29% loss to 2035; to 2100, the range of losses is 15 to 78% under RCP4.5. The modelmean loss to 2100 is 45% under RCP4.5 and 68% under RCP8.5 (medium confidence). It is virtually certain that these projections are more reliable than in earlier erroneous assessment (Cruz et al., 2007) of complete disappearance by 2035.

If you still want to insist Nepal will be without glaciers in 2100 please provide a source of your own or stop insisting on contradicting the science to make things scarier.

Batman: Arkham Asylum (2009) - Rocksteady - 91%
Batman: Arkham City (2011) - Rocksteady - 91%
Batman: Arkham Origins (2013) - WB Games - 74%

When I first heard that Rocksteady wasn't making Origins I was baffled. When I played it I was surprised just how similar it was to City. Well, similar in that it felt like a rushed sequel in the same engine with the same assets. The only thing WB seemed to have added was bugs and poor design choices.

As it turns out, Rocksteady never lost Batman - the reason they did not develop Arkham Origins is that they were developing "an unannounced Arkham game". I guess WB didn't want to wait 4 years to make some more money off the back of recent success. I've no idea if it was calculated, but it's worked out very well that a cash-in failed to dent the reputation of the franchise because WB made their own development team the fall guys...

ps. Is smashing somebodies face into a fusebox really non-fatal Batman? Really?

A Thrustmaster F16 FLCS/TQS combo is still resting comfortably on a shelf at home. You can smash a skull in with those and it won't even leave a dent on the base -- solid design.

It's fairly well known that many Japanese are Francophiles The reality may not meet their expectations though - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6197921.stm

The French name for dandelion is because the root is a diuretic. Our name is also from French, dent de lion (Lion's tooth) from the serrated shape of the leaves.

I don't quite agree. I think he has made a dent. It's a tiny, miniscule dent, but it's a dent. He uses what he has, his celebrity and money, to spread a message of change. Assuming enough Russel Brand types had the same line of political thinking, and put half their time into similar efforts as he does, I believe it would gain quite a bit of traction for... I dunno, if I'm being realistic, a couple equality-beneficial laws to pass? But if that's what it takes...
Also, I wasn't sure what you meant by the system only changing when the people who benefit from the system decide it should. I assume you're not referring to people like Brand who have benefited from the system to acquire wealth and fame from capitalism, but those who have 'real' power that actually control the system, is that right? I didn't mean it that way, but I'll have to reread my post to see if I conveyed that meaning unintentionally, or if I'm just too stupid to follow my own line of thinking. But first: coffee...

If you follow your thinking to it's own conclusion, what your saying is that if the people that benefit most from the current system decide it needs changing, then that's the only time it will change? The Russel brand types have no where near the resources to even make a dent.

Because we can look at the type of carbon, and volcanic carbon is heavier than fossil fuel carbon. When measured, the heavier carbon barely makes a dent compared to the fossil fuel carbon.

It's called science. Learn it. Love it.

(We should also note, when lead was a popular anti-knock component of gasoline, a "scientist" who was funded by the gas companies said there was nothing to worry about. Turns out, he was grossly wrong. But he was getting paid to say it wasn't. Much like any junk scientist out there today. Hence why out of peer-reviewed articles, 100% agree that climate change is happening. Only 97% have come to the definitive conclusion it's man-made. Because the scientific method IS being used, this amazingly complex issue is slowly becoming clearer, and there will be ones who will try to find causes others haven't investigated, and if their studies bear out in the peer review cycle, then it's accepted and the theory is altered. Until those 3% come to the table with facts to support their hypothesis, their ideas won't be accepted. Again, it's called science, and this is how it works.)

Statistically individual, personal commitments make very little impact on a population. I agree with the sentiment, but our views on "personal responsibility" don't work in reality beyond our individual family, they just make us feel better about ourselves thinking that way. You are superior. Good for you, but it doesn't put a dent in the real problem.

Reform works. For example, your children didn't make these decisions, rather you (and I assume a life mate), who are the institution of your children, made a parental reform and it benefits them greatly. Now, if you left it up to your children, what do you think they would do without your positive influence?

I'm a product of that and it has taken me years to realize this and patch the hole in my very being; years of bad habits and depression. I didn't have responsible, nor very smart parents, and I went to public school to boot. I was fucked and I didn't even know it. All of the potential to be an above average human and what did I do? FML'd. Flunked out of honors, AP, kicked out of the gifted and talented education program; though, I did provide that needed C average spot for Academic Decathelon, my potential meant squat. Personal responsibility BULLSHIT. That's an illusion and the reality is pathetic. I struggle EVERY DAY and I shouldn't have to.

I guess it's up to me to make up for my parent's irresponsibility, but most people just go with the flow. I guess if you don't mind paying for the ignorance of the sheeple, you can just let things be the way they are and deal with a failing population of dumbed down, unhealthy Americans.

Personally, I'd rather live in a world where people are getting smarter and healthier every day. A land where the government that tricked us (social contract) into giving them our livelihood, gives back to us, makes us stronger, more fit, and appropriately able to compete in a global economy. A land where the people in power work to make us better, rather than feeding off of our ignorance.

This imaginary world would abso-poso-lutely require reform away from the stranglehold dystopia the real.

This looks like something component chip makers will love and phone manufacturers will hate.

New phone versions nowadays come with 1-2 genuine improvements that people want, if that. If this takes off and people can just update the components as they come out, this will make a huge dent in their sales.

Suppose it comes down to execution and how many partners they can get on board. The issue with Google is they run a stupendous number of development projects but rarely fully commit to any idea. Some stall, some are half-heartedly supported, some are dropped or sold like Motorola.

While I see where you're coming from, I have a few issues with what you're saying:

1. The organization you're referring to is staffed, has offices and overheads. Assuming it isn't corrupt and skimming and holding multi-million-dollar appreciation nights and galas (and we probably shouldn't assume that it isn't), the money you're giving this organization still gets portioned off quite a bit. Your point about helping on the systemic level is quite valid (provided you are channelling your concern into actually doing so), but I'd look more into local community health centres or the nonprofit down the street, and still, that money isn't guaranteed to reach the person in front of you. Much as a social worker can help him connect to essential services, advocate for fair and affordable housing, counsel him on trauma, etc, he will still need money for a lot of basic needs.

2. You are vastly oversimplifying the needs and situation of every person on the street. That person may actually depend on money from strangers to make rent (being that welfare barely puts a dent in even the lowest affordable housing costs), feed kids, buy food that isn't McDonald's or canned food, get a haircut, or a million other things that everyone needs money for.

3. Even if that person intends to spend some of your money on oxy or crack, it is not in your right to judge that. While addiction can very generally be called "bad", this person may suffer from chronic pain, trauma, mental illnesses, or some combination and short of governments finally realizing that housing and caring for the poor is cheaper than incarcerating them and treating emergency health conditions, self-medicating is the only reasonable way they can continue functioning for another day. This isn't even an unlikely scenario; think how easily someone can go from your (or my) comfy life to homeless, poor and desperate. It isn't always "bad decisions"; you could be a contractor that falls and gets a serious injury, hit by a car, stricken with a mental illness you have no control over, traumatized earlier in life, born into a high-risk environment or social strata, or anything else, and then start sliding from there. You develop an addiction, your income comes to a screeching halt, your loved ones can't or get too tired to support you, bills that were routine become suffocating, and there you are on the street, pain exploding relentlessly in your body/mind, on the other side of the decision, seeing chins turned up and eyes turned away from you and hearing people mutter "Don't give anything to him; he's just gonna use it to get high," to each other.

4. Not a single person in the video (and really, in just about every situation you see on whatever street you're on) speaks to or even looks at the guy.

While I wouldn't expect that everyone gives money to folks on the street (I myself have only done it a few times), it frustrates me to hear people insist that nobody should. "He's just going to use it for drugs/booze" is a presumptuous and ignorant statement and mindset.

One more thing: if you really care about urban poverty and those suffering from it, the biggest thing (IMO) you can do is vote for politicians/parties who openly and strongly support social services and welfare, then hold them to their promises. I don't make a ton of money, but I am happy to pay higher taxes and lose some luxuries if it means people who need help just to get by get it.

hail-dents-repair has been seconded for banination by Lilithia. This account will now be disabled. If you would like to appeal this banination, hail-dents-repair, you may contact the administrators.