Yeah, I know, facts are for lefty liberals. Don't suppose you can point to 3 mistakes Snopes has made, or any they didn't correct, can you? (Not conservative nonsense opinion, factual mistakes.)

Who told you that? They dropped >10% in one day because their earnings reports came out, and we're dismal (because they're reeling from Russian incursions on both platforms costing them billions to finally address), as were future projected earnings....not because they finally started blocking identified Russian conservative trolls.

For someone claiming to not be on FB or Twitter you have a track record of spreading the nonsense they both spout, often on the day these conservative Twitter/Facebook campaigns begin. You're pretty in the loop to be outside it.

Question....what is your Cheeto in chief doing to stop the Russians from interfering again this time, seeing as they've already been caught trying to hack American companies, organizations, government officials, and voting machines this year? Nothing yet, nada, according to the heads of the departments that should be spearheading our efforts. No direction at all from the Whitehouse on this issue, only constant public contradiction of their findings with no basis for that contradiction.

Theories like "it's a viral campaign" or that "Sony tanked it" intentionally are completely out of touch with reality and the facts.

To think they would toss one hundred million dollars in the toilet because the movie wasn't funny enough is nuts. Shitty movies get released all the time.

To think they released terabytes of damaging internal documents (social security numbers, passwords, future projects, embarrassing emails etc etc) as some viral campaign is also nuts.

Sony stock has dropped 7% in the last two weeks.
They did NOT do this.

Problem is, most big budget films in America are made as products. Production crew makes storyboards, scripts etc. which get approved by executives. If the director doesn't have the clout and starts to make changes from what's on the boards, he often gets told to 'fix' it. Directors who toe the line get brought on for future projects. Those who don't, often don't get work again. Obviously there are exceptions, superstar directors who can dictate what's in their films, but they are not the norm.

In most other places, films are seen as art and the directors get more freedom to create. Also, budgets are generally lower, so it's not seen as quite the same sort of risk.

I felt like he could have more succinctly dealt with the research he was involved with and summarised the reasons why privacy is important better. I left this feeling a little confused as to what message I gained from it because I feel like it's already pretty common knowledge that you can learn a great deal about someone from something basic like a name or a photo.

The fact that gathering said info will also be easier with new tech. like Google glass is also pretty obvious.

Do want his accent though And I look forward to finding out more about his research as he finishes future projects.

Interesting profile of how religious people cannot see morals without putting "GOD" in the picture. That somehow without god, how could we possibly know what is right and wrong? Its painfully innocent, naive and ultimately stupid.

It is a shame such a presentation of statistics and future projections is held solely on the morality given by Ze Almighty, with such biased reading of data / obsessive criteria, and not give much importance at all to the human spirit or trust in the wisdom of the mind in society from where we now know all criteria originates.

Its like presenting a new iphone 5 with only 2G and then saying it works by miracles caused by angel music. Degrading, to say the least.

>> ^residue:

@bcglorf would you trust someone with a doctorate in geology?
Here are some data:
Air:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
Ocean:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/fig_tab/nature09043
_F1.html
(From: Lyman, J.M., Good, S.A., Gouretski, V.V., Ishii, M., Johnson, G.C., Palmer, M.D.,
Smith, D.M., and Willis, J.K., Robust warming of the global upper ocean: Nature,
v. 465, p. 334-337.)
The only real thing debated (or that should be debated) is why it's warming up. we've got 2 basic reasons: it's because of human interaction or it's because of natural processes (hey the earth has been WAY warmer than it is now several times - http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm)
In reference to your statement about the relative contributions of water vapor and CO2, there are 2 things you need to realize. First of all, the residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is 9 days, the residence time of CO2 among other greenhouse gases can be as much as 100 years with other greenhouse gases (aerosols for example) much longer. Most aerosols were outlawed in the late 70s but graphs of their concentration in the atmosphere show no relative decrease since the cessation of their use. The second point here is that water vapor's place in the atmosphere is natural, greenhouse gas emission is not. Water vapor contributes to the amount of greenhouse effect that we need to survive on the planet (if we didn't have the greenhouse effect at all, earth could not sustain life - too cold). Humans contribute to greenhouse effect by adding in greenhouse gases and warming the planet. To specify the relative contributions of each and say "well water vapor is the biggest culprit! We only release tiny amounts of CO2 relative to water vapor, so it's really not our fault!" is irresponsible.
You might, however, find this interesting:
http://onlin
e.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970204257504577150812451167538-lMyQjAxMTAyMDIwNDEyNDQyWj.html?mod=wsj_share_email
Definitely a different take on the issue at large, but again, the argument here isn't whether or not global warming is happening (it is) but rather what it all means.


Well, you and I seem largely agreed. I commented multiple times that the warming is not in question, but rather why and more importantly what it means to us.

The challenge with accurately modelling the contribution of H2O has nothing to do with our own emissions of H2O. For all reasonable purposes we can, again as you seem to agree, ignore the meager contribution humans make to it. H2O is as you say largely short lived in the atmosphere, but it still makes up the overwhelming majority of the greenhouse effect, despite residing in the atmosphere for a fraction of the time of gases like CO2. Obviously that means that H2O replenishes itself into the atmosphere as rapidly as it dissipates. We know that this rate is driven by temperature. What we don't understand well is how that should play out in our models, or more importantly how it plays out in reality. Just how much confidence can we place on future projections of CO2 changes when we aren't even sure which sign to attribute the feedback effect of water vapor?

Excellent idea, I always loved the blue and white logo. Maybe as a future project you could design link banners or widgets that we can post online to help spread the word. Just a thought.

It's been rumored that Elder Scrolls 5 is using a new engine and it will be the first game released using that engine. However, I've also heard that the engine was mostly complete before the purchase of id, so it may be the only game to use the engine since going forward they would likely use the id Tech 5 as a base for future projects.>> ^shuac:

Is the gamebryo engine still in the mix? That's the big question.

i didnt know rasch was going to post.
maybe secretly i wanted someone to,like you did for my first one.
i tend to be insecure about my work.
which is odd because in life i hold no such conundrums.
the first one was julies choice not mine.
that was not my favorite piece.
this new one reveals volumes about me and that always gives me pause.
it is easy to just throw it out there and walk away,but to have it displayed to people that you interact with on a daily basis?
it's like walking on razor wire.
i hope you liked it,and i shall give you first dibs on any future projects my dear.
you are a dear one my friend.
till next time..namaste.

New Year's resolution:

Solving energy crisis by creating the world's largest wet cell battery pack. 6.6 billion "cells" will provide a substantial source of energy for my future projects.