Africa is on the equator, so the climate is like Florida or New York in Summer but all year round.

Erm... Africa's quite a big place, with lots of different climates. Nearly all the north of Africa is desert climate, so nothing like Florida or New York. South Africa has ski resorts, Tangiers is Mediterranean climate.

Any building without air conditioning becomes an oven. So having a 32" 600 watt plasma display wouldn't be appreciated. A small 12" black/white CRT is ideal and the bulkiness prevents looters from stealing it.

One of the major advantages of LCD and LED TVs is their lower power consumption. See this page for a quick comparison. CRTs have awful power consumption, even tiny ones.

I play Skyrim on a core 2 duo pegged to 30% at the moment. At 1920*1200, with a gtx460. It runs fine.

If it were actually cpu bound, it'd play like complete crap.

There's a lot of misinformation and misconceptions about how animals are related. Dimetrodon, a reptile that lived almost 300 million years ago is more closely related to mammals than any other extant group. "Reptile" is an awful catch-all term that includes lots of species not even closely related to each other. Crocodiles are much more closely related to birds and dinosaurs than they are to other reptiles, for example.

gentle acceleration because that is not only fuel-efficient

Citation needed.

Over a 50 mile stretch of road, the car accelerating at 1mph/mile will use more fuel than the car accelerating quickly up to 50mph. That is taken to the extreme, but it illustrates the point that more gentle acceleration does not necessarily mean better mpg - there must be a sweet spot in the middle somewhere, and I personally would guess it's a bit quicker than most would guess (my personally opinion is foot flat to the floor at low revs).

I'm a hypermiler. I get 51 mpg out of my diesel minivan, But I have to work really hard at it, drive slowly, draft trucks, avoid braking, coast and engine-brake whenever I can.

Engine braking is just as bad for fuel efficiency as ordinary braking is. The reason it's recommended is to preserve brake pads (and prevent brake overheating in extreme cases, like trucks down long hills), not to increase mpg.

When you say engine braking, I assume you mean deliberately changing down one or two gears to increase engine braking, rather than using the gear you were in. Taking the car entirely out of gear (or dropping the clutch) when braking is obviously bad for mpg because the car uses fuel to maintain tickover as you are braking, not to mention the additional strain put on the brakes.

Note : this is true for (most) modern cars with fuel injectors, which will not use any fuel when in gear with no accelerator pedal application. Older cars with carburetors will use fuel depending on their revs even with no accelerator pedal application. So, for optimum mpg for older cars, it probably is best to coast in neutral at tickover down hills just using the brakes. However, this is not very good for the brakes. You could turn the engine off altogether down long hills in old cars for even better mpg.... this is most definitely extremely not recommended, for lots of reasons.

Car taxes linked to engine displacement are ludicrous. I've got a 1.8 litre normally aspirated 4 pot Japanese hatchback, that does under 15 seconds quarter mile stock.

You want the rule : it's first to name, and that's basically it.

If you want to go around calling a dinosaur "scrotum humanum", feel free, but everyone will think you strange.

It definitely breaks the rules in terms of nomenclature, but scientific naming changes all the time anyway, redefining species into other places, etc.

My personal pet peeve is "Reptile". That contains every land vertebrate that was not a bird, mammal, dinosaur or amphibian. What people don't mention is that mammals evolved from separate reptiles to everything else, and we're more closely related to dimetrodon than birds or dinosaurs are or were. "Reptile" is just a crap catch all term that doesn't mean anything.

What I meant by "good cause" was that hunting generally is much easier with things we can easily hunt. Getting rid of stuff that can easily kill us is a good thing, even if it is difficult. Humanity also drove off loads of large carnivores, not to eat obviously.

There's also no reason not to think that a large part of the effect of humans on the megafauna was by killing the young.

I agree, and that could be the predominant means of humanity wiping out things like mammoths. However, there's no evidence for it. There is evidence for people killing adult mammoths.

And what is the mantra to chant when you hear the word "correlation"? All together now : "correlations are not, of themselves, evidence for causation."

Correlation _is_ causation a lot of the time. That mantra you chant is wrong. Correlation shows something going on that is connected between the two things. It may be caused by other things, but they _are_ connected in some way, otherwise there would not be any correlation.

Anything this big will be able to eat what it wants, generally. This is seen with elephants now.

Climate change and predation on young are about the only things that can stop massive herbivores.

That is, until humanity. There's lots of evidence for stone age people wiping out swathes of huge mammals, for good cause some of the time.

The chances of "Scrotum Humanum" being accepted as a taxon are essentially nil.

We can accept silly names in the scientific community when they are not important, but when they're so central to understanding dinosaurs, and their discovery by modern man, silly names give idiots ammunition.

This paper is probably the most influential.

This particular creature is alleged over 60 feet tall, and more than 10 times the height of a man, which makes it more than 1000 times the mass of a human.

Well.... no. If we take human height to be 2m and weight to be 100kg (This is me, by the way, I've just used these numbers for simplicity) :

Elephant = 4 metres or so, 2 * height, therefore should weigh 800kg. Actually, they weigh about 7000kg.

Giraffe = 6 metres or so, 3 * height, therefore should weigh 2700kg. Actually, they weigh about 1200kg.

The early estimates of this dinosaur's weight are about 77000kg, so not too far off your estimate. Most of its height is in its long neck.

People have been claiming that giant sauropods must have been semi-aquatic (or fully aquatic) because of their huge size for centuries, and this was the prevailing paradigm until the last 50 years or so. There's quite a lot of evidence now showing that they were at least mainly terrestrial.

As to how big they could get... simple mechanical engineering was the cause of the now mainly discredited aquatic theories, I think you'll probably have to find someone who actually knows a little about it.

Megalosaurus already exists. Its original scientific name was "Scrotum humanum". No, I'm not making this up.

Data caps don't hurt uploads in basically all cases. Even in outside cases, there will be more down than up.

I wasn't saying that bandwidth limited services would be for you. You've fulfilled 2 of my original criteria for needing more bandwidth right off the bat.