Your list of plugins, as also your installed fonts, are public because sites can use that information to display information to you.

Was that good design? Probably not. But it was well-intended.

Absurd, yes.

Incorrect, yes.

Fear-mongering? Very definitely NO.

As you point out (and as I pointed out elsewhere), Panopticlick is superior. But it paints a far WORSE picture than this site does.

So, "fear-mongering"? No. False sense of security? Maybe.

Yes, you're unique like everyone else... but you are unique TO everyone else... you show up as uniquely you. And that is the important point.

I was only "wrong" to those who didn't get the point. Ahem.

Who said it first is irrelevant. I could have found that on Wikipedia too. The relevant and only important point is that that is the name they gleefully adopted and decided to call themselves.

Whether some news guy thought you were a hero or a villain if far less important than what you go around for the rest of your life calling yourself. And that was the flattering name they decided to call themselves.

I'm not trying to put them down. People of that era did some great things. But "greatest generation"? Hardly.

First, the simplest of script blockers completely prevented the home page from loading at all.

Second, when I allowed the site in my script blocker, it was slow as hell to load.

But Third, and more to the point: EFF's Panopticlick has been around for a long time now, and it's far better.

I wrote "evidence", doofus. You do know what "evidence" means, yes? A public statement by an organization is not evidence. It's an opinion.

I am well aware that organizations have been making such public statements. But that isn't evidence. If you have actual, direct evidence, why did you not link to THAT, rather than somebody else's claim? But then I know why you didn't: you have shown yourself to be the Prince of straw-man arguments.

I am not in a position to answer "why" they might have done so. But the fact that they did is not itself evidence of anything. Consensus is not science.

http://web.stanford.edu/~moore...

I found that in 30 seconds. Why couldn't you?

I have little doubt that if I spent more time, I could find many more.

The actual fact is that for all of history, more deaths attributable to climate have been due to cold rather than warm. This is a statistic that is also just about as easy to find.

Yes, really.

Yes, they commit fewer violent crimes. They have fewer unplanned pregnancies because of what they were TAUGHT by past generations. They are more educated because their parents and grandparents ensured that they would be; that is not an "accomplishment" of their own.

But what about other things? What about the fact that they have been attempting to make the same political and economic mistakes made by their grandparents and great-prandparents? (I'm referring here to socialism and fascism.)

And "tolerance"? Are you fucking joking? What passes for "tolerance" today is political correctness. Any attempts at dissent are greeted with personal and rather vicious attacks. "My view of 'tolerance', or I will attack you" is not real tolerance, it is the opposite. It is hypocrisy masquerading as tolerance.

WHOOOOSH!!!

The whole point was that it isn't about man or woman, Republican or Democrat, but about the character of the PERSON running for office.

I know a little bit about Hillary Clinton. And she -- individually, personally, and regardless of what party she is affiliated with -- is a rotten lowlife excuse for a human being.

I don't think that argument holds water. Is cash "shady" because it can be used for illegal purposes?

And perhaps not so sadly, it is quite possible -- I think even likely -- that Igw did not do so because he recognized that you were spewing nonsense.

I suggest you learn what "800 milli-timecubes" means. I doubt you will be pleased.

This is one of the rare times I will deign to respond to your nonsense any longer.

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed.

This is so fucking simple it is almost a tautology. As I have pointed it out to you before.

Since this is a simple statement of conservation of energy, it is up to YOU to disprove it, and you have not. If you disagree, then point out where the other energy is coming from or going. We have already established that there is no NET radiative energy input to the sphere from the surrounding cooler walls.

While it may be true that many Muslims have been terrorists, not all Muslims are terrorists and not all egregious crimes or even hostage-taking constitutes "terrorism".

Despite the fact that politicians have grossly mis-used the term, Terrorism has an actual definition. One essential part of that definition is that the terrorists are making (usually political) demands in exchange for ceasing their terror.

Unless and until they make demands, and especially political demands, they aren't "terrorists". If they do so, and they also meet the other qualifications, THEN they are terrorists. Not before.

Some crazy with a bomb is not a "terrorist" until he proves himself to be.

I'm getting plain fed up with all these cockamamie "CO2-based disaster" predictions. It's nothing but speculation run amok, and all the more baneful because it's politically- and money-driven.

Fact: we have no real, objective evidence that CO2 is going to cause us any real problems.

The scientific evidence has been stacking up against the idea for at least 10 years. It isn't happening, it isn't going to happen. And even if it did, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us.

What they achieved was naming themselves "The Greatest Generation". Nobody else did it; they decided to call themselves that.

And of course, that doesn't make it so.

Even so, I have to admit that GP has a point. The "current generation" seems to be completely full of itself, with an arrogance it never earned. At the same time they're making some of the same stupid mistakes their grandparents did, when they should know better. It's like nobody ever taught them history.