The DIY precautionary recipe against a hangover is: Boil one liter of water, add half a teaspoon of table salt, and six teaspoons of sugar. Let cool and drink before you go to bed. For increased efficiency also take vitamin C, either in the form of a pill or as a glass of orange juice. The scientific explanation is that alcohol affects the levels of a hormone called ADL, something which in its turn makes the kidnies less able to take up water and important minerals and vitamins. This leads to dehydration and lack of said minerals. Further, the process of breaking down the alcohol lowers your blood sugar level. Thus, the easiest non-fancy precaution against a hangover using only household ingredients is to compencate the deficits using the above recipe. In sweden it's also possible to buy more carefully balanced anti-hangover pills with a more advanced mix of minerals and vitamins. They too consist mainly of sugar and salt though. Examples of such pills are "Revigör" and "Bakis". Source of above is fraga doktorn, also as crappy google translation.

Corn doesn't want to be farmed, it wants to be hunted!

I think that if there was a billion dollars and nothing but a human baby standing between them and it, they'd smash it's skull in without even a second thought.

They don't WANT to kill humans in the sense that that would take time and energy away from their primary goal of profit and in the sense that humans might try to kill them in return. Otherwise, I doubt it matters much to them who lives or dies.

If you think thats how babies are made - we need to have a talk...

What? Of course CRTs have motion blur issues. Just because they have no fixed pixel grid, it does not look that bad.

And is the effect sufficiently noticeable to disqualify this tech? I highly doubt it, given how prized CRTs were amongst the gaming crowd, among others, until LCDs improved sufficiently to displace them.

"I've worked 15 years in climate research, acquiring hard data"

Case in point. You are stating you are an expert but you don't even know about the inaccuracies. So either you didn't bother to even evaluate the information from the film, or you just wrote if off the list as "right-wing" tripe. Ofc there is the possibility that while you are an expert, you still don't really know shit.

Yet I'm sure it still eludes you why people have a problem with the "trust me" mantra.

Or an awful lot that are currently going to college and serving in the military at the same time, and are becoming more educated.

Bullshit.
If they are in public then too bad. If they gave permission, either explicit or implicit, then too bad. If they where in a situation where it's to be expected by a reasonable person, then too bad.

Trying to hide or change history of ANY kind is a bad thing.

No one is under any obligation to change something just becasue someone doesn't like it. It's thinking like yours that holds things back.

Global cooling is real. It's the main reason why the global temperature graph is hockey stick shaped instead of a more gradual increase. Then scrubbers were installed on coal and oil furnaces to remove the sulfur from the exhaust gas.
Sulfur dioxide DOES cool the earth, and that is why it is considered as a potential tool for 'climate engineering.' We can use it to control the earth's temperature if things start going out of whack. But at the significant cost of acid rain.

What agenda is that? The wealthy first world nations want an excuse to transfer their wealth to poorer nations in a socialistic scheme?
Eh. Sorry. That was a bit dumb. Sonnejwo. If you do have a plausible agenda. I would like to hear it. But maybe it just makes sense to contribute 1% of the global GDP as an insurance policy against what could potentially be a disaster.

I will give you one thing. There is a lot of uncertainty in climate science. There isn't any regarding whether the world is warming or whether humans are causing some part of that warming. The debate is on how serious of a problem global warming is. Is the system dominated by positive or negative feedback? In the worst case scenario, are we looking at a world at +1C or at +6C? If the answer is the former, then there's no reason to worry about CO2 emissions at all. If it's the latter, then the future of our world looks like something out of a science fiction novel.

WOULD be, IF they weren't making it all up.
Opening the books would only be admitting to their bullshit.

But we don't have "healthy skepticism". We have unquestioning belief of opinion that people want to believe in the face of enormous evidence to the contrary.

Even here on Slashdot, that I thought would be mainly visited by science trained people, we get countless posts along the lines of "I don't believe in global warming" or "I don't believe CO2 can cause global warming".

There was some confusion over the role of CO2 in our atmosphere. Around the turn of the 20th Century Arrhenius realized that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere would cause temperatures to rise. A few years later Angstrom did some unfortunate experiments that were misleading but compelling and the vast majority of scientists decided that Arrhenius was wrong. Around the 20s or 30s we had the understanding to realize that Arrhenius must have been right which would have caused people to redo and reevaluate Angstrom's experiments and find the flaw. Unfortuately, that didn't happen and it wasn't until the 1940s and high altitude bombers that there was experimental evidence to directly contradict Angstrom. Since then the role of CO2 in our atmosphere is settled and adding CO2 will cause temperatures to rise. All that is left is to determine what the sensitivity is. And yet, 60+ years later we still see the same tired old arguments "CO2 absorption bands are saturated" and "CO2 is a trace gas so cannot affect climate."

Repeating these soundbites and others isn't healthy scepticism, it's spouting nonsense from a base of ignorance.

There are valid arguments that "business as usual" is the best way forwards. I happen to disagree - IMO the costs of mitigation will be miniscule in comparison to the costs of adapting regardless of the precise value of climate sensitivity - but denying the facts of science isn't valid or even intelligent, let alone healthy scepticism.

Tim.

As an example, say you are presented with an ad image from the http://spamareus.com/ads/ad1234.jpg URL. When you invoke the Adblock dialog, the preselected regular expression will be http://spamareus.com/ads/* , meaning that everything from the ads folder will be blocked, which is usually what you want.

That's exactly NOT what I want.

I want to block ads based on the *content's* URL, not the URL the ad is being served from. I don't know why this is so hard to explain... you do realize that ads are served from a different domain than the content domain?

DoubleClick and Atlas are used both by reasonable sites, and abusive sites. Thus, I want to block content from doubleclick.net when the page being viewed is abusivesite.com, but I *don't* want to block content from doubleclick.net when the page is from imokwiththissite.com. Get it?

AdBlock is technically capable of this-- it's whitelists work this way already. I just need the inverse functionality. Your suggestion doesn't help at all.

Well it seems one large glass of milk and/or one small portion of turkey. For 100g roasted light turkey meat you get 340mg of tryptophan, 100g of cow's milk has 75mg. So you need 4.5 times the weight of milk to get the same amount, 2% milk only has 40mg per 100g.

It should be illegal to award damages higher than a certain percentage of the net worth of the losing party.

It's insane that any individual can be expected to pay $625,000 unless they are wealthy.

The ability for the defendant to pay should be considered when damages are decided. Our legal system is so seriously screwed up.

So your argument is that a console is better because it can play 0% of old games, when a PC can only play 80% of them.

If you don't want to waste your time trying out old titles, then don't do it. You are not obliged to play old games on new PCs. If you have a relatively recent PC then just buy games from the last 5 years. How is that any different from what you are saying about consoles?

Just consider it a bonus that a game from 14 years ago might work too. And I'm talking games for DOS, Windows and virtually ALL of the older consoles (using emulators). That would be impossible on a console (excluding the games that have been re-released as I mentioned before).

But quite simply, if you don't want to take the chance, don't play old games and you are still no worse off than if you owned a console.