Of course it wouldn't. But not "harming" the oceans or land i.e. not utilizing resources would be an extinction level event. All animals, humans included need to pull resources from those sources to live.

America's energy consumption per day per capita is over 3 barrels of oil. That's about 3.3b calories worth of energy per dy. What difference to that consumption does adding or subtracting human manual effort make?

All over the web. Those particular data: http://www.decibelcar.com/menu...

There is no reason we need to cost future generations. There are reasons we need to manage the land and water on this planet in a way advantageous to humanity to maintain our population and anything remotely approaching our standard of living.

Or howabout you attempt to make a realistic estimate rather than either 0 or infinity?

10^5.5 = 316,227
So I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers. I'm not sure what the falloff is in air pressure as you increase the size of an explosive. I'd expect a square root function (?) if someone knows they can solve that part.

210 dB 2.0 earthquake (sound force is the equivalent of holding a stick of dynamite).
235 dB 5.0 earthquake
248 dB atom bomb
310 dB loudest volcano that we know of (happened in 1883)

The article is full of crap:

Some systems operate at more than 235 decibels, producing sound waves that can travel across tens or even hundreds of miles of ocean

BS. 235 decibels is louder than almost all volcanos. That's essentially a 31megaton explosion. The navy has tested ship based sonar of that power but only experimentally. No submarine has every carried anything remotely like that. Sonar in use on subs maxes out at around 180 dB, which is still about the equivalent of a 1lb explosion but nowhere near 235.

You are the reason environmentalism gets discredited. Of course our needs are a consideration. The oceans must exist for future generations to do what for them? Fulfill their needs. The first imperative of every species is survival, that is nature. We can talk about balance or relative cost, but there is no way that humans are going to agree to extinct themselves.

As a guy with two masters in math who knows 15 languages... I also disagree. There are some languages that are mathematical (like Haskell) but most programming has more in common with cooking (sequencing the application of resources) than math.

Exactly what is this "war on Scientology"?

1) State organized hate campaigns designed to encourage private discrimination. This lead to multiple incidents of bomb threats, broken windows and violent harassment at events.

2) Attempts to apply anti drug-addict rules to Scientologists i.e. not consider them of sound mind and thus denied many of the normative protections under law.

3) Work with state sponsored employment unions to work to deny Scientologists employment
3') Often making them ineligible for government jobs.

4) Incidents of refusing to educate the children of Scientologists in public schools for fear of them spread Scientology to other students.

5) Denial of commercial permits that would normally be granted because of associations with Scientology
etc..

It at least isn't obvious that Scientology is definitely a religion.

Scientology promotes the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power through rituals of faith and worship. How is that not a religion?

Ownership has legal authority under international treaty. The Irish government recognizes that. MIOL is responsible under law to do what Round Island tells them to do. Now of course they can't be ordered to do something illegal. Which is slightly different.

MIOL exists as part of a global system. They do not run their own services. They aren't a fully independent entity in their operations structures and the services they do offer are run by the USA entity. Your side keeps ignoring this and pretending that MIOL is more than a shadow company. The setup on Azure services is a question of fact not a question of law. And a fact you keep ignoring. Today: July 17, 2014, MIOL is selling services in Europe structurally incapable of fulfilling European privacy laws. The reasons for those structural deficiencies are fully public to the extent they are part of the very agreements their customers sign. They are shown clearly on the website. Yet Azure in Europe is operating freely. So evidently the European privacy laws aren't as aggressive as you believe them them to be.

Because of ownership were MIOL to take steps to enforce European privacy laws they would institutionally fail because the employees involved would be fired. MIOL doesn't have to fulfill USA law directly. But they can't prevent the law from being obeyed. They just participate in a global system and allow others to fulfill the law.

Moreover, there can't be a divestment for MIOL, If Europe were to force the issue MIOL simply shuts down and Europeans don't have access to the global system, same as people in North Korea or Iran. Which won't happen because Europe participates in the global internet. In the same way the United States government can't fully regulate Airbus, even though Airbus does some business in America; Europeans cannot fully regulate Azure. They can choose to allow the service to exist or not. They can shutdown MIOL but all that's going to do is force higher latencies and higher network costs for European companies using products deployed on Azure.

Yes, that's true. Given the alternatives people do freely choose Fox News. I'm ok with that. The cost of freedom is the freedom to say things I don't like, and that includes Fox News.

No. When I grew up we used to have something very much like the BBC, PBS. They pay for the BBC which is why it exists. If we paid for PBS we would have an excellent system. I'm happy to defend our freedoms, but their spending priorities are far better.

That's one of the huge advantages of Apple's model. Applications can't demand access to too much or they don't get pass the app store. They have to work well with privacy setting or they don't pass....