If you consider ip to be the new hotness, then you are dating yourself as just another *buntu script kiddie.

Oh my. People this stupid really exist.

Hey kiddo, hate to burst your bubble, but Colbert was never on your side. I'll spell it out for you: he does a parody of a White Conservative Man.

And if this kind of rampant stupidity is a sample of the kind of comments that video was expected to attract, disabling comments seems eminently reasonable to me.

In short, these models results provide a somewhat fuzzy set of scenarios from which to view the future, they are not detailed predictions

I take back the liar allegation. You are just a subliterate moron.

And still proving TFA so, so, very right.

The global warming alarmists and pitchmen said "San Francisco will be underwater by 2010"

When you start with outright lying about what was said or not, you do a good job of proving TFA right.

Because the buck has to stop somewhere.

And because as a civilisation we don't think "We didn't know" is a defense against crimes committed in the pursuit of your end goal. We used to hang people for that.

It is you that is making a fundamental mistake. Adding value is wat technology is for, technology is not an end in it self.

We, meaning IT, are here to automate processes. By automating business processes, we make more efficient business possible, thus adding value.

Jennifer Lopez' "Let's Get Loud" somehow always sounded like "Netscape Now!" to me.

Perhaps you dislike his writing because liking writing presupposes an amount of literacy you obviously lack. Charlie specifically praises Hamilton in the linked blog post.

Now go back to your homework and stop bothering the adults.

If, however, you overemphasise the relatability to the point of never challenging the reader's comfort zone, then you are just writing cheap escapism. If Science Fiction isn't about introducing new concepts, what is it about then? That was Charlie's point.

I really hope this was written by some adolescent who is fustrated because no publisher will accept the book

Ahem

Oh dear.

1. The Inquisition was at its most powerful during the late Middle Ages, not the Dark Ages.
2. The primary target of the Inquisition was to fight heresy. In Spain that was considered being Jewish or Muslim, in NWE that was mostly the official definition of wilfully contradicting Church dogma. As it so happens, in the two most famous cases a scientist went up against the Church, they got hit with a trial not for the scientific content of their work, but for insulting the Pope (Galileo) and preaching a schismatic faith (Bruno).

Really, the Church has enough to answer for if you stick to the facts. No need to make shit up. Christianity's most virulent anti-science attitudes arose in the Protestant denominations, and are mostly a product of the 18the Century and later, and in the modern day mostly a US aberration.

The Dark Ages was caused, in large part, but the rise in political influence of the Roman Catholic Church

This is just flat-out wrong. The rise of the Church correlates strongly with the end of the Dark Ages. Unless you want to use the old definition of 'Dark Ages' derived from Petrarch as anything between 500 and 1500.