Hiking, working out, having sex.

That was the exact quote. The post I was responding to inserted the word procreative.

You're right, all those things could be done. I'm not sure if 60% is really achievable with just insulation, but perhaps. I'd probably disagree about 30+ year old home insulation achieving that much. Homes in the 70s and 80s were relatively well insulated compared to homes made in the 30s through 50s. Often there wasn't any insulation put in the walls on those homes.

The point is though that achieving this isn't just a simple matter of replacing a few appliances. Furnaces are much more efficient now than they were 30 years ago, but replacing a furnace is a few grand at least. That's a significant investment, and one people only generally do when they have to replace the furnace anyway.

Why exactly do you think germans or frensh or british or italian or spanish or norwegian or finnish or swedish

You made the mistake of including Italy in your list. It depends on what you consider "standard of living", but for the most part Italy is a far poorer country than the US is, and people have far less disposable income. This is from personal experience, and from reading articles comparing the economies.

For example, in the US, everyone has driers, and few people hang their clothes outside. In Italy, few people have driers, and most people hang laundry outside. It's fine, I've done it, but it's an inconvenience in the winter, and takes a lot of time. If Italians could afford the dryer and the energy to feed the dryer, and the space in their homes, they'd do it.

A typical american could use 1/3rd or down to 1/4th of the energy he uses and the whole country could cut down to 1/10th and no one would realize any difference.
You only have to invest in devices that use less power

I don't know about you, but I and my neighbors use the majority of energy to heat our homes. Cutting energy down to 1/3 of what it is now would essentially be impossible, and isn't as simple as just investing in a new TV or washing machine. It gets cold in much of the US during the winter. Cutting energy use as drastically as you're suggesting would mean living in much smaller houses. That's not really "not realizing any difference".

Having procreative sex is one of the most carbon expensive things we can do.
Someone mentions sex, and you think they mean having babies? WTF? I think we solved that baby making problem part of sex quite a long time ago.

We need to stop thinking of this like a disaster that's suddenly going to happen. There's no magic date where the climate is going to be "destroyed". What's going to happen is the climate is going to change, and much of our way of life and infra-structure is going to suffer because of that. We can't "destroy" the climate, we can only make it harder on ourselves and have to do a lot of work to adapt. But there's not exactly an armageddon that's going to unfold. Food production is going to be harder, and the places to grow crops are going to shift.

The article itself is a little silly. Climate scientists don't debate whether global warming is real, and human caused. But they DO debate like hell about what's going to happen, how much carbon is "too much", etc. So to make any decisions about "30 more years" or making some silly prediction about everyone living like Americans in just 20 years is incredibly stupid, and counter-productive. Those issues are FAR from settled, unlike the clarity that the article presents.

As far as wants and needs, that'll be settled like it always has, through cost. It's already happening. The SUV craze of the 90s through the 2000s is already on the wane. Gas is more expensive and is going to remain so for a while, and that gas-guzzling Suburban is not only expensive to fuel, it makes you look like a bit of a pig now. People in European countries aren't somehow more altruistic, and care about others more than the US (and therefore drive smaller cars), it's just that gasoline is quite expensive, and the streets are smaller. So the giant car thing is totally impractical. Eventually Americans are going to start driving smaller cars just like they do in much of Europe.

Warn the people in charge of the project, not the general public.

This is exactly what was done.

“An independent researcher has reported a vulnerability in Bugzilla which allows the manipulation of some database fields at the user creation procedure on Bugzilla, including the ‘login_name’ field,” said Sid Stamm, principal security and privacy engineer at Mozilla, which developed the tool and has licensed it for use under the Mozilla public license.

“This flaw allows an attacker to bypass email verification when they create an account, which may allow that account holder to assume some privileges, depending on how a particular Bugzilla instance is managed,” Stamm said. “There have been no reports from users that sensitive data has been compromised and we have no other reason to believe the vulnerability has been exploited. We expect the fixes to be released on Monday.”

Oh, and I'd also like to submit the idea that people such as yourself, who think that the solution to every problem is making a law are just as destructive as the people who think that the free market is going to control everything.

Because without some form of regulation, some dickhead is going to start selling grades. Just like without regulation, you would end up being poisoned by the food you eat.

Ok, so AFAIK states have never had regulations about cheating in school. Schools themselves handle this. So by your statement, we should have rampant for-profit cheating going on RIGHT NOW. But yet I've never heard of that.

How can you explain this lack of teachers selling grades on a mass scale?

You've mistaken a franchise for the business. The NFL is the real business, the franchises are just individual owners. You think the NFL doesn't operate like a single business? Of course they do. They have contract negotiation, It's even far more integrated as a single business than a Mcdonalds. The NFL requires mutiple teams to even exist. You don't need multiple mcdonalds restaurants to operate. It's the NFL that would pressure the Redskins to change their name.

Oh, and BTW The Redskins play in RFK Stadium, a stadium constructed with Federal dollars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

Check and mate.

If people want to force the GOVERNMENT to take action. Thats where I have a problem.
Well that's where we disagree. The NFL gets special status for political reasons. Voters like them some football. So what's wrong with the opposite? I hate me some football, and I find redskins offensive. It's already a polical fight, and has been forever. We pay for their goddamn stadiums, so they opened the door to government intervention in their business. Since they've acted like asses for.. well forever with regard to the Redskins, and people are finally calling them on it, why shouldn't they take some political heat for it?

So if the NFL would like to pay back the various states and municipalities for all the stadiums that we've paid for for the last 50+ years, I'd be happy to let them do whatever they want. But since they've got in bed with the state, they're open to getting attacked by politics.

I was a vendor at a conference in this exact hotel in 2013. Internet access was ridiculously expensive...per account which they prohibited sharing between devices of course. Handy when you're trying to present and sell technical services...and your hotspot doesn't work. Many vendors complained about how their hotspots weren't working, quite a few sucked it up and paid the extortion fee. Now I guess we know why.

Three words. Class action lawsuit.

I agree, the fine should be bigger. Regulators should stomp the fuck out of Marriot for this. But class actions are the only remaining tool we have in this country against mega-corp. Since the FCC has already ruled Marriot has broken the law, I've no doubt that there's a bunch of lawyers right now hatching a plan to sue Marriot.

It really is pathetic that people out there are making such a big deal about it.

Umm.. People are making a big deal of it because in 2014 we still have a football team named after a racial epithet. The only reason people DON'T make a big deal of it is that it's faded into the background of the society for so long that people ignore it. But redskin is still a racial epithet.

You're right people don't have a right to be not offended. Rooting for "the other team" would be conter-productive as it obviously still supports the bottom line and contributes to NFL rivalry, which is how they make money. Obviously that doesn't effect the bottom line of the team. Your best bet would be to pressure goverment to end the monopoly status for the NFL, end funding of stadiums for the NFL, and tax the living shit out of them. I'd vote for all of that.

The NFL has the right to call their teams whatever they want. They could start up a new team called the Texas Niggers, or the New York Kike's, and there's nothing anyone could legally stop them with. That doesn't mean however that the NFL deserves special treatment.

According to the one religion I'm somewhat familiar with
Then you're not very familiar with Christianity, or religion, really.

Christianity has survived worse than aliens. Heliocentric theory, evolution, and earth as a globe are all facts that Christianity has had to deal with over the last 100 years. The different sects are at varying points in how they've evolved with these facts, but they have and are evolving.

You think of religion as a series of facts, which it partially is... but that's not the main thing. The main thing is group identity, and group identity can and does change with time. You can't really "disprove" group identity.

w3 schools is about one of the WORST examples you could have picked. Web developers and designers don't use IE for obvious reasons.

But you're right though that browser market share is hugely dependent on what group you've picked. Business users use IE in much higher numbers. Given Microsoft's corporate masters, I'd be VERY surprised if they put an anti-spying feature in the browser. Remember, business loves to spy on their employees.

My money is still on Firefox though. Mozilla has a mission to provide privacy to its users. They actively resist making it easy for corporations to do MITM attacks on the browser though including custom placed to install CAs. Safari is a possibility too, but I'd still bet on FF.

Oh, and as an addendum, I consider anything that originates from the client, something that the user can generate.

i.e. untrusted input is untrusted input. People get far to specific about that kind of thing. If you're taking input from a client, and passing it to a system executable in some way, that's bad.