I totally agree, but there's an important aspect that's unspoken. It's politically useful for the SJW (social justice warrior) types to group and stereotype men (at the same time they protest against stereotyping women and minorities). Their ideology depends on "group justice," a.k.a. "collective guilt," a fallacious concept because it destroys true (individual) justice. They want the state to do more than use true individual justice to solve individual problems as they arise. They want to remake society, and seek to do that by inventing concepts like "rape culture" and trying to elevate favored groups and denigrate unfavored groups, individual justice be damned.

Oh, please, not this "men depict women in unrealistic ways" trope again. It absolutely cuts both ways. Look at the covers of romance novels, every photo of a man in an ad in a women's magazine, the men in daytime soap operas, and pretty much in any other female-oriented media: do you see a lot of homely, short, overweight, and/or bald guys? No, you do not. Even the old guys are in shape and not bald. There is just as much "unrealistic," "sex object," under-representation of normal men in media aimed at women.

Not only that, but blaming (straight) men for women's body image issues is also bull. Straight men do not control women's fashion and the media that lives off of it.

You are not the first person to suspect that. From the link:

Really? Huh. Based on what happened to Brendan Eich, I thought their job was to promote same-sex marriage.

Dude, your comment reads like it's from the late '90s. Since then, Microsoft has been largely stagnant, their tablet and phone offerings largely a failure, the "inevitable" Windows monopoly doesn't look so inevitable any more, and OS X's share has grown. Macbooks are a very large percent of laptop sales, even to enterprise, and if you count tablets as computers, Apple's worldwide market share is about 19.5%, bigger than HP and Dell combined. Not to mention Apple getting the lion's share of profits.

So it looks like vertical structure is doing pretty well. As for mobile, sure, lots of Android phones are being sold, many (most?) to people who are entering the smartphone market. But more people are switching from Android to Apple than the other way around, so despite the drop in smartphone market share, Apple is quite well-positioned to continue growing.

True, that's not too bad, but an obligation to keep any records at all is still not really about "rights."

That's part of it, but there's more. The topic is called regulatory capture. An inherent problem in all regulation is that those being regulated have a vested interest in "capturing" the regulators and influencing them for their own interests. It's often not as simple as bribery or a promise of a future job. It can be (and often is) things like convincing regulators that certain kinds of regulation are great ideas, regulations that 1) make the regulators think they are doing something, 2) can be easily implemented by that regulated entity, and (entirely coincidentally!) 3) hinder the competitors of the regulated entity. Whenever you read about bankers being in favor of Dodd-Frank, or health insurers being pro-Obamacare, or a large company that supports raising the minimum wage, look for something like #3. Such support does not usually come from the goodness of their hearts.

As pointed out in this thread, who knows the complexity of a set of regulations better than someone who used to be in charge of them? So too much separation between regulators and regulated would be dysfunctional: you don't want carpenters regulating doctors, or vice versa. But the whole field shows some of the inherent problems of all regulations, especially complex ones.

internet providers are obliged to keep records of users' access for six months

Exactly whose "rights" are they talking about?

Thanks to the EPA and the power of NIMBYs, it's basically impossible to build a new refinery in the US.

You forgot the blue-collar unions. They are very pro-Keystone, and he doesn't want to alienate them further, ahead of the 2014 mid-terms. So he's delaying screwing them until afterwards.

Plenty of food crops are grown in greenhouses. According to this, "The 2002 Census of Agriculture estimated a total $15 billion of greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture crops sold in 2002, including [...] $1.2 billion or eight percent food crops such as tomatoes grown in greenhouses."

"Some 1800 hectares of vegetables are grown in greenhouses" in Israel.

"In Europe and Israel, essentially all of these crops [peppers, tomatoes, cucumbers, and melons] are produced in greenhouses." Source.

Not according to the last chart in the article I linked to. The vast majority have vastly overestimated future warming.

I never said "only."

So, then which is the accurate model that "predicts" past climate so well that I should trust its predictive ability?

Clearly, you are not into the whole cost/benefit analysis thing, or you'd wonder if spending money to "create a better world" was worth it if it meant spending hundreds or thousands of dollars so that the average temperature 50 years was now was .0000000000001 degree F. cooler. And I say that as someone who has recycled for nearly 40 years.