Yes, it is what you said. I apologize. I saw your "Yes it does" in response to the statement that this tech "doesn't exactly solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions" and went from there. I didn't read your post thoroughly enough.

We don't know if holding at the current CO2 levels solves the problem, or not. We may plug all the holes in the boat and still be too heavy to float. Besides, diesel is only one slice of the fossil fuel pie. Can this blue crude form gasoline? And what about replacing coal? We have a long way to go before we can consider the the holes in the boat plugged.

No CO2 is being sequestered anywhere with this process. It may stop the greenhouse gas production, but it does nothing to reduce what's already there. It's like plugging the hole in the boat. Sure, the water isn't coming in anymore, but you still have a hull full of water with nobody bailing.

So THAT's what they're fracking with!

Protip: you can't intake no sugar, then have a high insulin response, and end up with HIGH blood sugar.

Do you mean your question to be, "how is sucralose better than aspartame?"

It's a small scale test plant, not a full, industrial scale production plant.

It doesn't matter what temperature you run your reactor at. They're not putting the water and CO2 into the nuclear core. They're just using the electrical power generated by the reactor.

The difference is that in the movies, the audience generally has perfect knowledge of the situation. Of the intentions and criminality of the bad guy and the honesty and righteousness of the good guy.

And this is why IRL we must have due process of law, in which the good guys must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the bad guy deserves what's coming to him, and that the good guys acted like good guys.

Doesn't make for good TV, though. 99.9% of real court cases are boring as shit.

I've also been to the pyramids. Stunning works.

The thing that's struck me about the mystery of ancient construction methods is...just that they chose to make things with such large stones. If you can cut stones precisely as they could, why not cut them again? It must be simpler to cut a two-ton stone into four 500lb blocks and move those. The fact that they chose to use such large stones implies they had a simple method of moving them.

Particularly when you look at some place like Pumapunku where they've got stones in the 80 metric ton range lifted on top of cliffs, after moving them from quarries miles away (and in some cases across lakes). What the hell? Why did all of the ancient world decide to use massive stones, and only later civilizations realized "oh wait this is way easier with smaller bricks." Odd.

Not saying it was aliens...but it is weird.

Splitting a statement between the first line and the subject is bad form.

By posting "I'm fine", they clearly were not "people in a disaster". However, they could have been a block or two away from the disaster and thought it important to let people know their status.

Yes, it would have. The restored version would be assigned a new copyright under most circumstances.

Who says you can't make money from things in the public domain? Where do you think symphony orchestras get their material?

Italicised colon followed by a period to make the "therefore" symbol... clever.

I do miss the "swim across the Atlantic" bit they used to have.

But I miss far more, the old Google Calculator. You used to be able to stuff like "circumference of earth in football fields", but now-a-days it's not much better than a four function calculator.