That's quite an imperfect analogy. You're comparing products they sell and underwrite vs their own personal best practices, but let's ignore that for now because regardless the cyber experience is just not there at insurance companies right now. Insurance companies, even those like mine offering cyber coverage, don't have boots on the ground like they did for fire & allied lines. When it comes to fire, insurance companies employ (and still have) claims adjusters who had physical experience from looking at properties damaged in fires and investigating their causes. They do outsource sometimes too but a majority of the time they don't. Should they be hiring claims adjusters that are experienced in cyber forensics? Yes, I'm surprised they're not. Maybe they will *someday* but they don't right now. At my company they rely on outsourcing *all of it* it. The elephant in the room we're all being forced to see here is cyber attacks carry a far steeper and more dynamic sophistication than fires. Don't get me wrong, fires are sophisticated but it's a completely different playing field. I don't think we have to go through the laundry list of why they're so different but we can.

In fact, I'm actually going to take your example and use it to beat you to death with it. Let me point out terribly unfortunate flaws. Insurance companies first started covering fire in the early 1700's. The UL wasn't founded until 1896 and the NFPA wasn't founded until 1896. Yes, that's almost 200 years later. YIKES. So those organizations make awfully terrible examples of "prowess" by insurance companies. As an insider I can tell you when it comes to technology insurance companies lag the rest of the world, not the other way around. But you are right they will figure it out, eventually.

I mean that's nice to get a report of vulnerabilities but what about actually patching them up. My company uses services like yours, and yet we have servers staying unpatched for more than a decade. Sure, there are mitigating protocols put into place but there's just so much "technical debt" with old software, servers, processes. Companies don't want to pony up the costs and resources to fix this crap. Good intentions are failing to keep companies secure, perhaps it's time to talk beyond costs and penalties and bring some real punishments into the picture?

If every company showed nothing until everything was done we'd have quite a boring (and probably poor performing) market. This stuff, the sneak peaks, gets people excited about things now and makes them eager to see more. That's how it always works, I'm sure you weren't born yesterday? Instead of criticizing them for not delivering human space flight ahead of schedule, save your criticism for next year when they fail to meet their actual '18 Q2 delivery time. Then you'll actually have some ground to stand on!

This was a better response than mine!

Bad science is still bad science, no matter which side of the coin you're on regarding climate change. This just exacerbates the argument for both sides.

I mean I know it's dropping but you're still talking about the majority of Americans http://www.gallup.com/poll/190... There's also plenty of people that know diddly squat about financial markets but still denying climate change, so what about them?

You're also ignoring the fact there are plenty of investors also investing in green energy sources. It's how those projects get off the ground. So really, it sure sounds you're throwing a blanket statement out there with no regard to its accuracy. But I bet it probably feels good being confident about blaming one group of so-called rich entitled people rather a nebulous crowd of everyone and their grandma. I think the group of people you're trying to blame is: all of humanity's, for its lack of foresight and refusal to change after the cheese moved.

Pretty sure that answer wouldn't fit into slashdot post lol. Actually I lied, yes it would. How's this?

It depends.

Yes you can actually, *if* you have enough of it and keep adding enough energy going fast enough to keep accumulating heat. Is it going to happen? No, not unless you're God playing minecraft. But yes, you're exactly right that we're talking about *slowing* heat escape, so are the authors. What's essentially happening on almost every planetary bodies in the solar system is balance of energy between multiple sources. While heat is escaping from the planet's core, which warms the surface a little as the body core cools, additional heat is being added to the planet via the sun. The temperate of the planet, or more importantly for us the *surface* temperature of the Earth, is essentially the balance between the two. However this is further complicated by atmospheres, which many but not all planetary bodies have, whose effects work in both directions. Atmospheres mute the drastic changes and also help trap heat, slowing its escape. Our moon doesn't have an atmosphere which is why it sees such extreme variations in temperature. Just another interesting note, the Earth's core temperature is about the same as the surface of the sun (but not the sun's core, which is much hotter). However we don't burn up alive because all that stuff between us and our sweltering core is also trapping heat, i.e. slowing its escape before it reaches us.

If you're picking a bone over the "trap" terminology you can supply your own term but that is already a commonly used term by most people in the community to describe exactly that process. It almost seems like you were accusing experts of making a trivial mistake, but really it was the other way around.

Easy, he's just ignorant on the topic. He wasn't pretending to be confused, he was confused! Instead, attack his real mistakes which was not only his ignorance of the topic, followed up by arrogance to spontaneously know the topic better than the original authors (because of course he didn't know enough to know he didn't know). Classic Dunning Kruger stuff, which effects us all lol.

If you would have said warming isn't necessarily *all* bad, you'd be a lot more accurate. There will be some benefits, for sure. But overall the bad is expected to outweigh the good. It's easier to measure the impact in terms of costs, rather than "cans" and "can'ts". Because yes, of course we *can* survive it all and do all sorts of technological wonders combating the negative effects, but what is it going to cost? We're going to having rebuild/retrofit/move our coastal areas which encompass many major cities. We're going to have to shift our agricultural production regions, not just crops but livestock too. "Hot spots" might become quite inhospitable where susceptible people may not leave the house for more than a few hours (infants/elderly) or impede outdoor day jobs for everyone else. Then the oceans, oh the oceans. Don't know where to start on that one, let's just leave it at wild seafood may become a delicacy.

I'm going to throw a dart and say we're talking about not 10's but 100's of trillions of pure USD. Not counting the impact in human costs. That's the problem.

You make it sound like that's not an accomplishment? An entire country on one power plant? If that's not making a difference you're not thinking about this in the right mindset.

Anyway, I wonder if anyone has attempted in doing some math on supply & demand for fossil fuels. Pretending they do *actually* build this thing, maybe another or two, which is a big pretend. How is this going to affect pricing of fossil fuels? What will 5% less demand in Europe correlate to, regarding the prices? 5% in lockstep, or more than 5%? Is it going to retip the balance back in favor of using fossil fuels again? That's gotta be on someone's mind, I just haven't come across any studies or articles on it. I imagine turning it into an competitively romantic tango over the next 50 years of who is cheaper. All the while, falling energy pricing might benefit consumers quite a bit.

Dogs also love chocolate? My friend also love heroin, does this makes him a drugavore? Have you ever seen a horse eat a chicken? It's not a simple A, B, or C answer. It has nothing to do with what they enjoy, it's what their bodies are built to do. Some carnivores can eat plant matter and still some get nutrients out of it. Some herbivores can eat flesh and still get some nutrients out of it. Some carnivores are terrible at digesting "herbivore foods", like cats. Some carnivores are better at it than cats, like dogs. But dogs still have teeth built for tearing flesh, short GI tracts, and don't produce amylase. The reality is, mammals have evolved to maximize their capability for survival which means there is always some flexibility to adapt to their environment. That's why things in reality aren't as simple as they were taught in high school biology class. All that being said, can we engineer a specific diet to let a dog survive on a non-meat diet? Possibly. That doesn't make it an omnivore or an herbivore though.

This is why when I purchased my Prius in 2014 I was also awarded a license to run random people over. It's the fastest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions!

In all seriousness I highly doubt most rational people (liberal or otherwise) are using the argument of the environment as the reason for not having kids (or fewer kids). This is much, much more controlled by their career, perceived costs, personal self interests (e.g. time and leisure), and environment. So that means idiocracy is still coming! :)

Can't speak for other countries but this language permeates all of the US, certainly not just Catholics (only ~20% of population here). There is often a strong association of meat only coming from mammals. Even sometimes, sometimes, blasphemously even excluding chicken! Heretics. Human language can be such an odd, and very imprecise, thing.

This is why we should all speak in binary moving forward.