Well, we know plants frigging *LOVE* the stuff... so if we don't we can probably anticipate higher crop yields. Which isn't a bad thing considering the population growth on the planet.
Curbing it will further restrict of things like vaccines, health-care, education, and advanced agricultural adoption in developing nations so that's a bad thing.

CO2 may be a greenhouse gas, but we animals sort of, you know, *exhale* the stuff.

Lots of people die and starve because they don't have access to GM crops and coal powered electricity. So Unless we know *with certainty* I'm not OK telling anyone they are expendable in the name of CO2 reduction. Who knows, if they were afforded the same 1st world luxuries we are currently using, one of them might invent the next affordable green tech.

As of right now, I don't see a way to get it done without developing nations paying an extremely heavy toll.

We are all anti-nuclear now (stupid, IMHO) after Japan. The technology doesn't exist for us to have a zero CO2 impact. At least, not one we can afford (even in the 1st world).

What really hurts this whole debate is the stupidity like trying to ban Chlorine, which just so happens to be on the periodic table. CO2 is plant food - we exhale it - *fish* exhale it - the planet belches it out - it occurs naturally. Combine that with the war on GM crops and the hard-core environmental movement folks' moral authority seems to be perched on mountain of human bones and reeks more of a fascist political ideology than trying to keep rivers clean.

Does industrialization increase CO2? Probably. But so do volcanoes.

And ultimately - we get into this whole "denier" vs "believer" debate with both sides trying to dismiss everything the other side says in its entirety. Which is abject stupidity, IMHO.

The "we must do something, anything because the toll of inaction will be too high" argument seems hollow and overtly reactionary. They said the oceans would rise by 2009. Now they say they have *NO FUCKING IDEA*. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

I've come to the conclusion that nobody really knows for sure. Data indicates something is happening and there could be a correlation with industrialization. But so far, the models created based on the presumption of the association keep breaking down and their predictions don't play out as expected.

Therefore, IMHO, this reaffirms that we can't predict the future. Making changes now seem sort of pointless in regards to CO2 because a) we don't have an affordable alternative and b) what alternatives we do have are "not allowed".

So What will it cost if we don't? You tell me.
Until we are able to accurately model what will happen, we're just shooting randomly and the costs are so incredible and the prediction accuracy is so poor, credibility alone doesn't justify it.

How do we reduce CO2? What will it cost to do it?

Slashdot sucks during election years because everything becomes a political attack, incredible demonstrations of stupidity, or ad hominem accusations of trying to kill us all because of perceived badspeak. :(

Anything that could potentially drive the cost of 3D printing down is a win, IMHO!

I seem to remember that the tectonic plate in that region is about to begin a downward slope into the Pacific?

Do we know if the plate where Australia resides moves any slower or faster than others?

Hrm - he doesn't seem too much like "some random dude" - or any more random than other specialists in their field and who run a hospital backed research treatment center.

This is political bullshit of the highest order - and full of hypocrisy. This has *nothing* to do with factual relevance - and has *everything* to do with trying to manufacture something about a politician because you don't him. This is birther insanity in reverse.

Seems kinda lame and weak that there was an instant down-shift to ad hominem to attack the doctor as a quack because they don't like Rick Perry's political positions.

Basically - this argument is "some scientists criticize a politician because he went to another scientist for an experimental treatment using adult stem cells to help alleviate back pain; so because we don't like him, we want to use this criticism as a justification to question his decision making ability."

I think there are a lot of people who've benefited from adult stem cell research that would disagree that this is quackery.

Because someone who wants to be "The Decider" is open to medical research and treatments, even for himself, this is a bad thing? Because you don't agree with his decision to try and alleviate his back pain? *THIS* is a politically justifiable position? I strongly disagree and find it very narrow minded.

I don't care either way about this and don't understand why others do - I know people with chronic pain will try just about anything to help alleviate it. Frankly, I sort of find it a plus in someone wanting to be "The Decider" has hit the limits of modern medical practice and has had to try procedures "outside the system". They would likely be more apt to consider the patient's needs when it comes to making decisions about such matters better than someone who's never experienced such a scenario.

It sucks when a doctor says there's nothing we can do for your pain.

Having lost a family member to cancer, I can tell you with absolute certainty that criticizing someone for seeking pain relief by any means necessary is ignorant, short-sighted, and selfish. I don't care how many letters there are behind someone's name; they do not know everything and cannot say with *any* certainty how someone body will react. I've seen it first hand so if you think I'm wrong you can suck it. My sister battled intestinal cancer and they couldn't manage her pain for shit with normal treatments.

You wanna criticize for this - nice ... why not just tell people in constant pain "fuck you, you're a dumb ass because some scientists don't agree".

When my sister was dying, we hit the end of the "approved treatments". From acupuncture to drugs - we tried anything and everything to alleviate the pain from her intestinal cancer. The solution was experimental and caused blisters in her mouth - but it was fucking worth it.

Politicizing medicine is a *really*, *really* bad idea and borders on unconscionably fascist thinking. It ignores the plight of many, be them janitors or governors, who can't find a treatment that works and whose only hope of relief is an experimental treatment.

If I were in his position, I would weigh the benefits and the risks and make the right decision for me. For people in this thread, or in the press, or scientists who have *NO* direct knowledge of the circumstances or of his medical condition to act like they have the moral authority to judge is just silly, hateful rhetoric founded not in sound decision but instead in partisan attacks.

Hell, I don't even like Perry that much. I live in Texas and even I, not _even_ the smartest guy in the room, know that this is a f*cking joke of an issue and only makes the people jumping on it look unreasonably partisan.

So now a person's personal heath care decisions are game for criticism and would count against them for political consideration?

What's next?

"Candidate's love of tuna + mac-n-cheese is extreme and wildly outside the mainstream..."

Seriously - when did we get to a point where there is only one right way to think, talk, and act?

Sad - very few people would even *know* about this if they were trying to use it as some type hit piece..

If Dr. George Q. Daley would keep his f*cking mouth shut, maybe people wouldn't be *aware* of this.

Jackassery all around.

.. What ? You thought my subject didn't make my point?

I'm not defending the article in question, but this one is just a big a pile of crap as the other.

Granted, the original had a sensationalist headline and the article was distinctly written from a skeptic's perspective.

However - shouldn't we be looking at the raw data and either confirming or debunking it?

To Paraphrase this article: "You don't to need to see the data because people who stand the most to lose if this research is right are telling you it is bull. And you shouldn't ask any questions because the guy who did the research doesn't agree with the people this research doesn't support. Oh, and did we mention he thinks there's a creator? So it's only an *IF* he's right, and we've already explained that we don't need to verify this because, as you can see, he's just some crazy bastard who took funding from an energy company. We don't see any reason to go beyond the *if* and neither should you. Yeah, he's a corrupt, quack job for sure.. nothing to see here..."

I want to see the scientific proof, not the "he doesn't think like most of us so this article is flawed" bullshit.

Give me *real* scientific process.

Seriously - WTF happened to the scientific process? By this measuring stick, both articles are flawed. Can we get back to the real question now?

The goal is to scientifically understand our environment so we can make better predictions and protect it. Nobody I know wants dirty air or polluted water; climate change proponent or skeptic. So can we kindly STFU with that kind of crap and focus on finding the truth instead of trying to gain political points and power?

*sigh* - rant over-

So, Can I combine it with a battery and then use it as a heat sink for the CPU in my phone?

I only need juice until it gets hot, right?

Or, you go ahead and abide by the ToS.

See my previous post - but the first time I saw this happen was someone lied about their age - and it was below the required age for G+.

A G+ profile is a Google profile. If you put in false information that violates the ToS - the account will get shut off.

It's really kinda f*cking simple. Kids lie and say they're 21 and they have a G+ account. Some moron says he's 12 and he's *shocked*, yes *SHOCKED* his account was automatically disabled because he was too young. True story.

I joined G+ on July 1st - and the process was automated at first. I think they're doing some type of review now because they come in waves.

As a G+ problem - I've seen several people report this and almost always it comes down to something like this:
The ToS for Google services have various criteria.
When filling out the G+ profile - it's really your "Google" profile.

People have been putting bullshit information in. This triggers an automatic suspension of the account because what was entered violates the ToS.

Since the G+ profile is really your "Google" profile; it also locks you out of other services.

The most common one I've seen is people bitching after saying they put in a birth date that made them under the required minimum age to enter into an agreement with Google.

As a member of G+ - I can understand why they shut off new subscribers.

Their threading logic was cumbersome and needed work. The "rings" concept is cool - but when you have threads that "fork" - as in one conversation becomes closed to one ring - and another conversation to a different ring - the UI representation was horrible. If the people I interact with weren't limited - I would have turned away from G+ pretty quickly.

I'm get the feeling invites will open up again, soon. The UI has undergone some minor tweaks, the mobile app got updated, HangOuts is working better now.

Some of the stuff that's not quite perfected (IMHO) are the "nearby posts" and "incoming posts".

This is exactly the social networking I want. I have my professional face, my personal face, my friendly face, my political nutjob face, and my horribly bad joke face. Never should they mix...