Whoops, sorry, didn't realise GP was you. Should checked usernames once in a while.

I believe Regions offers a superset of the functionality CSS columns does, but that wasn't really my point. The GP was saying "the web doesn't need magazine-like layouts". I was saying, yes, it does. The precise mechanism we use to get them (regions, fragments, columns, whatever) can be debated, but the need for those sort of layouts is pretty well established.

Yeah, that's part of the nature of a physical medium. This has nothing to do with that - hyperlinks, and an infinite amount of scrollable space means the only point in doing that sort of thing is for milking ad impressions, which has nothing to do with graphic design.

As screens get wider, the ability to automatically flow text across multiple containers (e.g. columns) becomes more important. Scanning a line across one of those huge 27" apple monster screens will be unpleasant. Allowing one block of content to appear as either one column on small screens, or multiple narrower columns on large screens is just simply good UI.

How this is dones (CSS Regions, Fragmentation, Columns, etc) is largely a technical issue, but the capacity to generate such "magazine quality layouts" is important.

Bieber is famous for singing. Ok, so I don't particularly enjoy his music, but his fame is at least based on a talent - as opposed to people like Paris Hilton, or Kim Kardashion, who never really showed any particular talent, except for self-promotion.

I dunno, it didn't help the Princeton academics, who apparently didn't realise that viruses and tech companies have two totally different business models, and that the analysis models for one do not translate to the other.

While I broadly agree, it doesn't appear the lesbian couple actually asked for the guy to pay child support; that was all on the state's initiative.

Once you hit level cap, the problem was more finding a reason to log *on*. Raiding was an exercise in frustration, except in pre-organised guild groups that ran maybe once or twice a week. There was nothing to do outside those times, other than maybe one of hundred or so rep-grinds. Many people I know only logged on for the raids; others (including me) started a new alt whenever they hit the level cap.

Well, this seems to be the place for sharing anecdotes (which, I think, is the big pull of D&D - the ability to create shared moments that you can look back on, talk about, and laugh at).

There was the time the party was sneaking in to a goblin warren. The rogue volunteered to try and scout out the entryway, and slipped in. Sure enough, there were two goblins on watch. When spotted, he managed to kill both goblins before they raised the alarm. After this impressive feat of martial prowess (and lucky dice), he signalled the rest of the party that the way was clear by blowing his signal whistle (which the player had included on his sheet, and was looking for a reason to use), thereby alerting the whole warren who promptly swarmed out and mobbed him. After the party had rescued him, and beaten back the goblins, the paladin smashed his signal whistle.

Then there was the time the ranger decided to try and activate the mystic weapon-orb at the top of a tower under siege by the undead, because the party's wizard was being too slow and cautious. It activated, destroying the undead, but also blew the ranger off the top of the tower. He had the ability to reduce falling damage though, and survived the fall. Running up the tower to meet his companions, he forgot about the flame trap the party had avoided earlier, and got scorched into the bargain. Finally he stumbled out onto the towers roof, interrupting the party leader's impassioned eulogy.

They probably stopped caring when they left school, and "being cool" stopped being their life's ambition.

Because wildfires never happen out of season. And we never have cold summers. That's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about - cherry-picking extreme events, and claiming they are the new normal thanks to climate change.

If you could point to an ongoing trend of increasingly-severe wildfires over a period of decades, compared historical rates, and can demonstrate that the rate of change is linked to climate rather than other factors (increased numbers of deliberately-lit fires, reduction in back-burning, expansion of human population into at-risk areas, etc) *then* you might have evidence of climate change. At the moment, all you have evidence for is "shit happens", which has been a fairly well-known phenomena throughout most of human history.

Also, throwing in a little bit of name-calling always adds to your credibility. Deniers, denialists, denialisterisers, seems like people like you think every new syllable is another indictment.

It's because of AGW proponents spewing crap like that that people don't believe them. California's drought is caused by climate change? California's always had droughts - they did in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s - but now if there's a drought, it's because of climate change. The polar vortex is a known phenomenon that regularly produces cold waves as it cycles between strong and weak states - but now, of course, its effects are climate change. The devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina was frequently blamed on global warming too, and Hurricane Sandy - because we never had hurricanes before industrialisation. Hell, AGW proponents have attributed tectonic and volcanic events to climate change, too (albeit, not particularly qualified ones, but the media rarely makes that distinction).

People are just sick of alarmism. It's like the little boy who cried wolf: there's continual cries of catastrophe, until people are so inured to the claims, that they just stop listening. The thing is, even the AGW climate models don't predict stuff like this. They predict gradual, practically unnoticeable increases of temperature (year-to-year) that only create significance over the span of a century. The claims of "OMG, heat wave, AGW!" or "OMG, cold snap, AGW!" (or "Hurricane", or "Tsunami", or...etc) are the reactions that damage people's perceptions of the science.

Yeah, well, the implementation by the previous government pretty much was. Promise no carbon tax, implement a carbon tax (but don't call it a tax, to dodge the promise), then give everyone subsidies so that they're not affected (undermining any behavioural changes such a tax might produce). Whoever it was who called it a "money-go-round" was dead on the money.

That said, the new government's policy of removing the tax, but keeping the subsidies is ridiculously moronic and inconsistent, too.

From the summary

She wasn't ticketed for using Glass, she was ticketed for Glass being there.

No, it means a trusted third party is required to transact in BTC at the moment. There's nothing inherent about bitcoin that means it can be traded for alpaca socks, but not pumpkins. If bitcoin becomes more widely used, it's value will stabilise. If it's value stabilises, it'll become accepted by more merchants, including merchants selling food.

Really, you're just re-iterating the same sentiment Ken Olson did: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home". No, there probably wasn't - then. His failure and yours is that you insist on assuming that the current state of affairs will persist indefinitely into the future. The value of bitcoin isn't what you can do with it now, but what you might be able to do with it in the future.

No. You have to have a third party to convert bitcoins to USD. That's due to the nature of USD, not bitcoin.

If you were transacting purely it bitcoin, you wouldn't need a third party.