Making nuns provide other people's contraception is like requiring orthodox jewish to provide bacon or forcing atheists to pay for the gideons and their bibles. It's just wrong.

Pitting the two legal 'sides' against each other in a figurative battle and commenting on the results (as TFA does) is missing the point completely. We live in a time when the technical capabilities and resources for surveillance have become so much more powerful than those of privacy than, in effect, window blinds and draperies no longer exist and we are all unintentionally parading around in front of uncovered windows without any clothing. To put it another way, governments will monitor all communications for no other reason than that they can. Even if the NSA is stopped, you can be sure than every other country in the world either has its own program underway or is in the process of rapidly doing so. You should assume that someone somewhere is logging your calls, surveying your internet traffic, gathering your voicemail data, recording your online banking profile and purchases, and so forth...because they can. This situation will not change until the technology available to defend yourself from digital intrusion catches up with the technology already available to the offense...and that might be a while yet.

Make of that what you will.

The point (apparently) of this rule is to drive people to make the 'right' choice (i.e. non-incandescent bulb) by eliminating the 'wrong' choice. Of course, as TFA says, if the no-incandescent choice were really so obvious, no rule would be needed. I was enthusiastic about cfl bulbs but the enthusiasm died really quickly with real-world experience. CFL bulbs are dim initially, slow to power up to operating temperature, expensive, release dangerous waste mercury powder if broken indoors, create toxic waste when discarded, have a much-shorter life than advertised, and grow dimmer as they age. They probably also consume more power than advertised (based on all of the other false claims) but I have not measured that. Undoubtedly, though, they produce more light per watt than an incandescent bulb but even that comparison is not completely correct. If incandescent bulbs are in a heated space, then the 'waste' heat that they produce is still used by offsetting the amount of heat that must be added from the room heating system. For home use, incandescent bulbs still have a place, as many consumers know, and THAT is why they need to be banned, because otherwise, people would still use them. So, now that we have the George Bush ban on incandescent bulbs, we can look forward to more household toxic waste (much of it probably improperly disposed of...when did you last see your local hardware store collecting spent cfl bulbs?), more toxic dust released in living spaces, more spending by consumers on light bulbs, lower lighting levels in residences (leading to less reading, more eyestrain, etc.), and lights left on more to avoid waiting while the dim cfl bulb warms up after being powered on. Sounds like a typical federal government program...wasteful, ill-advised, unwanted, unneeded, and expensive.

Good question. Drone economics: Each drone will cost $1,000,000 to build, will have a flying life between major overhauls of 300 hours, will cost $1,500 per hour to operate, and will deliver one package per hour of flying time. Cost per package would be $4,833. Okay, maybe that's too generous. The Pentagon's tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey lasts for 5,000 hours and could be automated to fly as a drone for the amazon package delivery job but it's cost is $69 million and it costs $10,000 per hour to operate making its cost per package $24,000. Okay, I know what you're thinking...a smaller cheaper drone that would be almost a throwaway for a cost of $50,000 or something and could fly 100 hours before falling to pieces. Such drone would have a per package cost of only $2,000 but would also be a greater safety risk if it failed over someone's dwelling place making its insurance cost greater. Maybe a cheaper approach would be to buy a used Cessna 172 for $50,000 and fly 1000 packages with it at an hourly cost of $200 making the per package cost only $250. However, the package would have to be chucked out of the side door by the pilot with a parachute attached to it where it would drift down to somewhere near the target address so it would be less attractive, of course, than the drone which would land next to the front door and lower a little motorized cart to take the package up the steps to the door.

It's amazing how many people are excited about delivery drones and consider them to be the 'future' when the reality is that the entire concept is amazingly impractical. Drones are 'aircraft' and that is a transportation category that is much more expensive to operate than 'trucks' or 'trains.' Those delivery drones will need expensive maintenance and repair. They will be very fuel-inefficient in terms of packages delivered per gallon of fuel (and no, they will not be battery-powered or solar-powered.) They will use expensive, complex machinery that, by design, like all aircraft, must have a very high proven reliability with backup fail-safe capabilities. Even if we can ignore all of the impractical cost and operational issues and assume that delivery drone deliverees are well-to-do folks for whom delivery cost is no object, there is an entire infrastructure that needs to be created before armies of drones can be dropping out of the sky with packages from Amazon. Navigational procedures and air pathways have to be defined. Low-level obstructions such as trees, overhead wires, flagpoles, antennas, etc. will need to be removed from delivery 'target' addresses and such an address will need to be defined as 'drone-deliverable' in some sort of national database. Insurance issues will have to be sorted out as to who will be responsible when the inevitable accidents, injuries, and deaths occur as a result of presumably frequent flights of very low-flying aircraft. FAA certification will be needed for new categories of delivery drones that will presumably be remotely-piloted. And so on. So yeah...delivery drones will potentially reduce the delivery time of those amazon packages to 30 minutes...for a cost of $5,000 per package. It would probably be cheaper (and more practical) for amazon to have more fulfillment centers and pay teens to race around on motorcycles delivering. But...I know that most will disagree with all of this and instead prefer to gaze at the sky and imagine their new hair curling set delivered in...30 minutes...while considering any naysayer such as myself to hopelessly stuck in the past. Those folks should load up on Amazon stock...at its bargain price.

...is that they are...old. Most managers want to hire people who are younger than them. The last thing they want to do is to hire someone older who has a lot of experience and will sit around sniping everything that the manager does based on that older persons presumably vast experience. Another problem with older workers is that many have serious health issues that are costly to the company, cause attendance problems, and distract the team from the mission. The best approaches for older workers (i.e. over 50) are to work as consultants where experience is sought (if they have marketable expertise), start and operate a small business, look for work as a short-term contract worker where they can be easily let go if they are not working out, work construction if they are physically able, volunteer with non-profit organizations, or run for political office.

No one. No one should decide when another person's life should end, and that includes our own decisions about our own life. Adams is one of those people who thinks that life should always be happy, joyful, bountiful, and overflowing with comforts. Well, Mr. Adams, there is suffering in this world. There always has been and there always will be but we are never allowed to end someone's life to relive their suffering or our suffering, be it psychological, physical, financial, or emotional. Never. In the case of your dad, you wanted to end his life to relieve your suffering. Yes, it's hard to watch your loved one suffer. Yes, you are suffering too as a consequence. But no, your job is not to end a life but rather it is to do what you are able to do to relieve their suffering and to endure your own suffering with no complaint.

Okay, flying drones are possible. Flying drones with power generation methods such as solar cells on board are possible. Flying drones that can fly for weeks or months through the high atmosphere are perhaps possible with some technology development. Flying drones that can fly for months through the high atmosphere and generate a significant quantity of excess power might be possible some day with significant technology development in solar cell or wind turbine efficiency. But...but...but...transmitting that power 'wirelessly' to a ground station with any sort of reasonable efficiency is definitely NOT possible with any technology currently known, such as microwaves or lasers. To do that would take some sort of breakthrough insight into a completely new technology such as, for example, quantum energy exchange between coupled atomic reservoirs, localized gravity field modulation, or, more ambitiously, time progression distortion in a localized electrical transmission field. But...the article says they will have a working prototype in one year after receiving the modest quantity of startup funding. This entire project sounds like a scam to bilk investors akin to running cars on water as a fuel or, perhaps, a CIA cover story for some sort of screwy long-term drone surveillance scheme, to name just two possibilities. In any event, the story as presented is complete and utter bullshit.

St. Peter's square is the site of the old "Circus of Nero" chariot racing track. The roman's (emperor Nero) martyred St. Peter along the "spine" of the old chariot racing track in 67 as entertainment for the chariot race attendees and then buried the body in a little cemetery located next to the track (which was handily located to clear out the victim(s) from the night before to prepare for the new day's activity.) St. Peter was held in high esteem by the early Christians of that time and they secretly excavated near his burial site in order to construct a memorial shrine, to have a place for Christian worship, and to allow other Christians of the time to be buried near St. Peter as they were martyred. As the centuries passed, and Christians were no longer persecuted, churches were built over the site of St. Peter's burial, leading to the newest one, the present St. Peter's basilica which was constructed approximately 400 years ago. St. Peter's grave is located directly under what is now the altar.

The comments here are about the difficulty, the expense, the problems with user acceptance, etc. All of those imply that this sort of change is somehow and optional thing that they can choose to do...or not. In actuality, however, this change is both mandatory and inevitable...and only a matter of time. Maybe next year, maybe in 5 years, or maybe in 10 years but every single enterprise will eventually be forced to make this switch as Microsoft evolves and changes ('implodes' is the word that comes to mind) as it tries to maintain growth and earnings while trying to continue selling the same thing to the same places that already have purchased more than they will ever need.

Imagining that all life must have originated from Earth is an amazingly earth-centric point of view that is similar to the idea in the middle ages that all planets must revolve around the Earth. Obviously, if life can travel from Earth to Europa, it can also travel from Europa to Earth...or from planets outside of our solar system entirely. Moreover, the fossil record shows the presence of life on a very early Earth, leaving far too little time for life to form in primordial Earth oceans under any sort of process currently envisioned. Not only is pan-spermia possible, it is currently the most likely explanation for the source of life on Earth. The real question is 'where did life originate in the universe?'

"As it stands, the IR absorption by CO2 seems pretty well understood."

If, by this, you are referring to the blocking of IR heat radiation into space by CO2 molecules, then no, it (the atmospheric heat transfer process) is not well understood, or even understood. CO2 absorbs only a very narrow and specific wavelength. THAT is understood. Moreover, a CO2 molecule that has absorbed a photon, immediately either re-radiates the heat or loses it via a collision with one of its neighboring molecules which, in the earth's atmosphere, are going to be O2 or N2 molecules. Those molecules, in turn, re-radiate the heat into space. The heat does not 'stay' in the atmosphere but is constantly re-radiated into space. The atmosphere is not a heat storage reservoir. That is NOT understood.

"Also I assume that you don't think volcanoes in Antarctica aren't causing melting in the Artic as well, that's a pretty big clue that they're not the main cause.

Typical global warming 'reasoning.'

"Judith Lean, a climate and solar scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory, said if we’re headed towards a Maunder Minimum-type event, its arrival is hardly imminent."

She knows that how? Oh, yeah, we find out in the next paragraph: "...if solar activity is indeed in decline it will, I suppose, take a few centuries to reach a Maunder Minimum type event.”

This scientist confidently expresses her supposition in the Washingto Post to support the 'consensus' that there will be no mini ice age. If these people wanted to have even a smidgeon of credibility regarding climate prediction (itself a questionable proposition), they would be running their computer climate models with a decreasing solar output and reporting the results for different scenarios rather than stating their suppositions about the future of the sun's output (for which they obviously, like the rest of us, have no idea what will happen.) The truth is that IF solar output is indeed declining, the earth's climate is going to dramatically cool...and there is nothing that we can do about it other than prepare. That has happened in the past and it will happen in the future and it may be happening now. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 will have a negligible effect on such a cooling trend...and that's what the global cooling deniers don't want to say.