Actually, studies have shown that those who truly control their temper are less likely to get angry and less likely to suffer the negative consequences of anger (And this was not the ones that are inflicted by others, but the negative changes which happen to the body as a result of anger).

Haven't they already published several of his books?

The key innovation that the article refers to is in the summary, "keep it frozen long enough to ship halfway around the world. " I was aware that there were ice houses long before the ice trade was developed, but I am unaware of anyone developing a trade in it where they shipped it a long distance and then sold it. My recollection is that Persian kings sent servants out to harvest the ice and put it in his ice pits for his use when temperatures got hot, and that rulers in that part of the world did the same for some time into the future. However, I do not recall any reference to merchants selling ice.

The problem is that your recollection does NOT contradict the comment you replied to: from Wikipedia: "Unreliable and expensive at first, plant ice began to successfully compete with natural ice in Australia and India during the 1850s and 1870s respectively, until, by the outbreak of World War I in 1914, more plant ice was being produced in the U.S. each year than naturally harvested ice."
So, both the comment you replied to and the facts you recollect appear to be true...one of the places where it was impractical to harvest natural ice was, as the comment you replied to stated, Australia. Southern California it turns out was supplied by natural ice from Alaska.

It would have been nice if the article had actually said that.

Actually, my experience is that humans who spend a lot of time outdoors in all types of weather get pretty good at knowing when to take cover as well. The degree to which this is a product of direct (detecting that a low/high pressure front is coming and similar) or indirect (observing the behavior of animals) is hard to determine since most of the time their prognostication is based on putting together various barely noticed clues.

That was my thought as well...did the eruptions pre-date the asteroid impact? If not, then it is reasonable to believe that the asteroid impact triggered the massive eruptions.

The actions of all of the major players in this story make no sense based on the known facts. The threat by the hackers to cause a 9/11 style attack if the film was released had no credible support (at least known to me). I know lawyers are risk adverse, but it is hard for me to imagine how Sony could legitimately be a target of lawsuits if the attack actually happened (not that such suits would not be filed, merely that Sony should be able to easily get them all bundled into a few cases and dismissed).
The conspiracy theories which have been created to explain it fail to do so. The motivation they ascribe to those making the hard to explain actions are believable, but it is hard to believe that the actions taken would have the desired results.

What you say would be true if we were talking about sample letters put out by organizations funded by George Soros or Tom Steyer, but these are not like those. No, these sample letters were put together by organizations which got a small amount of money from organizations which got a small amount of money from the Koch brothers. Everybody knows that the Koch brothers are truly evil, unlike George Soros, who unrepentantly collaborated with the Nazis as a teenager, and everything with even a remote connection to them is therefore evil.

You obviously have never heard of the Amish, or of those who make money offering carriage rides.

Other posters address the issue of repair-ability. But I will point out that while computers (and related devices, such as Ipods) may soon be something that people rarely, if ever, upgrade (and therefore there is no significant market for making them upgradeable), that does not address the issue the poster you replied to made.
That poster asked the question, how does a "boutique" vendor compete once they have turned their product into a commodity? They are going to discover they have the same problem which Schick and Gillette have. They both spent a lot of time and money convincing men to buy disposable razors. Then they discovered that it was hard to compete when a razor was something someone bought and threw away after a week or two. They are now spending large amounts of money to convince people to buy their razors with replaceable blades.

That would make sense, except, why would you throw fish into a pond so that you can catch them again next year to eat them? It takes several years before a new born fish is large enough to eat. So, if you are stocking a pond you are either doing it with fish that are already large enough to eat (or close to it), or you are willing to wait a few years before you are expecting to catch them. BTW, if you want to suggest that your uncles would have thrown the ones they caught that were too small that year, to catch them again next year, they were taking a very large risk, since fish that small risk a significant fine if you are caught with them by the game commission.

The word "stocked" contains within it the connotation of being done intentionally. Since, the general theory about how fish get into a landlocked body of water is that from time to time some fish eggs stick to the legs of waterfowl and rinse off/hatch in a different body of water. I have never heard that referred to as being stocked.

Well, yes, that is certainly a possible (and I think likely) explanation. My point is that the evidence suggests that the lack of diversity the poster I replied to is likely NOT the result of the massive stocking program which he postulated.

You are missing my point. Some of these ponds were never stocked by anyone, yet they have fish in them. As I said, I know this because I know the people who built the ponds and continued to own the land the ponds were situated on when fish were found in them.