The point is that, in both cases, the sender/content provider has already paid. If there's an additional cost to transmitting the content across a boundary (different country or different peering service), then in both cases that has already been factored into the cost of sending it, and paid to the local provider (post office or ISP).

By Comcast's reasoning, the parcel sender should also expect a bill from any countries the parcel travels through, despite paying the full postage when sending. If Comcast wants more money for transmitting content, they need to take it up with their neighbour peering providers, not with the content producers or consumers.

It's certainly not hard to see imperfections in a 4K picture, let alone "mathematically and scientifically impossible". Most obviously, you can simply lean closer, and you will see pixels. All claims to "invisible pixels" assume you're at least a given distance away, with average sight.

High contrast makes pixels more visible; anti-aliasing can smooth that, though if not done carefully (with good hinting) it can make font edges look softer. ClearType can also help, though also at a cost of a slight coloured fringing. More resolution definitely helps, as does just leaning back a little.

Then there's all the other ways pictures can look bad. Video compression can introduce blockiness, ringing, and other artefacts that are clearly visible even at 4K. Grain, noise, poor filters etc add their own problems, or exacerbate others. Colour and frame rates differences can cause obvious effects, or a much more subtle sense that something is not right; all of which can make a display look less than gorgeous, despite their resolution - and it can often take practice and experience to spot exactly what the problem is.

From the Chrome Developer page:

1. Unzip the .crx file
2. Go to chrome://extensions
3. Tick on Developer Mode
4. Click Load Unpacked Extension...
5. Select and install.

I'm sure it was considered (it's a fairly obvious approach after all), but I really doubt that streaming live video to a radio receiver+H.264 decoder for a few seconds uses much less power than popping up a card with an SoC and keeping it there. Then there's the issues of bandwidth, range, responsiveness, reliability, battery drain on your phone as well, and your phone having to be in range to do *anything* as opposed to just transferring the occasional notification or GPS co-ord.

[Citation needed]

It's got graphs! It must be true!!1!

Oh, I completely agree that human fire suppression policies have contributed by increasing fuel load (I live in Australia; the subject comes up frequently here). This is definitely a significant factor.

That does not mean that climate is not also a factor, or even that climate is not the dominant factor. See my sibling post for links to relevant studies.

Heh, now you accuse me of not providing links to support the claims I didn't make :-)

But if you like. A couple of studies (of many) predicting increases in wildfires due to climate change:

* Gonzalez et al 2010: Global patterns in the vulnerability of ecosystems to vegetation shifts due to climate change

* Moritz et al 2012: Climate change and disruptions to global fire activity

And a study (one of many) showing that climate is the dominant factor in the size of the wildfires we've been seeing:

* Littell et al 2009 Climate and wildfire area burned in western US ecoprovinces:

By contrast, Mr Watts' "facts" are also nothing more than unsubstantiated declarations and assumptions, just like yours. A few random examples from your link:

* "This [CO2] percentage increase means nothing. Human CO2 emissions didn’t begin to rise significantly until after 1945": Keyword is 'significantly' - he claims the rise is not significant, but provides no justifications for this assumption, other than that the atmospheric percentage is "about as close to nothing as you can get" (it's a really small-looking number). No citations given.

* "...there is no way that this miniscule amount [of atmospheric CO2] can have any significant effect on climate." Another unsubstantiated declaration in his "facts" list. No citations given for this claim.

* "CO2 also lags short-term warming [historical graph] showing that warming causes rise in CO2, not the other way around if CO2 was the cause." - Incorrectly assumes that CO2 must either be a cause or an effect, but could never be both. No citations given for this "fact", either.

* "...global climate marches in lock step with sun spots, length of the sun spot cycle, and intensity of the solar magnetic field... total solar insolation (TSI) correlates very well with climate". Once more, he just claims this as a fact, with (wait for it) no citations given.

* "HadCRUT4 temperature curve showing that 56% of the warming since 1895 occurred prior to 1945"... according to his arbitrarily-drawn red lines. The HadCRUT4 temperature graph may well be accurate, but (of course) he provides no citation for any peer-reviewed source for his claimed "56% of warming" cut-off point (looks to me like the red line that claims to show this is just drawn to the peak of the biggest short-term fluctuation he can find, without regard to averages or trends or anything).

I could easily go on, but I have work to do. If Watts' unbacked assertions are what you consider "facts", then it's no wonder you usually don't bother to link to them.

So says the guy who hasn't read the study and has no idea what the climatologists are actually saying.

Sure. Look at the IPCC AR5 WGII report, it discusses benefits as well as costs.

It's just that the costs and risks appear to greatly outweigh the benefits, or the benefits are long-term enough that the short-term costs of adaption will outweigh them for a very long time.

Love how your claims are "truth" by simple declaration, and others' are of course merely claims, even when they're agreeing with a peer-reviewed study.

Why don't you try and rebut the actual study, if you're so sure it's wrong? Or at least attempt toprovide a modicum of evidence to make your own claims look a little less like yet another soapbox rant.

News to me.

IPCC AR5 WGII Summary for Policy Makers, emphasis mine. So yeah, there are recognised positive effects, they're just outweighed by the many negative effects. Sorry the news wasn't better, but there you go.

It's easy to make actual historical data support your view when you quote it so selectively.

* The very first link, for example, not only hides all the warming before his carefully-chosen 1998 cutoff year, but also fails to mention the continued warming in ocean temperatures (where most of the energy ends up).

* The next link doesn't even have a source for his data.

* We are then told about a single data point (2014) in a single metric (arctic sea ice area) as if it's supposed to be particularly significant

* And finally a single paragraph from a single local newspaper from 1974, apparently intended to represent the alleged global scientific viewpoint of the times, and a quote from a single meteorologist admitting he doesn't know how climatologists can predict climate.

I honestly have no idea why you think this is convincing. It's no wonder he's never produced any peer-reviewed papers; the reviewers would tear his methodology to shreds.

Official NASA site - has video as well as current position.

Grey for me right now, which presumably means the ISS is out of signal. Perhaps better in 15 mins when it passes over Japan..