Are you kidding? That would decimate the flying public!

That's an interesting point. I loathe the TSA, and their increasingly offensive gropings (now that I always decline their x-ray machines). But I'm trying to picture what I'd feel comfortable with as an airline traveler, on the spectrum from the current totalitarian overkill to no screening at all. Maybe bomb-residue sniffers and a check of luggage for guns?

I wouldn't hold my breath hoping for a worker-friendly, anti-Big Brother decision from the current Supreme Court.

I *am* on Facebook and Twitter, and I don't want either of them in my music player.

Ticketmaster wouldn't care, but the venue that makes its money from drink sales certainly would.

This is also why it makes me unhappy when people use "Time on Page" as a meaningful reporting statistic in Google Analytics.

You oversimplify. Facebook changes privacy policy for the worse, users complain, Facebook backs off (though rarely all the way) or offers (torturous and convoluted) ways to bypass new privacy violations.

I won't dispute the "base is full morons" point, but to say everyone there just whines to no effect is inaccurate.

In fact, the way Google Adwords works, some of those advertisers might think that bidding higher to move up in the list would help their dwindling click-through rates.

They might pay *more*.

I think I saw a movie about that. What was it, "Bloat and Re-Render"?

If you're talking about grass as the cattle feed, then that's *not* 1.5 tons of food. Not until I get those other three chambers installed in my stomach, anyway.

Or at least chosen a different string.

How can one accelerate and not be able to maintain speed at the same time? I think you may be confused on the definition of "accelerate".

Wouldn't normally be this pedantic, but when you start a thread out by calling someone else an idiot...

Just be sure to consult your molecular biologist if you experience a nanotechnological enhancement lasting more than four hours.

Says the user posting for the heck of it, on the site created for the heck of it back in the day...

The point that you seem to miss (or intentionally ignore) is that we're talking about climate variations within 100 years. If you put that into the 50 million year perspective, it will disappear in the graph. It doesn't disappear because nature has a lot more impact than human beings. It disappears because the 50-million year perspective is irrelevant to the human race as we know it today.

Meanwhile, your grandsons may visit what today is our coastline if they know how to scuba dive.

I'd certainly prefer a future where AGW is not a reality. But instead of just hoping for it and shout phony at it like you insist in doing with your blind defense of "freedom" (your freedom now, screw the rest), I prefer the idea of avoiding the worst case scenario by replacing insensitive development with a responsible one. It's not like it kills progress. It just demands a little more effort.