Pfff.

There is no appreciable atmospheric effect from co2 created by human activity. there is no appreciable heat effect from human co2 production. you are coupling where there is no such statement. human bodies handle excessive heat better than excessive cold. cold is more deadly than heat. there will be no 100ft sea rise. co2 levels rise and fall over time.The earth is far more resilient and self-correcting a system than you assume. People are nowhere near capable of destroying it.

CO2 is used by plants the way you use oxygen. First, the complaint was the predicted "population bomb" where there would be too many people for the Earth's resources. Then came "global warming" where human life overheats the planet. The solution? Lower CO2 so life dies. Brilliant. Here's another idea: More CO2 means more plants means more food means warmer earth means fewer human deaths from weather with less ability for a few people to control the food supply. So...more CO2 means more freedom for everyone on earth. The earth is a self-regulating enivronment. Outlawing food is a death cult.

Yup, a non-event. I was a missileer at a different base in the 1990s. We had something similar which was caused by an inspector crew who mistakenly screwed up their network credentials (for lack of a better term). The article describes the launch crews trying to "muscle up" their control over the noise then restarting the net, similar to removing power from a computer and givng the capacitors a little time to discharge. There are multiple redundant control and monitoring systems. Control was't lot, it just took a different form for a while as the crews restarted their network. The overwhelming majority of the time missile crew duty is as dull as you can possibly imagine while being conscious, punctuated by periods of extreme panic. The reality is that almost nothing happens, sort of like the Maytag repair man. Something like this gives 10 missileers text they can use on their yearly evaluations to document they accomplished something. Think about it, billions and billions of dollars were spent to create multiple layers of redundancy and security so that...nothing...will happen. The biggest challege a missileer has is not being bored. The systems really are that safe.

Hmmm...well...that's more interesting than I first thought. One way to view this is the FTC is trying to prevent selling of assets because there was a privacy clause? I guess they'd pursue this as fraud?

That's irrelevant. The information is an asset and they aren't free to dispose of the assets.

Addresses are not private property, even if the road and all surrounding land are private property. Addresses are a function of license to use the road which comes from the government.

It's similar to the way a font can be copyrihted but IP ownership of letters, themselves, is impossible.

Another day, another Kosian post on Slashdot.

You can't sell what isn't yours to sell. Period.

No story here. Oh, it's about gays or computers or ...

This is the year 2010. The novelty of being gay or involving computers is so Carter administration.

"...can be taken advantage of."

should be something like,

"can be exploited."

Yes, the OP is a fool. Trees are plants which are FARMED.

A car sitting in a barn will rot. There are very few truly inert, physically stable substances. The overwhelming majority of components are constantly on and working. Guidance, communication and status monitoring are constant. ICBM and sub systems are fully powered all the time, ready to go in constant communication with the command structures. Bombs are similar, even when they're in storage. Even solid propellant is subject to constant structural testing. At least, this is true for the US stuff. Maybe a lot of Com Bloc stuff would fizzle. An interesitng tidbit of history: the US uses Ruskie nuke weapon components as fuel in power plants, the Ruskie's bought lots of our outdated battery systems.

SALT was an agreement with the Soviet Union. Since they don't exist, it doesn't apply any more.

There was also SALT II, not to be confused either Ice 9 or Vanilla Ice...

My background: ex-ICBM launch officer and part of a team which designed some support equipment

My comment: Bingo. The issue isn't so much the warhead "baby", it's everything else which helps it go boom when, where how, and under whose authority it should go boom.

Almost every device becomes inefficient over time. Material stress, physical degradation and decreased efficiency over time are why you don't see many automobiles manufactured in 1947 still being used as daily transportation. The same applies to supersonic air delivery systems and support equipment.

Intellectually simplistic or downright stupid comments such as the ones which claim we have X number of nukes needed to destroy all life on the planet are lazy and/or suicidal. The same could be said about salt as the US possess far more salt than is necessary to kill every mammal on the planet many times over.

Uhh...Capitalization is a standard grammatical form of EMPHASIS. (You DO realize that your first straw man sentence fragment is grammatically incorrect, don't you?)

The post to which I replied included the lunatic idea that forestry is based on clearcutting, not farming. That was the whole point. Duh.

It's your responsibility to educate yourself with fact, not mine. Ignorance on your part does not create a work requirement on my part.

Almost all non-plant life exhales CO2. Rotting bio creates CO2. CO2 seeps from the Earth itself. Look at percentages of components of the atmosphere for "greenhouse gases" then look at percentage of CO2 created by what you call the "energy sector". You are either disingenuous or confusing size with scale.

It's also irrelevant as the Earth's aggregate temperature is controlled by the Sun, is dynamic and buffered by a constantly changing atmospheric mix. We've been experiencing the typical relatively short warm period between ice ages. Do a little research on your own. Learn to fish, don't beg for one.

The last statement you make is either a second straw man directed at my comments or illustrates a complete ignorance of basic facts on your part.

"not clear cutting for land development, wood, and paper."
You're as much a "scientist" as I am a concert pianist! More likely you've proclaimed yourself such to add false authority to your post.

"clear cutting" for land development is a requirement of land development. First you remove the vegetation, then you move the dirt into the shape you want, then you build whatever, then you plant on the remaining soil. This is why roads are straight.

Geez, THERE'S an idea! New plants can be grown! Didn't think about that, did you?

"clear cutting" for wood, and paper" - grammatically incorrect but that's nitpicking.

Trees are plants. Forestry is farming. Got it? The idea that evil loggers cut down trees and leave the land bare is...a myth. In North America, for example, there are more tress now than when the country was founded. Why? Because it's a farm crop. The most cost efficient way to HARVEST the CROP plant is to HARVEST the CROP plant then reuse the land. Farming trees for wood isn't like chasing whales around the ocean. Trees are just as much a farm crop as a plant that goes through a complete growth cycle in less than a year. Clear cutting is NOT how trees for wood and paper are harvested. A little research on your part before you make ignorant comments would help you appear less foolish.

Lastly, you are woefully incorrect about the source of CO2 in the environment. Human creation of CO2 through fossil fuel consumption is minimal compared to that created by the ecosystem. CO2 is good. It keeps the planet warm (cold is more deadly than heat) and helps photosynthesis. CO2 is also a minimaly influential greenhouse gas. Water vapor has far more effect.

No, this isn't flamebait, it's a direct insult.

Any fool who asks for a future historical perspective deserves disdain. Anyone who asks it in regard to predictive activities, doubly so.

Any fool who asks for the impossible (historical knowledge before the events occur) as a means to predict the relevance of fortunetelling...may as well invest in Bernie's fund.

...and is especially brilliant in asking for future history...

"Will the so-called 'quants' still be wanted by the banks and other financial institutions, or will they turn to more 'non-math' approaches?"

What's the matter, Brainiac? Can't come up with the odds? Forgot how to interpret tea leaves? Perhaps you should study the distribution of chicken bones thrown into dust...