That's a tautology, then. It's strictly true that, if you define "the scientifically literate world" as "places that [believe] climate change science", then all of the scientifically literate world believes* climate change science.

I'm not looking at all at how any particular state is taking steps (or not) to address climate change. That's highly variable and also is very sensitive to what you count as "taking steps". But I'm not concerned with that.

I was looking only at to what extent the population of a nation agrees with some of the most basic scientific facts about climate change.

By that definition, large chunks of the developed world, the US included, sits around 50%. There's another big cluster around 60-65%.

Which I guess doesn't include countries like the Netherlands or the UK.

Are you implying that the rest of the world, except for the US, is on board with current climate-change science? Because that's certainly not true.

No, things like molybdenum, tantalum, lanthanum, and platinum.

Also hydrogen, boron, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, neon, silicon, phosphorous, sulfur, chlorine, argon, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, arsenic, bromine, krypton, silver, tin, iodine, xenon, gold, mercury, lead, bismuth, astatine, radon.

In current usage and also in the Latin names for the elements, both -ium and -um are used frequently as endings for metallic elements.

No, just subpoena-able usage logs.

Higher than what?

I'll answer that for you. It's called high-fructose corn syrup because it has more fructose than the preexisting product "corn syrup" (from which it is made). Corn syrup is all glucose (and water), made by hydrolyzing corn starch. High-fructose corn syrup is made by using an isomerase enzyme to convert glucose to fructose.

This is true, and there are probably subtle metabolic effects between sucrose and a mixture of glucose and fructose. However, sucrose is not "sugar later". While it needs to be hydrolyzed into monosaccharides, that's a fast process. "Sugar later" is more like starch, which is a glucose chain that actually takes some time to digest.

Bound to? Not necessarily. "In the presence of?" Sure, often, but that's the difference between natural foods and processed foods. Soda is flavored sugar water without any of the other products that normally come along with sugar -- regardless of whether you make it with beet sugar, cane sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, or honey.

High-fructose corn syrup is a 1:1 solution of glucose and fructose (except for the 80-20 kind). You'll find 1:1 solutions of glucose and fructose in honey, figs, and grapes (yes, along with a bevy of non-sugar chemicals). It's corn starch that's processed by enzymes into sugars that you find everywhere in the natural world. Chemically speaking, there's nothing strange, sinister, or synthetic about it.

It's not a sugar, it's a non-sugar sweetener. Chemically, it's a glycoside, rather than a sugar.

It's real sugar. Here, they're making the distinction between "natural sugars" -- substances that are chemically sugars -- and "artificial sweeteners" -- sweet substances that contain no sugar compounds. (Artificial sweeteners might include some sugars, if they're indigestable. All of them have some feature that make them zero or low calorie -- like being extremely sweet per weight.)

HFCS is a ~50/50 mix of glucose and fructose. Both of those occur naturally. HFCS can be produced by natural means, even: corn starch plus the right enzymes. It's very close to the sugar composition of honey (minus the maltose) and is the same as invert sugar (hydrolyzed sucrose).

It's bad to eat a lot of it, but there's absolutely nothing interesting chemically about HFCS.

Inbound with Tor is not so bad, but it requires a two-machine setup that's nontrivial for a non-sysadmin to do correctly. Getting the server's outbound (new connections, not return traffic) to transit over Tor exclusively is less easy. Ideally, you don't make outbound connections from your server.

You know Silk Road actually used reCAPTCHA, yes?

That's a coy way of saying they were trying to do SQL injection and it didn't work.

In the course of trying to do SQLi, they generated a ton of different error message. The HTML source of one of the error message contained the server's real IP address. Pretty easy mistake to make if you unwisely put your hidden-service Web server and your Tor proxy on the same physical machine (thereby running your Web server on a device that has a public IP address).

Such a configuration might be necessary if, for example, your website integrates a third-party system (like a captcha) and that third party happens to block Tor traffic.

They're saying the server leaked its own IP address. Unless you've set up your system so that your Tor hidden server is on a computer not connected directly to the Internet and it connects to a physically-separate Tor node that blocks any network flows other than ones going over the Tor proxy, then any Tor hidden server also has a leakable IP address. A Web server error message (or embedded error message from a third-party service, for example), header, or other piece of data might then contain the server's IP address.

That's pretty thin information by itself. But if any part of your server is configured to listen on all network interfaces (instead of, say, localhost), then someone making an HTTP request to that IP address gets a page from your server. That's fairly damning evidence.

Yes, wireless network security, network service security, and wireless data coverage are all solid enough that this is a great idea and definitely could not be easily hacked.

Hardcoded credentials aren't necessary. What they *mean* is that the *reason* for hardcoded credentials is "support". "Necessary" here doesn't actually mean "necessary", but rather, "deemed to be the best choice". Of course, it might really be the best choice. There's certainly a cost associated with making the support more complicated. You have to weigh that against the difficulty of using the hardcoded credentials and what you can do with them. There are lots of potential tradeoff points, from "using hardcoded credentials was the stupidest choice you've ever made" to "it's technically offensive, but also the best option".

Doesn't require physical access. Firmware reprogramming is easily over-the-wire with many USB devices. It just requires logical access to the device. A computer running malware is a malicious third party with logical access to the USB device.

Yes, devices have updateable firmware. How is this a "sneakernet issue"? The firmware update does not cause Windows to install anything. Those are orthogonal features.