That you have a right to a "Jury of your peers" is a misunderstanding; it is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution. That concept was a British common law one, established by the Magna Carta, wherein nobles would be tried with a jury composed of nobles, and commoners with a jury of commoners. Since titles of nobility, etc. are blocked by U.S. Constitution, that means everyone is a "commoner", so everyone is your peer.
However, if I ever found myself being prosecuted, I would certainly much rather the jurors be composed largely of engineers and similar professions, but those tend to get booted during jury selection (lawyers don't like people who can see through their bullshit).
The deep ocean, where the clathrates are (because methane requires high pressure to hydrate in the midst of liquid water) really doesn't have much variation in temperature. Water, salt water included, is at it's densest at just a few degrees above it's freezing point, so you get an approximately constant temperature at the bottom (neglecting thermal vents and thin areas of crust, and the like). Tectonic/volcanic events are much more likely to release the stuff, and we don't have much control over that (okay, there is some debate about oil fracking, but that is land-based).
With respect to the "exponential system", the old "hockey stick" graph has been repeatedly shown to be false. Not to say there is no warming going on, but whether it's linear, exponential, or cyclic has yet to be proven. I'm more inclined to lean "cyclic" as there have been multiple ice ages and warming periods. Anyone know of any studies that have run Fourier Analysis/FFTs on climate data?
Spraying sulphur in the atmosphere in a warmed up Earth? Are they trying to recreate Hell?
"They" aren't, but the summary writer sure is.
The cost of a large smartphone is hidden by the contract. With a tablet you pay full price up front.
Unless of course, Verizon throws in a tablet for an extra $0.02 up front and $10/month on your data plan when all you went in to do was replace your 3.5 year old phone. Sold.
Maybe because white guys arent pointing the long guns at cops.
Mostly true, but more true is that when a white (or any race) guy with a gun points said gun at the cops and gets shot by the cops, other white guys with guns usually say, "Dumbass! What the hell was he thinking would happen!?! Better nominate him for a Darwin Award!"
This is neglecting now too frequent edge cases like "cops get warrant for wrong house, homeowner dies in ensuing firefight" or "child with obvious fake gun gets shot by police"
"I don't care if you go to Colorado and smoke pot, but it's still illegal here and if I catch you with it, I have to arrest you." Law enforcement officers I know are mixed on whether they think pot is okay or not, but they all agree that if you're caught with it, they can't just let you go.
But the police have argued all the way to the Supreme Court that "discretion" is a right of the cops, and they are *never* required to enforce any law.
I'm pretty sure the GP was speaking with officers working the beat, not the city police chief, county sheriff, or prosecutor, in whom that full discretion actually lies. "Don't let marijuana violators go, or else you lose your job" is pretty strong motivation to enforce.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion