Thin keyboard covers, like those shipping with Surface, have been available for iPad for several years before Microsoft copied them.

Neither Hitler nor Stalin were socialists, they were both ruthless totalitarian dictators,

Hitler was democratically elected and made dictator of Germany by the mainstream, moderate democratic parties in Germany. German parliament was willing to do so because of a terrorist attack on German parliament on 27 Feb 1933 that they believed necessitated suspension of constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties and democratic government. So, Hitler didn't start out as a ruthless totalitarian dictator, German parliament gave him that power, voluntarily and democratically. It is eminently reasonable for Americans to worry about who we put in power lest the same thing happen to us.

They didn't disarm their people they gave them "inhumane" enemies, weapons, and 20 million graves.

Oh, but they did. Gun registration and tracing was required both in the 1928 and 1938 laws. Nazis restricted gun ownership to political allies and members of the Nazi party. And suspicion of gun law violations were used as a pretext to search and confiscate Jewish property. Guns in Nazi Germany were given to those with the right political views to oppress the rest of the population.

I see two problems in the US, the first is the overt and shrill propoganda coming from certain sections of the media, in a just society their manevolent lies would be a source of embarrasment but many people do exactly the opposite and swallow the ludicrous comparison of Bush/Obama to Hitler/Stalin

The fact that media are free to make such comparisons in the US tells you that the US press is not a propaganda tool, but instead reflects a wide range of views, even if many of them are ludicrous. That's the hallmark of a free press. If most of the opinions expressed in your mainstream newspapers seem reasonable, it's probably not a free press.

The second problem is the willingness of the US to lock up it's own citizens, it has the highest incarceration rate in the world, higher than China and 7X that of the EU

The US gives its citizens a lot of liberties, and when you give people more liberties, they'll commit more crimes. Where is the problem? Places like Libya and Syria have very low incarceration rates, but that doesn't make them free societies.

Fully how that inconvenient word "militia" tends to get ignored every time the 2nd amendment comes up and people seem to instead see it as a reset button.

The Second Amendment doesn't say: "you may keep and bear arms only as part of a militia", it says "you may keep and bear arms, (among many other possible reasons) because it's useful for a militia". In addition, nothing in the Bill of Rights grants you any new rights, it merely clarifies rights you already have under the Constitution. Since the US government hasn't been granted an explicit right to restrict individual ownership of guns anywhere in the Constitution, it doesn't have that right, Second Amendment or not. If you want laws to restrict individual ownership of guns, it's not just sufficient to argue that the Second Amendment is restrictive, you need to make a case that the US government actually has been granted that right by the people under the Constitution.

The thing that will prevent tyranny is an educated populace,

Like it or not, a large part of STEM education is education related to the ability to manufacture weapons and explosives. If you keep that kind of knowledge and skill from the populace, it is pretty much by definition not educated. That knowledge and skill is necessary for the population to evaluate political claims and to figure out whether the military is operating reasonably and effectively.

and the political faction most associated with the NRA is the same faction that is trying to gut education in this country.

No, not "gutting education" but gutting our current educational system and replacing it with something better because it's not working well. We're spending far more money than other nations on primary and secondary education and getting at best mediocre results. And our public education system and its curriculum has become an ideological battleground over religion, sexuality, history, and race where both the left and the right try to win over the hearts and minds of the next generation of voters. That needs to change.

But much of that is streaming video from a few sources; that's easy to recognize and eliminate as containing no interesting data.

Here's a link on Bangladesh: http://www.scidev.net/en/news/river-sediment-may-counter-bangladesh-sea-level-rise.html There are more recent studies and analyses. Go look for them yourself.

Extinction level event !=instant global explosion

Read the entire thread. The point is that climate change activists are making outrageous and scientifically unsupported claims.

No data?. A simple google search is all you need.

The pages you point to are wrong in claming that this increase in CO2 or temperature is "unprecedented". The fact is that nobody knows how fast climate has changed over most of earth's history because nothing records it at high resolution.

What you say is factually true but ignores the numbers that sea level is rising at an unprecedented rate. From wikipedia:

You're comparing the beliefs of conference participants with historical data to establish an increase in the rate of sea level rise; that isn't valid.

Please look at all the cities that will be under water if projections are correct.

Even at the unreasonably high estimate of 1 m / century from those conference participants, it would take 8000 years to reach the levels depicted in those videos. Not only is that an enormous time period, human civilizations have actually experienced more and faster sea level rise than that during the period of 12000 BC to 4000 BC.

So you admit global warming is happening? I guess your argument is indicative of the deniers and their flawed logic.

I'm not "denying" anything. I'm pointing out a whole bunch of bullshit that people like you falsely present as scientific fact.

Scientists have never said that there are no periods of global warming in the past. They have never said that the Earth will blow up if global warming occurs.

So-called experts like Hansen very much talk about "extinction level events" and Venus-like conditions. They are either lying or incompetent.

The current problem is that we are experiencing global warming now and we are most likely the cause.

If it's not harmful, what's the problem?

The second part is that the warming trend may be faster than flora and fauna to adapt. Climate change in the past has occurred at a much slower rate.

There is absolutely no data to support those statements. Nobody knows how fast climate change or CO2 level increases have occurred in the past, and nobody knows how fast ecosystems can adapt.

In the past as it will be in the future, climate change will cause major changes to ecosystems. This has serious ramifications to agriculture for example which will make life harder for the human population.

That is pure guesswork as well. It is just as reasonable to believe that rising temperatures will lead to a rapid expansion of arable lands, since temperature is one of the major limiting factors.

Sea level rise is another major issue. Historically humans have built population centers near oceans for transportation reasons. These population centers (Venice, New Orleans, New York, Sydney) will have to be relocated.

Sea levels have been rising steadily for the past 100 years. Has that forced us to "relocate" major population centers? Have New York City, Tokyo, or Los Angeles disappeared under the waves?And projecting into the future, theory suggests they can't rise much faster no matter how much we emit, and in practice, they show no signs of accelerating or following CO2 emission patterns. In addition, many coastal areas have been gaining land area, not losing, due to river sediment, and will continue to do so for a long time.

Yes but you can arbitrary chose the average or median trip from samples.

If the variation among how people drive is high, it doesn't matter what you pick, the measurements will always be inaccurate for most users.

An urban, non-urban split in the rating would be useful as well.

You mean like the EPA estimates already provide?

To answer your question: during the Eocene optimum, CO2 levels probably were 2000ppm. There was no mass extinction until the end of the Eocene, when temperatures started dropping. Mammals were thriving and greatly diversifying during the Eocene. The P-T extinction was due to other causes, since high CO2 levels and temperatures by themselves do not cause such extinctions.

Your analysis is just stupid because you wrongly assume that this can be measured "accurately". There are too many ways in which people drive, and any choice of a standard is arbitrary. The current standard actually matches driving around here quite well.

Of course, the most important "super" is "superluminal flight".

Whether those numbers represent a real world mix of driving accurately really doesn't matter all that much, since fuel economy for other driving styles strongly correlates with fuel economy for the conditions that are actually measured. Long term consistency, on the other hand, matters a great deal for car buyers and for evaluating progress on reducing emissions and consumption.