That's true, but misleading in this context. Diesel fuel is denser than unleaded gasoline, and is more fuel efficient overall. Diesel releases less greenhouse gas for the distance traveled. This is because the increased emissions — which are about 15% higher — are more than offset by the increased fuel efficiency of diesel fuel engines — which are about 30% more efficient on average.

Greek Democracy... so now you're advocating slavery?

Why should he provide citations for demographic data that can easily be found via google? http://www.google.com/search?q=worl+religion+demographics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=iceweasel-a

Star Trek was filled with goofy little inconsistencies like that. For example, they could regrow kidneys, but couldn't cure Picard's baldness. Some failing component of 7 of 9 couldn't be replicated yet they had no problems sending her through a transporter. Etc.

For those of you complaining about the jerky video: STFU!

For those of you saying it isn't practical: So What!

I want to take my hat off to these dudes and give them a hearty round of applause and say "Great job guys!"

My point here is these guys had a vision, that led to an idea, that lead to an exparament where a couple of pretty normal folks did something extrodinary. It is the same kind of curiosity that Ben Franklin had when he flew the kite and "discovered" electricity.

Those of you who have offered criticisim, I ask you to reply to this post and tell me what you have done without backing that approximates or bests their very cool accomplishment.

Those of you who have a vision share it, maybe someone will help you make it an idea so, I invite you to share your vision.

For those of you who have an idea, share it and maybe someone will help you make it real.

We don't need government, business, or universities to make the world a better place; just a few ordinary folks who try to do extrodinary things!

Those of you who think this is just very cool, use this thread to virtually offer your applause and (real) encouraging comments!

The argument was never discredited, only the application of the argument. We could fire all of our nukes into the sun, with no noticeable, not to mention ill, effects. It's the same argument, still being applied correctly.
Heavy or organic pollutants which radically alter metabolism, and heat, are two completely different things. One can kill a lot of stuff in small quantities, the other is pumped in by the sun, all the time, and is considered part of the status quo.
You can kill all of the bacteria in a pot of water by adding a couple drops of bleach, but you have to add a huge amount of energy to achieve the same effect.

(I worry that you barely read my post, because I did prefix that statement with "when it comes to energy" specifically to keep you from wasting a line on mentioning something like interplanetary travel =/ )

When I said "human scale" I meant, "within human capacity to change." Right now, we could (and have) overheat medium-sized lakes with our coal, nuclear, "hot" power plants. We overcool other bodies of water with the reservoirs of hydroelectric power plants. Chemically, we can take out small to medium-sized ecosystems, physically, we can chop down, drain, or otherwise displace bigger ones. But heat? Even if we dedicated the whole of human activity to (directly*) heating the oceans, we'd be completely incapable of making a dent.

This post makes the basic point rather vividly: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1376893&cid=29497453
5.6*10^24J is not the kind of energy humans, as a species, can hope to move from the land to the sea. And that's for 1 degree.
As it stands, our current means of cooling uses the atmosphere, in a less-efficient process. As the same post mentions, the atmosphere is less massive and has a much lower specific heat. If you're worried about screwing up the environment, using ocean-based cooling is exactly the kind of thing you'd be into, as it is more efficient, and is placed into a system that is very capable of dealing with it.

*Directly, as in the thermal result of combustion or electrical resistance (or giant orbital doom-mirrors), as, indirectly, chemically, it appears to be very much within our capacity (read: atmospheric hydrocarbons.)

While they don't publish all of the data, there is a video (about an hour long) that they posted to MSDN that introduces the Ribbon and all of the variations that went into creating it.

In one particular scene, they show data collected from one week's use of most Office 2003 apps. In the video they've ranked all of the features used in Word, Outlook, etc, by number of times used.

In Word, the most commonly accessed feature was Paste. In today's ribbon, where do you see paste? It's the very first icon on the Home tab.

I train people on Microsoft Office for a living. Everyone I've trained on Office 2007 has said how much easier it is to use than 2003. Hunting for common options is no longer a common activity.

There comes a point where a program becomes so complicated, menus don't cut it. The ribbon solves that problem beautifully, and Office 2010 refines it even further.

I have a great health care system for your "distopian, post-apaocalyptic, post-industrial state". I call it the pointy rock on a stick. Should protect my health from most of the more pressing dangers in that scenario. If we want to get really fancy I might be able to muster us up some fire, as well.

Just as more context as I couldn't believe it myself : https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Sprints/Windows_Theme_Revamp/Direction_and_Feedback#Hiding_of_the_Menubar However this is a dumb move ... For me, the ribbon bar is a non-intuitive piece of eye-candy which does not serve any purpose other than to assist in confusion. Then again - I'm old school.

Thank you! You've restored my faith in humanity. I was frightened, but these uses actually require massive compute power. Rock on!