You keep changing your arguments to suit your goal.

The original statement was that thanks to Hulu/Netflix etc there is no longer need to pirate. This statement is untrue, except to some extent for USA where such services are widespread and cheap.

I don't complain to local content companies. I don't need to. I stopped consuming most of the content out there (TV series and shows, movies, games) as I don't find them attractive.

I'm glad you find USA TV/movies/games to work best for you. Don't worry, if there is a good movie/series from another country it will likely be remade as a USA production. Those offensive boobs will be removed, and a lot of gratitious violence (or extended interrogation) will be added instead.

TPB is not about USA-made content, it's about any content. If a service wants to replace piracy, it would need to provide similar content, which Hulu/Netflix/etc don't.

Hulu/Netflix/etc are not about USA-made content either. They have content from other countries, wherever rights could be obtained. Regional restriction is due to content rights, not due to content itself.

TPB provides you (illegally) any content anywhere.

Hulu/Netflix provide you (legally) certain content (that they have right to) in USA (where they have content rights) and a few other countries. This is a large restriction.

Now biting the troll: other places do make good shows/films/games.

Hulu:

Netflix lie:

Those offers are still strongly territory-limited (won't stream outside USA and maybe a few other countries) and not available globally. I agree that such services with relatively low fees provide convenience and can alleviate the need for torrenting, but it's still a long way from pushing it out of the internet.

Private car use is just a tiny part of oil use, although the only many people you see directly. Public communication is largely based on oil as well, but it's still not the point.

Even if you decide to use own muscle power for moving around, there is a bigger problem, especially in large cities - practically all goods are nowadays delivered to shops via road transport. Most important - food. Unless you can find a food source that is not transported by car into the city, you are still pretty much oil dependent.

RTFA.

UK team researched it TOGETHER with Polish team. TFA mentiones both teams, and two leading doctors, one in UK, one in Poland.

Polish team performed the actual transplantation (practical part). It was led by a Polish doctor.

It's $%&^ Enigma all over again, "solved" by British who conveniently forgot it was Polish team who solved it first.

Why not simply get a multi-SIM contract? You pay for just one common data contract, but can use multiple (up to 3..5) SIMs that seamlessly share this contract. Easier to manage, easier to use, perfect when you want to rely on data transmission for multiple devices, as in your case.

n/t

I still think it is a separate matter in this context.

Your question is a good one :-)

Thank you for information, switching to gas would explain a lot.

I wonder whether this switch was caused by a policy (gas is "green") or economy (gas is cheaper). If the latter (which I suspect is true), this is still a side-effect of the economical situation, not a conscious decision.

Coal is widely available in countries like Germany or China, while USA has pretty much every resource you can think of. Basing local economy on what is most economically viable is capitalism rather than eco-friendliness. Good example is fracking, less CO2 but much more toxic substances in the ground.

By pushing against coal some countries also try to enforce a different thing on the other countries - when those limit using coal, they need to import gas (or other resources) from somewhere, at higher price than coal. Money flows elsewhere. Increasing gas consumption in Europe is just a tad difficult in current situation with Russia, which doesn't help with reductions.

Again, I suspect Obama is more motivated by economical implications rather than "eco".

Pity that atomic energy has earned such a bad label.

For sure this is more complex as you wrote, and economic situation must have had more persistent results than can be recovered by economy picking up. Moving factories/production outside of USA is one such factor - this is not simply coming back when things get better, unless there is a major incentive for that.

It would be interesting to learn what's behind statistics.

USA seemed to be most impacted with economic side of the things, other countries failed on political side - actual implementation of various measures.

This just shows how disjoint those things are from reality.

That is a separate matter.

I'm not 100% convinced that all those actions (such as Kyoto Protocol) make sense. This doesn't change the situation with USA - they either think reduction is important, and should act (which they don't) or think it's not important and don't lecture other nations.

Note - I am not upset, I point out inconsistency (and to certain extent hypocrisy) of what Obama does.

No, I did not write that.

I wrote that accidentally meeting Kyoto requirements due to economy crash is not the intention of the protocol. Intention is a continued, ongoing, planned reduction down to the goals over multiple years.

USA didn't care about Kyoto protocol and did not introduce a program that would continuously work towards that goal. It still doesn't have plan, and did not change their approach after accidentally meeting the goals.

It's like comparing two sportsmen.
One is training and keeps getting better results. He will continue to get good results in coming years.
The other neglects everything, but in one competition, by accident, he reached the same result as the first one. Sadly he is not training, and this was just a one-off performance without any stable background.

There was absolutely no planning and no real work behind this.

Reduction resulted mainly from economic crash in 2008, and resulting lower production (=lower emissions). Kyoto goal has been reached by accident, not intentionally, and not in a stable way. When economy picks up and production increases, emissions will go back to previous levels.

Accidentally meeting Kyoto requirement is NOT the same as actively working on it.

Boasting this "achievement" is more like saying "he is a good guy, because today he did not hit his wife as he always does."

The problem is not that YOU can overcome car limitations.
The problem is that OTHERS will not - all those lowest-common-denominator- people who will be told that this is a self-driving car will expect it to self-drive in all conditions.

If you don't think it's real, just read stories of how "GPS crashed a car" because some of the lowest-common-denominator drivers switched off their brains and just drove car into a river or off a cliff.
Just wait until a drunk sues car manufacturer because their car crashed or stopped in a middle of road instead of parking safely. Since those cars are going to first appear in USA, their usage will be dictated by famous USA lawyers based on experience of the least smart drivers, not those who understand what such a car can or cannot do.

On a pure technical front what Google does is a technical advancement, but it's not going to be a universal solution. Especially not when advertised as a car that drives itself.