Not actually true. As part owner of a tree farm we've looked into carbon credits, etc. CO2 sequestration is highest in the first few years of growth and then gradually tapers off. You probably get more CO2 sequestered in the first 20 years than the next 80.

Problem is all the answers will be in board-feet.

Works for me.

These two posts are like reading a technical treatise written by Lewis Caroll.

At $45 a foot per cable.

If you're running Windows 8/8.1, why would even be running Netflix in a browser? The only time I run Netflix in a browser is when I'm on a Windows 7 machine, and even then, isn't Netflix running in a Silverlight plugin?

It goes a lot deeper than that. I am running software on a device I own. That software requests a resource from a remote service. After receiving it, the same software manipulates that resource in ways I have specifically asked it to in order to meet my needs.

The plaintiff's case is that they have a legal right to tell me how to view a resource once it's on a machine I own. Copyright etc. isn't involved; I'm consuming a properly licensed copy of the resource that they sent to me. I'm not distributing it, either in original or modified form.

There are already a million other ways I might modify that content today. I can apply my own CSS so that font sizes and contrast are to my liking. My web browser may actually be a speech synthesizer or braille reader. I may be viewing it on a mobile device that simply can't render it in its original form. But according to the plaintiffs, none of that matters: either I view it as originally intended or not at all.

If they're going to assert insane things like that, I suggest they form a W3C working group to publicize a standard way of describing what uses are acceptable for that content. Then my web browser could parse it, see "ADS_MAY_BE_REMOVED: FALSE", and give me a popup saying "This page is published by sociopaths. Continue?".

you can't make a statement such as "10% of them are green"....You don't seem to understand infinity is not simply a big number.

And you don't seem to have much of an imagination. Can't you think of a single formulation that would produce 10% green marbles in an infinite set?

What if we had a barrel that was infinitely deep, and filled with marbles in sequence: 9 red, 1 green, 9 red, 1 green...?

You're kind of obnoxious. This is /. - we all took math in university. This kind of pedantic crap is like arguing over "who" vs "whom" in any conversation not already centered on linguistics. It makes you feel smart, and no one cares.

No, I agree. If Feynmann can't follow their calculations, there's something largely amiss. Then again, that was a while ago and for all I know they might be making perfect sense now.

But I still contend that "it sounds like gibberish to laypeople" is a pretty low bar to set. It's almost impossible to describe something like QCD to non-phycisists without stopping twice a sentence - "well, not a literal color", "not 'up' like in 'gravity'", etc. - even at the high school textbook level.

In fairness, almost everything from high-energy physics sounds like gibberish to everyone but the people running the experiments.

Some individuals can sell themselves very well. That's why you find a lot of poorly qualified people with jobs they clearly don't deserve to have. Other people aren't too good at the whole job application process and convincing people they are the right one for the job. So they get passed over even if they have better actual skills. Seriously do you plan on hiring a candidate based on coding skill alone?

I too enjoy getting fired over stupid shit. Do you have any other suggestions I might try?

That's what you think.

People are talking about Mars One as if it was real! Even Star Citizen is more real than Mars One.

I'm not sure that logic plays through. Frankly, for Microsoft, the real problem is that damned few people really even consider Microsoft mobile products at all. They're a niche player, competing with BlackBerry for who will end up pushed right out of the market.

Imagine you're Microsoft, you're faced with the possibility that you will never, even if you heavily subsidized a mobile Windows product line, be able to make any significant headway into the iOS-Android hegemony. What would you do? If it was me, I'd quietly admit that I'm never going to be able to dominate mobile platforms the way I do desktops and portable computers, and I'd leverage what I had by opening up my software to more platforms.

This isn't even a revolutionary idea for Microsoft. They once owned their own *nix platform; Xenix. Windows NT itself was designed a hardware abstraction layer so it could be ported to multiple hardware platforms. But somewhere along the line Microsoft and the x86 computer manufacturers welded themselves together. I can't say it was a bad decision, as it made Microsoft and Intel absolute shitloads of money for a quarter century, but at the same time it seems to have frozen Microsoft in place. It became a one-trick pony, only able to envision itself in a world of Backoffice apps and OEM licensing. Now it's got to be nimble again, and as it has already effectively ceded a large portion of the computing products out there to Apple and Google, it's got to make the best it can with what it has.