I started playing with Arduinos a couple of years ago. You ordered them by mail order at the time. Eventually Radio Shack started carrying them, which made it easier for anybody to pick one up (and while I live in Silicon Valley, if I needed a few resistors or LEDs or simple components to go with them, it was often easier to stop at Radio Shack than Fry's or mailorder.) Now they're fighting over the name, and Radio Shack is going out of business.

Of-course you are absolutely 100% correct, which was my first comment on this topic before the one you replied to. But my first comment appears to be extremely unpopular here.

Classic all-time backfires; much of the time, even trying to prove that it's okay to pollute is going to show the opposite, because duh.

The money is in agreeing with you. Big Oil and the like are happy to pay scientists for studies which say that they can continue raping our ma.

What they're trying to say, using the usual feminist sociology over-loquatiousness is:

For some on the planet, keeping it under 2 degrees will preserve a relatively familiar or at least acceptable quality of life.

For others on the planet, quality of life can only be preserved by keeping it under, say 1.5 degrees, or even one degree.

The first group (that can live with a higher threshold) are those in the upper portions of the global economic scale, and it's an acceptable rise for them because they can also afford technologies and tools (getting crude, say, air conditioners, new home materials, new kinds of agricultural output, etc.) that make a 2 degree rise tolerable.

The second group (that can't live at the 2 degree threshold, and really need a lower one) are going to tend to be in the lower portions of the global economic scale, who won't have access to the technologies and tools that make a 2 degree rise livable for those at the top of the scale.

Policymakers and scientists tend, by virtue of their privileged position, to be in the first group, and have thus set the 2 degree rise in connection with thinking of their own, best-case lifestyles, rather than—say—a member of one of the globe's largely impoverished equatorial populations without access to much in the way of resources, tools, or technologies already.

It's a good point: the effects are not uniform, and if 2 degrees is the upper bound for the people who are the globe's *most* comfortable, then it's probably a bad upper bound in general, because it will "cook" (even more than already occurs) those that are the *least* comfortable.

It was, however, bad language and clarity—which is a sin that social science commits far too often.

Their point is well taken:

Those technically ignorant are the ones having passive and active election rights and they are in majority, This means nothing has much changed except now NSA has to claim their programs are beneficial so that the colossal amount of money spent on them does not look like a incompetence or outright corruption.

me apology. Shocked to see it too.

I thought I'd never see you write those words. You are completely correct, of course..

The reason for the crushing of liberty is the cash cow. Profit first, politics later.

There is plenty of CEOs out there that could be president of US or some other country (not that they would notice anyway).

In case of thie flight, it would have helped if the captain had a code that would have opened the door regardless of it being locked from the inside. But then the copilot might have just killed him first, before diving the plane to the ground.

Ad campaigns are easily subverted. Case in point. If you're going to do something like that, you'd best be sure you're squeaky clean and that the public loves you. And if you're a souless corporation, the answer to both those questions is inevitably "no."

A $300 gopro recording to a $100 128GB MicroSD chip would add $150,000 to the cost of each plane and would be easily defeated with duct tape.

We are all pretty good at fighting yesterday's battles. This happened in Europe, but in the USA there was time people could fly with only a ticket and not any ID, they could bring their guns with them too. Now you cannot have a gun, the cockpits are locked with farely strong doors because everybody is scared of terrorists, they didn't even have an axe on board, just a crowbar. Apparently the captain tried breaking the door with a crowbar, I wonder if he tried breaking the wall beside the door. Flying is completely fucked up, TSA harasses you and then you don't know if a psychotic pilot will kill you anyway.

How about TRYING FREEDOM for a change? Bring your ticket, allow people to take their guns with them and keep axes on board while removing insane cockpit doors?

Sure, everything can still go wrong, at least you are not just a sardin in a can, hoping not to be eaten this time around.

JavaScript lets you run web applications on any platform that supports JavaScript. If developers are forced to make the applications native instead, they are likely to make the applications exclusive to a particular computing platform, which is not necessarily the platform that you happen to run. Does JavaScript use more energy than it costs to manufacture and run three different computers, each for an exclusive app?

Besides, a lot of these "managed" environments provide type safety guarantees. Preventing your data from being lost or disclosed due to a defect in a program can be worth more than the marginal cost of a managed environment.