I paid for virtual machine software for the Mac to run Windows XP and 7. I did not want to reboot. I switched to virtual box not because it was free, but because I felt it was better. I have not needed to run windows for a couple years, so I do not know what the current state of development is in the market, but VirtualBox would be my initial choice if I needed a VM. One data point. For the modeling software I was using on Windows 7, Parallels made my machine run much hotter.

So all those US cities with joke internet options are what, exactly? Your logic isn't just wrong, it doesn't even exist!

It's not 23% of your income. It's under 0.05% of the GDP. You do realise that you eat food, right? You do realise that climate change will drastically affect our agriculture industries, reducing crop production and moving suitable ground away from the people who are capable of farming it (and that's the best-case scenario - the worst case is the climate suitable for raising the crops we need will be in places which have the worst soil for it).

Your ignorance is staggering, and the fact you seem happy with it is bewildering. You deserve the future you get.

Mommy issues? Is that your problem? Or were you laughed at by some women? There has to be something to make someone so hell-bent on kicking up a stink about acting like a decent human being...

Who pays for the study doesn't matter. The methodology matters. Like that guy hired by the Koch brothers to show AGW doesn't exist, and ended up finding quite the opposite.

You can try to find excuses for all the research which says your held beliefs are wrong, but if the evidence says they're wrong, they're wrong. Get over yourself.

It's such a big company it's in plural.

And yet these facts are rarely seen, I wonder why. And why aren't the words, "government-funded" used to describe the scientists who accept/promote all the CAGW dogma?

That is an incredible display of clutching at straws! Good work!

It doesn't have to be done over the entire country at once - a card can have a mag stripe and a chip at the same time. So why haven't the changes been made state-by-state? Your excuses are incredibly weak.

And with Flash, which has active exploits running around...

The first question that popped into my mind was did they have a new model that would take data from 100 satellites and produce a more accurate forecast. I don't think that satellites alone are not going to create a more accurate forecast. This reminds me when I was talking to a teacher back in the 80's. He mentioned that at one point it was believed that if we could create a dense enough network of satellites and sensors, we could forecast the weather with great accuracy and for arbitrarily long periods. Theoretically, given an infinite array of sensors, the forecast would be perfect and long range. But then actual science interfered as the work of Lorentz propagated through the ranks. The sensitivity to initial conditions, and the inherent limitations of data collection, made such claims of better forecasting theoretically impossible. I have to think that the current configuration of satellites represents some compromise between cost and benefit. Not to say that more satellites will not provide a benefit. Whoever contracts with the service will be able to claim 'We have better forecasting because we have more satellites', which will help with marketing. It will help push forward the cubesat business and will test out these new technologies, which is of great benefit. And it is an experiment that might succeed in producing useful data that might be able to be put into better models.

Aww! So cute! Size has nothing to do with it - Europe is larger than the US, contains more people, and contains many places with a far greater quality of life. Hint: money is no measure of quality of life. You'd know that if you read.

Keep telling yourself that and see just how long your decrepit infrastructure lasts. Every single country has legacy systems, so clearly that is not an excuse. That only makes sense if you truly believe the US is some wonderland of technology the rest of the world has only recently adopted, which is such an absurd notion it defies belief someone can actually hold it in the 21st century, when information which dispels said notion in seconds is available at the click of a mouse button.

You're not special.

That problem is in your head. The rest of us folks simply understand that they're describing the method.

It is costing them resources to serve up content you obviously want to see (hence you being there in the first place), yet you can't see that? I think the problem here lies more in your brain than in the advertising of the sites you visit. If the advertising offends you so much, don't visit their site. That simple.