"1. weapons and ammunition; armaments."

They're the same word. There is no difference between "armaments" and "arms" when referring to weapons.

They were referred to as "Arms" by such entities as the United States and the Soviet Union when they signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. It's the common noun used when discussing things such as the Nuclear Arms race. Of the two, I'd say "Nuclear Armaments" is less used. "Nuclear Weapons" is probably more common than either of those.

I can't bear a cannon, but I can have it pulled by a horse. You noted yourself that they were accepted and protected by the Second Amendment at the time the Constitution was written, and they would have been amongst the most destructive weapons known at the time. The context around it was that each township needed their own militia to protect against attacks as it could take weeks or even months for word of such an event to reach any central location. It was also in there because they felt they needed to be able to fight the government's army on equal terms should it ever be necessary again.

It isn't reductio ad absurdum, as your examples are. It is accepting the definition of the word. "Nuclear Arms" are, by definition, "Arms", and the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed. If you're ok with infringing on that right in this case, you're bickering over where to draw the line between "arms you're allowed to keep and bear" and "arms you're not allowed to keep and bear."

The second amendment is not about self-defense against individuals, it is about self-defense against larger groups, either foreign armies (at the time, there was no national army, and even if there was it was weeks or even months before news of an attack would reach them and months more before they'd be able to respond), or roving bands of bandits and such.

P.S. A fully crewed man'o'war would comprise several arms (each cannon is a single armament, and cannons were and still are definitely covered by the Second Amendment). The ship itself, and the individual weapons on it, would certainly have been something a private citizen could own if they chose to do so.

I often find introducing the high-end of armaments appropriate. Is a nuclear weapon an armament? Does the government have laws that infringe upon the right of citizens to keep and bear it? Do you believe those regulations are Constitutional? If you answer "Yes" to all of those, then there's already a line, and you're just bickering over where the line goes -- we've already given up the protections of the Second Amendment. If you answer "No" to either of the first two, I'm usually confused. If you answer "No" to just the last one, you're at least consistent in your position.

They still have it (ShopSafe), at least for my card. It's about the only reason I still use them. Always interesting to say how many official account names some companies have when buying from slightly different parts of their system (each requiring a separate card).

Stop-and-go traffic on freeway + automatic stop engine, same as covering the "idling at intersection". I once had a car that stalled out randomly sometimes - I had to restart it on the freeway once (dropped to neutral and got it running without too much loss of speed). No one needs to be lying.

Nope -- no lift necessary. When you add 2*pi*(additional radius desired) to the circumference, it raises it by that amount all the way around the planet.

It's basic math: Circumference is 2*pi*r, so adding delta_r to the radius, you have 2*pi*(r+delta_r), or 2*pi*r + 2*pi*delta_r. 2*pi*r is what was already there, so you only need to add 2*pi*delta_r (in this case, delta_r is 1 poodle of height) to the circumference.

"You will arrive in 5 minutes... 8 hours... 20 seconds... 92 years... 23 minutes... 18 days..."

So you're saying we'll run out of all known sources of fossil fuels fairly soon (even assuming a linear instead of geometric or exponential rise, that's ~25 years to reach 550 ppm and completely exhausting all known reserves), and should therefore move to other technologies as soon as possible to ensure a smooth transition. So without regard for whether the climate is changing or not, the results of pursuing policies which have tended to originate from the climate change movement and that would cap (and eventually end) the use of fossil fuels is a good thing.

You also have a lot of fresh water being added to the oceans around Antarctica due to the land ice melting. That brings down the salinity, and reduces the effects of freezing point depression. That sea ice forms at a higher temperature than it used to, so while the temperature is up a little, the freezing point is up more, hence more sea ice even with higher temperatures.

No, but one is a mix of land and sea ice, and one is entirely sea ice. Note here that the one that is increasing is increasing because the Antarctic land ice is melting. That adds a lot of fresh water to the ocean around Antarctica, so it freezes at a higher temperature. Temperature is up a little, but the freezing point is up much higher, so the sea ice is forming more easily. Look up Freezing Point Depression to understand the science behind this.

It is proof of increased temperature if you understand the scientific principles involved. The sea ice extent is increasing because the Antarctic land ice is melting. That adds a lot of fresh water to the ocean around Antarctica, so it freezes at a higher temperature. Temperature is up a little, but the freezing point is up much higher, so the sea ice is forming more easily and further out in the winter. Look up Freezing Point Depression to understand the science behind this.

"North Polar ice cap" is not "Antarctic sea ice". Wrong side of the planet. Note here that the one that is increasing is increasing because the Antarctic land ice is melting. That adds a lot of fresh water to the ocean around Antarctica, so it freezes at a higher temperature. Temperature is up a little, but the freezing point is up much higher, so the sea ice is forming more easily. Look up Freezing Point Depression to understand the science behind this.

Peak Demand is typically the middle of the work day (between ~8AM and ~8PM). Running the A/C for all those office buildings, keeping the factory lines running, and so on. For example, for running this factory. That sounds like an ideal time set for Solar usage to me. So your "production is highest when demand is lowest" is obviously false. A few specific climates with harsh winters will seasonally have increased night-time usage, but it's pretty rare.

Also, Geothermal is solid steady production for base load, and Hydro is good for both on-demand and (with pumps) for storage.

I don't think they're being daft, just informed. There really are laws preventing good urban development and encouraging suburban sprawl. Heck, AAA used to (and might still - I haven't checked up on it in a few years) lobby for suburban sprawl, and against urban planning, public transit, and other such measures. There's a lot of legislation around making it much harder to build up instead of out.