You'll really like Windows 8, then, because the ribbon is implemented for File Explorer and the Common Dialogs, too.

Worked beautifully, hasn't it? It's all about Facebook letting stockholders and advertisers what they are doing to improve the value of the PRODUCT (a.k.a. "users") to maximize revenue. Outrage from the product only serves to prove its effectiveness.

Well what do you think they're counting on to pay the debt WITH, anyway?

Well, you failed, because that is not the libertarian argument, it's a straw man, especially the "economic islands" part. Libertarian ideas require and encourage greater social interaction among people, not less. It also makes use of empathy for others', it doesn't ignore it, but rather values it as a better motivator than coercion (higher levels of confiscation of the fruits of labor by force).

Well your self-appointed masters are. It was, I believe, the State Department that came up with the figure of $7.2 million as the value to the US for each citizen. I can't find the reference though.

Nor do we live in a hive socialist fantasy land, where everyone happily does his duty at the direction of an all-knowing benevolent dictator.

None of these statistics take into account the rate of attempted suicides. That would certainly be a factor. Using a gun the first time you decide to try to kill yourself, you're much more likely to succeed because guns are so efficient. Taking pills or cutting yourself, or even driving your car into a tree, can land you in a hospital and the people around you realize you try to off yourself and you just might get the help you need to keep you from trying again.

"He said suicide rates tend to be higher in states with higher gun ownership — not because gun owners are more likely to suffer from depression, but because guns are faster and deadlier than other methods such as drugs, carbon monoxide or hanging. People are more likely to survive an attempted overdose or even a hanging than they are a gun-shot wound."

Also from the CDC: "There is one suicide for every 25 attempted suicides."

Wow what a horrible research tool this is. They boil down some very complicated and typically nuanced issues into binary decisions. All outcomes from this are useless.

Bah! You called my explanation "baloney" and then you post THIS!?!? What a bunch of hokum. Paper airplanes don't generate lift - you're just describing resistance. A feather will "glide" even slower - are you going to claim it's generating lift too?

In a way, yes. The airplane wing is curved on the top, and flat on the bottom. The wind has to travel farther over the top of the wing than the bottom, meaning there is less air pressure on the top of the wing, more on the bottom, and that's what generates lift.

Excellent idea. Not sure that the insurance is really needed, the trick is simply to market the certification or auditor groups properly. IT PHBs just love Gartner. They'll quote their releases, follow their reports, and buy everything they say without question. So you need an organization like that on the software or software developer auditor side - Gartner does nothing like that. A similarly positioned organization could easily affect the stock prices or VP funding availability of any software seller, so it would be all the financial incentive those developers need.

Your ad-hominem was highly predictable. Try responding to the content, instead of looking for nefarious motives. It's a meta-study of other papers. It's well-referenced and you can go read all the papers they cite yourself.

The point is, there are MANY studies (go find your own citations, if you don't like mine) that show that the MWP was, indeed, a global phenomenon. I won't even try to explain why that's not widely reported, nor the entire history of scrubbing the episode out of the IPCC reports.

Thus my statement that you claimed it was nothing more than a big, expensive, academic exercise in etymology. Not really very credible. Sort of like claiming that geological studies funded by ExxonMobile are just neutral exercises to increase scientific understanding of earth processes.

Duh. Because no one outside the influence of that religion would look at that document and not see the implications of manipulation by media and NGOs.

Warmist A.K.A. anthropogenic global warming alarmist, engaged in evangelizing that religion and providing cover for the politicos using the issue for their own social agenda. The latter of which you have spent most of this thread doing. As well as the name-calling and shouting-down that other evangelists in your cult do a lot of lately.

You're really hung up on one simple typo, aren't you.

Typical warmist responses, of course. Name calling, shouting down, and ignoring facts obvious to everyone else, and denying all obvious attempts at social engineering as "misrepresentation".

Hmmm... let's see what they say:

We found that the term "global warming" is associated with greater public understanding, emotional engagement, and support for personal and national action than the term "climate change."

This report provides results from three studies that collectively find that global warming and climate change ... activate different sets of beliefs, feelings, and behaviors, as well as different degrees of urgency about the need to respond.

[global warming generates] A greater sense of personal threat, especially among women, the Greatest Generation, African-Americans, Hispanics, Democrats, Independents, Republicans, liberals and moderates

By contrast, the use of the term climate change appears to actually reduce issue engagement by Democrats, Independents, liberals, and moderates, as well as a variety of subgroups within American society

The first use of either term that respondents were exposed to was a measure of their positive or negative affect – feelings of good or bad – associated with the term they were given. We found that the two terms evoke different affective reactions by the public.

Well, I'm not sure where you get the idea that this is nothing more than an academic exercise in etymology of terms. You'd have to be a pretty naive to think this report won't be used by engagement groups to sway public opinion.