No as was already pointed out, North America is a continent, South America is a differnet continent and Central America is a region where the two connect.

Rather "Central America" is the southern part of "North America".

Yeah, and how hard is it to divide 22 by 7 with a twig in the dirt, "Mr. Mathematician"? That's also an acceptable approximation of Pi that is 4.0249943477E-2 percent off the "true value".

Or memorise 3.1419 or 3.142...

http://www.homepower.com/articles/wind-power/design-installation/ask-experts-car-alternator-wind-turbine "A car alternator is a bad choice for a wind generator. The efficiency in normal use is never more than about 60 percent."

Wind is a poor way to generate electricity in the first place. Since the available power varies randomly. Even the most primative of steam engines would be a better choice.

Or they could do the sane thing and move their employees off of decade-old hardware.

Presumably you won't be boarding a bus, train or commercial flight then :)

Windows 7 has been hands-down more solid and stable. In the 4.5 years I have been running it, on 5 PCs, I can count the number of BSODs I've had on one hand -- and those are typically attributable to unstable, unsigned device drivers.

5 PCs is no kind of "enterprise" setup. There's also no way to directly upgrade from XP to 7. The only way is a reinstall then finding out which applications still work with 7. Worst case senario being applications which install without any obvious issues, start up apparently fine, but certain functionional is either missing or different. Or maybe applications need to be "upgraded" with the new version being functionally different.

It is like if you buy a car from a Toyota dealership. It comes with a 3 year warranty, Toyota fix things that break on the car for 3 years. After 3 years they no longer provide free repairs, and you *gasp* must pay to have things fixed and replaced.

Plenty of places have laws that require goods to be of "reasonable quality".
In the case of a manufacturing defect these can be applicable for considerably longer than 3 years. (Possibly with seller, rather than maker, having to pay.)
A problem with software is that it can fall outside the scope of such laws. Even if it's sold as a "widget".

Software doesn't have "mechanical" wear, but it has ongoing discovery of security vulnerabilities that require maintenance from the vendor. Delivering that maintenance costs money.

Such vulnerabilities can also be introduced by "maintenance". Also they can't be easily related to some metric of usage or time, unlike mechanical "wear".

Here's a small Parrot drone at 1553 feet in the UK. It's little, but if it was sucked into a jet engine, the engine would definitely be damaged and might fail. In 2013, someone was flying a drone near JFK in New York and the drone had a near miss with a jetliner.

Unless drones were to start flying in large numbers of "flocks" they are unlikely to be as big a hazard to aircraft as birds.

By the law, their authority starts at something like 700 feet. Stay below that and they have no business saying anything one way or the other about it.
These drones pose no threat to conventional aircraft because they operate at closer to ten thousand feet... not under 700.

You'd typically find aircraft operating down to zero feet at or near airports. Also aircraft performing things such as powerline surveys and firefighting can be flying very low. So there might be cause for concern. But obviously not a big worry if the FAA has effectivly sat on this for several years.

And commercial flights of drones are forbidden in the US. The FAA is writing the regulations about what is and isn't going to be allowed, but until they finish that, any commercial flights of drone is in violation of the existing rules. I'm not sure why it's so hard for Libertarians to grasp that.

The point is that what this guy was doing in no way fits the definition of "commercial".

Shockingly, and unsurprisingly, by limiting themselves to the last 500 years, such pesky issues as the Medieval Warm Period go away,

Often the LIA, MWP, RWP, etc. Are waved away as "not global" / "local". By someone unwilling/able to give an objective metric for "global" vs "local". (Often the same applies with "weather" vs "climate".)

Yea, look at this ice core data. Much warmer in the past, with no anthropogenic CO2 influence.

Also this data shows CO2 following temperature rather than vice versa.

You have it backwards, please point me to the authoritative record of temperatures to within say a quarter of a degree C for the last 500 years.

Alternativly use "proxies" which are equally accurate over those 500 years.
Otherwise a switch between "proxies" and "instruments" involves an apples to oranges comparison.
Celsius only came up with his temperature scale in 1742 and Fahrenheit in 1724. So what scale was used in 1514?
Also the results cannot be more accurate than the raw data.

And they're / we're doing that because all of the global warming extremists want to wreck prosperity in pursuing actions that will not work.

No doubt lining their own pockets in the process. Unless they ate really daft politicans.

The US simply pauperizing itself in trying to use extremely expensive "clean" energy won't do a damn thing to get India and China to quit digging coal, and we cannot support out population without petroleum anyway.

Since wind and solar require some form of backup, typically natural gas power stations run very inefficently, they can be very "dirty". If the idea were to cut burning of fossil fuels then nuclear electricity generation and/or Air/Water Fuel Synthesis is a far more sensible way to go about things.

posting the fake 97% number just shows your stupidity,
look at how the number came to be, it's fucking junk.

Thing is that simply making such "consensus" claims, regardless of how accurate or not the numbers might be, effectivly demonstrates that what is going on isn't "science" in the first place.