This is only news to those who have had their head in the ground, listening to fox news and government shills.

The easy way to turn things white is to make roads out of concrete instead of asphalt. The catch is that the process used to make cement in most of the world involves heating calcium carbonate enough to bake out a CO2, leaving calcium oxides / hydroxides, so it's a surprisingly large generator of greenhouse gasses, more than making up for any albedo gains. Oops.

Israel doesn't have a lot of revenue sources or natural resources, so high-tech products like software are important to them, even more so than growing oranges on Palestinian land. And everybody has to serve in the army, except a few specially exempted groups, so just about everybody with a college education has been in the Army before they got that high-tech job, and a lot of them did computer jobs in the Army as well as marching around with Uzis, because every army these days needs computer technology. That doesn't mean that every high-tech company in Israel, or even every sleazy adware company in Israel, is a front for Mossad.

Homeland Security has two highly obvious reasons to put out urgent guidance to remove crapware - there's a Congressional partisan squabble that's caught their budget in the crossfire, so they want to get positive press mention rather than the negative mention they'd get if they didn't do that, and the NSA's just gotten caught bugging every computer in the world so Homeland Security needs to talk about anybody else they can being dangerous and scary.

Besides, if it really was Mossad, they'd have done a much better job.

Not just any boring vanilla pony - we want a unicorn pony and rainbows and the whole bit!

Lenovo probably will fire somebody, for embarrassing them, but it won't change the number of vendors of crapware out there. Lenovo's certainly not going to take the kind of financial hit that Gemalto did when the public found that the GCHQ had pwned all the SIM cards they sold. Maybe one or two adware companies will lose a non-trivial percentage, but there's a market for sleazy advertising and there's a market for having software companies pay to Add Valuable Features to your hardware.

It probably took him a while to draw all the cards (though they're mostly cartoon-level drawings, which is a little easier), and they actually did spend a bit of time play-testing and tinkering with it to get a playable-more-than-once game. But dude, it's a card game about Exploding Kittens, and that's consistent with the humor he's well-known for, so he's not going to freak out his core audience, and they'll presumably attract half the people who've played Cards Against Humanity as well.

And yeah, it presumably took them a lot longer to figure out how to get this produced and printed in volume and fulfilled than to design the game.

There are only three good reasons for promoting climate change denialism.

• - Protecting corporate interests, and
• - Supporting the political party that protects those corporate interests, and
• - Annoying people who oppose that political party.

Protecting corporate interests by promoting bad science is something you shouldn't do at all, but if you're going to do it for them, they should be paying you really well. Supporting that particular political party's protection of their corporate sponsors' interests by promoting bad science is something cynical enough you should also only do if they're paying you well for it. (They pay their other marketers well.) Annoying liberals is something you can do for lolz is something you can do for free if that floats your boat.

If you're going to do "scientific research" to disprove climate change, and you don't get some outrageously large "research grant", you're getting ripped off, and you should at least go join a union like the Screen Actors' Guild so you can get paid scale and overtime. (SAG union rules presumably say the studio is supposed to pay for costumes, but if you need to spring for a white lab coat and some glassware and blinkenlights to make a demo tape, that's probably ok, even if they use that in production.)

I enjoy things like Baroque music, and don't care at all for things like NASCAR and 4-wheeling

Ah. Well then... concerts; recitals; record stores (now re-appearing); CD stores; instrument shops; look for clubs and charities where you can contribute; if you can, start a small scholarship fund and otherwise make yourself useful to a music academy; another thing you can do is enquire at a music school if anyone is in need of an instrument purchased for them, repaired, or restored; host a dinner for one or more quartets or other music aficionados and invite at least one likely, lovely suspect to join in. Find some events with a nice string quartet and hang out near them, just enjoy yourself. If you're comfortable leaning up against the canopy post or relaxed on the grass, others will join you. Sometimes those people will be of the female persuasion. And if not, hey, string quartets are magical anyway, so you really can't lose. And of course, there's obvious -- music lessons. Also, make sure you have a good audio-only system or a theater system with great sound. If you're a headphone type, ensure you have dual-output capability and two of the same type of 'phones. You want anything you share to reach the other person's ears just as it does yours. But headphones... keep 'em in a box until you're well into the relationship, unless you're just sharing something of a few seconds duration. Rare or fine audio recordings (check out TELARC) make fine gifts, too. If you're dating a musician and you really want to pull out all the stops, shop for a rare manuscript or document penned by a musical luminary in their line ($$$.)

The opportunities associated with your interest are broad, and the best part about it is that this particular vector will do a great job of pre-filtering for you.

Just out of curiosity -- you mention Manhattan -- can you get there on weekends? I did quite well bringing some of those ladies out into eastern Pennsylvania back in my prowling days. Some beautiful sights to share, plus caving, rafting, canoeing on the Delaware, mansions, estates and historical landmarks to look over (including a few great pubs in NY state and north) some great dining... It's very easy to put together a short day trip with some music you both know you'll enjoy... Do you have a good or great sound system in that Volvo? If not, why not? If so, awesome.

Wikipedia carries a great deal of bad and misleading information, as well as attacks and cover-ups. The editing (by which I mean arbitrary, supervision-free, largely random and often outright wrong top-down meddling with content) is nothing short of terrible. What keeps Wikipedia going is the users. What keeps setting it back is the meddling from above. Nothing has ever managed to keep misinformation out of it -- in either direction. That said, Wikipedia has long since mutated from its optimum form -- actually open -- into a pseudo-intellectual grandstand for its operators, replete with locked pages carrying their opinions to the masses.

I don't know about the OP, but I'm an engineer, and women interested in dating engineers don't seem to exist.

What you do isn't likely to be a draw unless it is exotic, either by virtue of rarity, or by virtue of publicly visible achievement (CEO of a major company, etc.)

Who you are, on the other hand, is something you demonstrate with everything you do. Worthwhile women (as opposed to self-destructive barflies and NASCAR fans) are most often looking for several things, usually in the following order.

First, looks and character. You don't have to be a beautiful man, but you will do best if you carry yourself with confidence, and no matter what you should be clean and smell good or at least not smell bad, you need to groom your hair, keep your fingernails and sweaty parts extremely clean without telegraphing obsession, and you should dress like someone who can afford to dress well, because...

Second, security. You should project the sense that being with you is a better state than being without you. A nice car, a nice ring or watch, clean clothes in excellent shape, these send two messages: that you will spend for comfort and that you can spend. Most women of breeding age (even if you're not interested in having kids, I assume you're still interested in going through the motions) are looking for a fellow who is able and willing to make that nest. That's true even if they say, and if they really mean, they don't want kids themselves. Security is a very good thing, and they've been seriously tuned up by evolution to seek it out. Also, as a life goal, a great nest is an excellent thing to aim for, to achieve, and to share.

On the subject of security, kill any debt you have if humanly possible. You'll have more money in the end. A debt-free person is a lot more attractive than one who brings such things to a relationship. This isn't always achievable, but if you can get out of debt and/or avoid it entirely, you definitely should. Financial rule #1: You don't want to pay interest. You want to charge interest.

Once you are interacting, STFU and listen. You can initiate conversations, and steer them, and you should, but you need to be a good listener more than anything else. Let her speak and encourage her to speak more, and visibly enjoy the experience (don't fake it -- build a mindset where you are interested. It's entirely a good thing.) The time for you to speak at any length is when you are asked a question. Which you answer carefully and in the most interesting way you can. Otherwise, short and sweet is the rule. This aids in making you intriguing and in projecting interest in her.

I speak from a lifetime of experience, and a great deal of success in courting the women I went after, ultimately, finding and keeping someone of such profound worth and compatibility that to this day, after decades, I am still deeply in love with her, and she with me. I'm almost 60, BTW. And yes, I am an engineer and a geek, and I am not a beautiful man. However I am confident and I am extroverted but can listen well without having to interrupt with my own take or story (one of the most obnoxious conversational failures ever, IMHO, is to interrupt, or answer, a story of someone else's with a recitation of something similar or related that happened to you. Instead, ask questions about the story and as it is told, respond to it within its own context. You can take that one right to the relationship bank. No matter how strong the urge, don't tell stories about yourself except when explicitly asked to do so. Mystery trumps bragging every time.)

When the day comes when you're trying to seriously figure out if a particular lady is "the one", watch out for serious areas of conflict that the rush of romance has (temporarily, I assure you) pushed aside: religion, politics, impingement of extended family fuckarosis, drinking or drugging habits and seriously divergent philosophical outlooks, desire for kids. Any one of those can put a relationship right on the rocks, and yes, again I speak from experience. Only the lawyers win in the end if you manage to convince yourself those things can be overlooked. It is highly unlike that will turn out to be true.

Now of course I am speaking generally, there are exceptional women out there who will be a little or a lot different, but on the whole, my experience and that of the people I know tell me that this is the way to place your bets. None of this is likely to put off an exceptional woman, either.

Where to meet people? I don't know about online dating, and have no POV to share there. It might be great. However, IRL, there are a number of places that can bear fruit. For example, the grocery store. Single women have to go there almost without fail. Tune yourself up to look for rings, and prepare and throw some conversation starters: meat counter... "Have you tried that from this store?" You see what that does? It's not about you, it's not quite about her, but it solicits her opinion, doesn't portray you as an ignoramus, and gets her talking to you. "hmm... sounds good (or in case of a negative, 'oh... hmmm. What would you suggest instead?'), what do you think of a caesar salad, what about a good [wine, side, etc] to go with?" It will help considerably if you can cook and know a bit about food and wine. In other ways, too -- highly recommended. You can turn this around on a dime, by simply getting her to ask who this is for. At that point, "Oh, just me. Although... you know, I'd be delighted to cook for you... (nice smile.)" All she can do is demur, which should not put you off in the least. It'll happen. But so will successes. No try... no success.

Don't stick to a single grocery store. Go to as many as you can so what you're doing isn't clear to all who see you at it the second or third time.

There are other forms of common ground. Shopping in general; laundromats; clubs, swimming pools, luncheon places, the beach. They're all potential meeting venues as long as you treat them that way, and prepare some contextually appropriate conversation starters. Move around. Test the waters everywhere.

In conversation, don't over-share, and avoid complaining -- about anything -- no matter what. That just projects "I am a victim." You want to project "I am a (humble, funny, intelligent, strong, quiet) force of fucking nature." On receipt of complaints, your answers are either potential solutions (only if practical and realistic) or restrained sympathy combined with a good ear.

Lastly, and I am quite serious, consider becoming a martial arts student. Say nothing about it unless there is a scheduling conflict, and then say no more than "oh, I'm sorry, I have a workout that evening/day/whatever. Let her ask. She almost certainly will, eventually, if nothing else. Then tell her. You seriously undertake and stick to martial arts, and eventually -- just a matter of a couple years -- you won't have to project strength and confidence. You will be strong and confident and the ladies who are looking will know it sure as a cat can smell tuna. Yes, I'm a martial artist.

Good luck.

Algernon? Is that you?

Don't feed the trolls. Especially the cray-cray trolls.

Do you really want your Bay Area case where some wing nut has sued Google for not basing the Android clock on days since Biblical Creation to be decided by an imported judge from Alabama who may actually think they're right?

I want judges to be part of a service where they have to pass an exhaustive test that demonstrates they are both well informed and even-handed, and I'd want an overwatch panel too. Don't mistake my suggestions as intended to cross every t and dot every i. They're problems to be solved, not glib answers.

A full jury trial for any serious (felony) offense is extremely expensive and time consuming, and plea bargaining is a way to reduce the burden on courts and juries by exacting some form of a minimum toll on the guilty without going for the maximum.

There are way, way too many laws. Get rid of drug and sex worker cases and reduce lawsuits and you'd have a whole different idea about "how busy" the courts are.

does John Boehner get to automatically impeach President Obama

First, presidents should not be making law. There is zero provision for it. Second, the President, as the head of the enforcement arm, should have a system for watching for such things and seeing to it that they are brought to the president's attention for action as the chief executive. I think that would be excellent.

Why even mention "a well regulated militia" if that is not the justification for the 2nd Amendment?

You have suffered a parsing failure, because you are ignorant of the meaning of the words when and as written, and because you have failed to discriminate between an explanation (which you got wrong anyway) and a direct instruction (which you advocate ignoring.) I will illuminate them both for you:

Well regulated as used at the time meant "consistently supplied", and the point was that everyone (which is essentially what the "militia" was comprised of) should show up with a weapon and ammo and so on if and when called up, and therefore, those rights were very well protected.

Regardless, the first phrase is an explanation, and the second is a restriction on government. The restriction doesn't go (shouldn't go -- it certainly has done) away until an amendment says it does as per section five. That it has is utter sophistry. Someone would have to demonstrate, at the very least I would say, that the need for armed citizens has passed. There's lots of evidence they are very badly needed, and we are suffering when they are not immediately available.

There's no authority to arbitrarily say "we don't have to obey the restriction, and it is the worst idea EVER to think that the government can say that, because if they can do it with the 2nd, they can do it with every other amendment and rule as well. Good bye constitution, hello banana republic.

So just to make this clear - I arrest you for drunk driving. But I search your trunk later and find you have a kidnapped person in there, and I can't charge you for it?

That's exactly right. Just like the limits on getting a warrant, the state gets to labor under a handicap, because it is known (extremely well known, now, as a matter of fact) that it will abuse the privilege if and when it is allowed to run free. Unrestricted government is dangerous. As we see every day. And as the founders knew full well.

You're right, nobody likes lobbyists. But they do actually have a purpose.

Sure they do. To subvert the system. Out they go. Your argument that congresspersons who would not otherwise learn about issue X will then do so because some lobbyist bribes them is utter horseshit. The lobbyists don't bribe them to learn; they bribe them to steer their vote, and the one with the biggest payoff is the one that wins. It is purest unmitigated corruption and it should go.

What if I like champagne, cinnamon or wagyu beef?

Then Americans, seeing the market, will labor to produce as similar a product as they can. Otherwise, your wish for funky foods does not outweigh the need to restore the American economy.

What if the cost of diamond engagement rings goes up 10x because the US doesn't produce a meaningful amount of diamonds?

That would be outstanding.

Anyway, my point is that I admire people with a strong desire and thoughts about how to turn things around in this country. It's just much harder to fix things than it looks

I think your position -- your point -- is that, like most Americans, you don't want to think about what's wrong and you don't want to actually have to fix it, nor have you seriously thought about it. Your response wasn't well thought out at all. If course there's more detail to solutions like this, or exactly this. Of course solutions will change things, and of course the government should be handicapped in its ability to abuse citizens, its ability to coerce the states, and its ability to subvert the constitution. Finally, you will recall, that I never once said anything about such ideas being "easy."

I would like to see this science of which you speak. Not the Fox News edit either, I want to see the SCIENCE.

Let me google that for you

You should have done that yourself. That's what part being responsible is: informing yourself. And not from the lips of Jenny McCarthy, either.

we probably have one of the best judicial systems in the world

If that's true -- I don't know -- it is a horrifying commentary on justice within the entire human context. Because the US justice system is severely broken in just about every facet one can name.