I consume 12 cups of coffee before 10AM (I have a hug poop around 10:30 like clockwork, aka a "billable dump" in the consulting business).

I drink four or more large glasses of soda or iced tea at lunch (I pee right after lunch and about 30 minutes later like clockwork).

At 2PM, I go to the local Starbucks with my co-worker Randy. Where he orders his usual and I pointing to his order and say "I'll have a Randy as well, but with WHIP on top." The employees laugh as they proceed to make two venti Java Chip fraps with +7 espresso shots, one with the whip crème mixed in and the other with it on top (This drink costs more than my lunch). The drinks are gone before we walk the block back to the office.

Then around 6:30PM after most people have left, I make four cups of coffee and spit it with the girl who works late in the office next to me, I make 6 if Randy is still there. (I poop and drive home)

My heart rate is generally between 98 and 110 beats per minute given the amount of caffeine I consume. My brother who does not drink caffeine, same weight, same height, has a heart rate of 36-40 bpm.

Here is basically how science works, you make a "guess" or write mathematical "equation(s)" or develop a "theory" or you build a "model" to explain some part of the real universe we live in.

You then compare your guess against real world observations. If your guess fails to predict or describe reality, it's WRONG.

Every global warming model has failed in this regard. Now, You should be presenting to skeptics how your model correct fits. Not demanding they disprove your guess.

However, I'm game. So just a warning, this is going to sting really bad, but here is proof the global warming models are SHIT, I mean really WRONG. I.e. they suck at describing the real world, fall flat on explaining the last 13+ years of no warming, etc., while the skeptic models, where CO2 is not given an invalid force multiplier do work and match reality.

Climate Scientist Murry Salby Demolishes the Globâ¦: http://youtu.be/HeCqcKYj9Oc

By MILF, I assume you are referring to the Media Input Lense Feature.

We are still talking about Apple, right?

The models/predictions have failed to fit real-world observations? That being umm, a huge component of science.

Could not agree more regarding climate models and state of Antarctic ice. The cooler temps over last decade+ and increased ice doesn't change anything with models. The models are just as irrelevant and flawed today as they were yesterday and in the 90s.

What about when he said in his movie "Inconvient Truth" that next year we'd have a record number of hurricanes and we had ... 1?

Yes, it is a conspiracy.

The best and simplest source is the climategate e-mails, not a news or wiki summary, the actual e-mails. I've read them all. Just a few of the contents (but again, read them yourself):

Conspiracy example 1: There are several "respected" scientists who talk about how they are using site numbers in Siberia instead of geographic locations or latitude/longitude markers, and moving the sites south each year to ensure temp. increase. So basically they say Site 1 was 2.1 degrees Celius at this time in 98, and Site 1 was 2.3 degress in 99. But the site numbers from year to year are not the same location. There are a bunch of e-mails from people trying to peer reveiw the data asking for the exact postions of each site and some very harsh and presonal responses like, "How could you question us?" and "Why would you need this?", to "You have the data you need, others have signed off, validate it already".

Conspiracy example 2: There are several e-mails between a few guys fudging anything from tree ring data, to CO2 multiplier numbers, to the creation of the hockey stick graph (remember that?). So basically, in these e-mails, one of the guys is not against making up false data, but rather he is concerned about making the data to radical. So he is against presenting the hockey stick graph and a few other computer models with a CO2 multiplier that they basically know is BS. His arguement to this group of corrupt people is basically, if we say tempuratures are going to go up this fast in the next ten years, when they don't people will know and the house of cards will fall down. The reply from one professor is "No, if we can get it in people's heads and we can make in an emergency that needs to have government backed research, then by that time we can play off those who disagree as irrational." He continues by suggesting (correctly) that the political funding of research by that time will lead to increased researchers supporting this view becasue they need to in order to keep their funding. Finally he says in the absolute worst case all they have to do is say that it did not get hotter, because of the preventative steps people took that helped, and now we need to do more.

Conspiracy Motivation: In these "scientific" e-mails they often openly refer to the creation of world bodies to regulate and set socialistic policies and other BS. They state the end goal is to restict and control various sectors of world economy.

That handgun can carry 16+1 rounds. But I carry it with 15+1 rounds. My backup gun, can carry 7+1 and I carry it that way. Yup, I carry a second gun so I can lend it to someone if needed.

How did you get the magical number of 12? Why not 11?

My five year old daughter has a 17 round 22 rifle. It is a training tool in my view, but, a "weapon of war" to you. My four year old daughter has a 22 rifle that only holds 1 round and is pink, so we can agree it is a training tool. She has been shooting since she was three and is a good shot with great fundamentals. My 21 month old and 2 day old don't have guns ... yet.

I introduce firearms, not at a set age, but when I feel they are ready. I have a process of reviewing safely rules and shooting concepts long before guns are introduced. Shoot with my brother who helps teach girls. One of us can tech shooter, other can ensure others at safe. My hope is they become better with guns than me by their early 20s.

Just last night my 5 year old and I were waiting for a fox that has been messing with our chickens, will do the same tonight until we get him. Ran him off few months back with intentional warning shot right under him. I was hoping to not have to kill him, but he's back and he is to comfortable around house and barn. By letting him live that one time, three chickens have died. Sadly he'll have to go so chickens can live. I cannot use traps because lots of baby deer and I don't want to catch them (until they are bigger and more delicious).

I think my safety mechanisms work better than any smart gun ever can.

On 9/12/2014 at 12:10AM a skunk in my garage was going to spray me as I rushed in and the door closed behind me ... I was holding my wife's cloths and supplies for the hospital as her water just broke.

Silly me, I thought that I used a tool when, I dropped bags, drew my handgun (which, is by design for defense) and shot the skunk as it was turning around to spray.

Silly me, I had no idea I was using a weapon of war. That really changes my entire presentative on the event.

Given hospital is 40 minutes away and baby arrived by 1:36AM, upon reflection, I sure wish I didn't have that "weapon of war". I wish the skunk Iived and I had simply to wash myself off and find replacement supplies for my wife.

You know when you think about it, computers are a weapon of war. In fact, the first computers, Enigma and Eniac were designed with war purposes as the motivation.

If I had a smart gun and it delayed for a half second before firing or failed to recognize me as a valid user, do think that HS kid would recognize and accept liability?

Is this kid going to accept liability when his guns failure results in somebody being murdered or raped?

How does the added cost help poor people in high crime areas?

What is effectiveness when it is covered in dirt or blood? How efective is it when a hand is broken, smashed, or cut? How effective does it work when person is under high stress? Having to put in all ten digitals, cuts down on the 999 claim.

Smart guns are one of the dumbest ideas ever.

If other companies can survive and suceed without millions and millions in tax breaks, do not require state and federal sponsorship (i.e. corporate welfare*), as well as not depending on government subsidized rebates to move their inventory? Then why can't Tesla survive without state sponsorship and compulsory citizen funding?

* See the insane price Nevadans are paying to get a Tesla battery factory.

... and I didn't have to read the article to know that. Real world experience is better than "untested outdated group think", I mean "progessive college theory" any day. I know may people make 6 figures programming who decide "I'll go to college now, to learn even more about programming" and after a semester or two they all say the same thing "I corrected my professor, he said you cannot do X or Y in JAVA, I tried to explain how we do it all the time by doing Q and R, but he just looked at me and said 'if you don't say it is impossible on the exam, you will not get credit.'" And they stop going. It's terrible when you think about the fact that more discovery and learning is going on during meetups and company events or small hack-a-thons among friends for free or little cost, than at schools charging $25,000 or more a year.

Good Will Programming

I haven't see this much FUD since Eric S Raymond published the Microsoft Halloween Documents in 1998.

Which, is interesting given that the temperature recordings since 1998 have been flat and every climate model projection for that period has been wrong, and "scientists" are now trying to stuff the missing heat from failed computer models into the only place they can, which is similarly flawed computer models with "heat" trapped deep in the oceans, orginally, convient because there was limited historic data, but now this flaw is turning out to be equally untrue. Plus, the whole CERN Climategate docs.

1). The majority of Europeans are lazy pussies who listen to terrible music and don't know how to drive (Poland and Baltic states are the exception, those people are awesome). So, I doubt the EU branch of MS would be willing to comply because of some higher moral reason, but I could see them dragging their feet or passing the buck (I mean Euro).

2). This is a terrible ruling and this judge is out of line, this will likely be struck down on appeal.

3). I keep reading all this postings with analogies of people taking something from the US to another country to avoid being charged or to hide evidence. Couple points. We don't even know if there was a crime, the warrant is to try and determine that. Secondly, who is to say whatever on that server was ever in the US? What if the spreadsheet or whatever, was created and saved entirely on the EU servers and never lived within the US?. I can see some people thinking, but but but the access was from the US, so the cache or the keystrokes or whatever was in the US, so therefore the US courts can issue a warrant. OK, then have them get a warrant to look at the computer(s) within the US and tell them to have fun.

4). This is why you should encrypt your data regardless of where you keep it and regardless of whether you are committing a crime or not. This area more than any other is protected by the rule of law in the US (for now). If the federal government gets your encrypted data, fuck 'em. You don't have the give the the secret according to the Constitution, if they can crack it on their own well, congrats, but nothing says we have to submit like subjects.

I understand why you and others who have relied on 32bit versions; either because of driver or application requirements.

That said, I believe that by going to only 64bit versions, it will actually make everything easier in the long run.

Here is how I would anticipate things playing out. You're going to have to sit on a current 32bit version for now, but this will lead to Digium (or a 3rd party) building out supported 64bit drivers to remain relevant. This will allow you to run the same kernel versions across all servers/devices and that is a positive thing.