If A and B have to decide whether to make a transaction, while C will be harmed if the transaction happens but has no say in whether it happens, that's an externality and market forces do not account for it under any economic model I've ever heard of.

Except with the environment, it's a little murky, because A, B, and C are all affected (perhaps not equally or at the same time, I'll admit). So it's not a "pure" externality at least.

...pretty much all economists agree that a carbon price is the most market-efficient way of doing that...

But what price do you pick? There's no "free market" way to do this. Cap-and-trade will result in a free market price for the available credits or whatever, except the amount of credits is arbitrary. If there was a way for the "market" to determine the available credits, that would be one thing - but there isn't; it's all done by decree. (Kind of a reverse externality if you will - groups A and B decide that this is the level of emissions that's allowed, C's opinion or needs be damned.)

That said, yes, an artificial price on emissions may result in people reducing consumption of those things that emit, depending on the elasticity of demand for those things.

This is one place I wish market purists would get on board--put a price on carbon, and solutions will come out of the woodwork and plummet in price.

Except market purists balk at this because "putting a price on carbon" is an artificial thing - it's screwing around with the markets. The markets have already spoken: the externalities of climate change (relocation costs, war, health costs) have a lower cost than trying to develop alternatives. These costs are already really accounted for, even though they aren't necessarily applied at the source of "carbon" emission.

Are you sure tons per capita is the appropriate metric?

Personally, I would do tons per capita normalized by standard of living. That is, how much is emitted per person to maintain a given standard of living.

No, no, you're looking at this all wrong. Apple stayed out of the Phablet market until they were "cool/hip/trendy". The vast sales Samsung had were merely to unimportant people. Apple, on the other hand, entered the market exactly when phablets became cool, because, by definition, phablets became cool only once Apple had entered the market.

1000 times this. I have a general problem with centralized, for-profit services based in countries with known surveillance offering "anonymous" services to begin with, but for the love of all things sane in this world, if you're gonna try that, at least be hyper-aware of every shred of data you incidentally collect or cause to go across the wire.

This only works if there is cooperation from those spreading the disease. Maybe I have an overly devious mind but one of my first thoughts was when is some ISIS nut-job going to get themselves purposefully infected and start planting bodily fluids on every subway handrail, mall restroom door handle, drinking fountain leaver, escalator hand-rail, ketchup-dispenser, and whatever else they can think of, before they get too sick to move, and then finish it off by collapsing in the middle of some very public place, causing panic. Don't tell me there aren't at least a few sick bastards out there thinking along these lines. All it would take is one or two of these cases and the shear panic it would induce would shut this country down for a long time.

Fuzzy logic is logic. So are linear logic, intuitionistic logic, temporal logic, modal logic, and categorical logic. Just because you only learned Boolean logic doesn't mean there aren't well developed consistent logics beyond that. In practice bivalent logics are the exceptions.

Yes; "if you're just willing to get your hands a little dirty and muck in and learn then you can bend the hugely complicated interface to your needs" they'll say; they'll complain that your just not willing to learn things, and thus it is your fault. Such people will inevitably state that they are "power users" who need ultimate configurability and are (unlike you) willing to learn what they need to to get that.

They will inevitably deride GNOME3 for it's complete lack of configurability. Of course they'll gloss over the fact that GNOME3 actually exposes pretty much everything via a javascript interface and makes adding/changing/extending functionality via javascript extensions trivial (GNOME3 even has a javascript console to let you do such things interactively). Apparently actually learning an API and coding completely custom interfacdes from myriad building blocks is "too much work". They are "power users" who require a pointy-clicky interface to actually configure anything. Even dconf is "too complicated".

For those of us who learned to "customize our desktop" back in the days of FVWM via scriptable config files calling perl scripts etc. it seems clear that "power users" are really just posers who want to play at being "super-customised". Almost all the modern DEs do have complete customisation available and accessible; some of them just use a richer (scripting) interface to get such things done.

I actually find that Ghostery is quite nice.

As a geek, working in a technical job, with a liberal arts degree, I (and my various employers over the years), have found great value in the breadth of my experience, flexibility, and less specific-tool-oriented approach. I'm sure a CS degree will get you an immediate job hacking on code, but adding a second degree, or having a vibrant life outside the digital world adds value to not only your life, but your long-term career prospects.

Also, don't sweat your undergrad degree specifics. It's an amazing chance to learn a ton of disparate, crazy stuff that will enrich your life. Read Ulysses! Learn philosophy! Study physics! I think the only undergrad courses I've never really drawn on were the most quotidian "requirements" courses, and I've never felt "held back" due to a lack of "focus" in my undergrad. Grab a MA/MS or even a Ph.D. (or, you know, life experience) if you want to focus.

Mugen Power Batteries, great batteries, excellent price. They make extended batteries, some that fit in stock battery compartments, some that use extended battery covers. I've used them on several phones, and am about to buy one for my new LG G3 (only an extra 100ma, but when you're on call, it helps).

It's not the features that you stare at with no idea what they do that cause a problem. As you say, a quick look at the manual can help to sort that out (though it does add to the overall cognitive load). It's all the potentially subtle things that you don't even realise are features and so never look up and don't realise that, contrary to first inspection, the code is actually doing something subtly different to what you expect.

Except math is almost never actually done that way in practice. Euclid was wonderful, but almost all modern math does not work that strictly (and Euclid really should have been more careful with the parallel postulate -- there's "more than one thing at a time" involved there). Yes, proofs are careful and detailed, but so is, say, technical writing in English. Except for a few cases (check out metamath.org, or Homotopy Type Theory) almost no-one actually pedantically lays out all the formal steps introducing "only one concept at a time".