Which the US set in motion by putting Saddam in power AND all but gave approval of the invasion by essentially turning a blind eye to it. If the international community didn't raise such a stink over it, it's quite likely the our boy Saddam would still be at the reins.

And we put Saddam in power because the Iranian people decided that they didn't like being oppressed under the rule of a bloody dictator (the Shah) who was, no surprise, also put into power with the help of the US.

Al Quaeda? We bankrolled their entire operation until we found out that they really didn't like us anymore than the Soviets.

We've been screwing over the Middle East region in one form or another for the past 60 years or so. Is it really any surprise that things are they the way they are given the social, economic, and political unrest that our actions (and others) have caused there?

Agreed. This has got to be some sort of April Fools joke. There's no way this is a serious piece of research, much less actually pass a peer review process. Even a junior level programmer could tell you how stupid this paper is.

Some tips for the authors of this travesty:

1. Learn how computers work.
2. Learn how operating systems work.
3. Learn how programming languages work, especially ones that are interpreted or VM/CLR based.
4. Learn2code.

This "research", if it actually is research, should be nominated for an Ignoble Award. This would deserve an F even in an intro to programming course.

I think I'll go write a paper on how having lots of polygons in a 3D model will slow rendering down. I should get two Ph.Ds for that work.

Wrong on all counts. Temperature is just one of many factors when it comes to growing food. Just because it's warm enough to grow something doesn't mean it will actually grow. For example, you aren't growing jack on top of the giant granite block in Canada known as the Canadian Shield. In addition, crops also depend on day-night cycles and would have no protections against pests and destructive species in the region. And what about water? In that shiny new latitude do you have any aquifers that can support major agricultural operations?

Starting major agricultural operations isn't something trivially done, and there aren't a hell of a lot of places in the world that actually have the conditions and/or resources to support it (let alone species adapted to those regions).

And no, ice ages are no more destructive than warm periods. Historically climate shifts, either warm or cold, were accompanied by extinction events. Life adapts to current conditions, and if those conditions suddenly change then more often than not that life dies. Just like sheets of ice, heat can easily make regions of the planet practically uninhabitable.

It's not a scare tactic. There are consequences when you screw up the climate that major agriculture depends on. We've already seen a couple of examples of what happens even when there's temporary regional shifts. And then of course there's sea level rise on top of that. No, it won't be the end of humanity but it certainly won't be pleasant.

Science is never 100%. That's why it's science and not math. That's why just about every scientific conclusion includes error bars. Science provides the best answer based on available evidence and knowledge. That doesn't mean that knowledge can't be wrong or evidence can't be misleading. That's why the process of science is always reviewing and improving upon itself.

That being said, some high school level physics and math are all you need for strong evidence that the warming is caused by human activities. All the advanced research, models, etc. beyond that is trying to figure exactly how screwed we're going to be. :P

I don't see what the "accomplishment" is. The video stream was decoded and tile mapped outside of the NES itself. All the NES is doing is reading the tilemaps and displaying them. You don't need to be a genius to figure out how to do that.

In fact, they could increase the "quality" by taking advantage of the HBLANK interrupt (didn't seem like they were doing that in the video).

Regardless, this isn't "streaming" video on a NES.

For starters, to even get to a stage where we would even possibly be at war with machines would imply that we don't destroy ourselves before reaching that level of technological advancement. It is far more likely that we destroy our civilization within the next century through a mixture of extremism, resource wars, and general human stupidity than developing some sort of AI that will wipe us out.

The guy in the article is crazy. Technology is not the problem. People are, and you're not going to convince people to support your cause by doing pointless/crazy things like hacking up satellites with an ax.

The language is clear. I agree. But that isn't what it says.

Read all congressional measures as if you were lawful/evil. You'll find that more than a few of measures like this one do not say what you think it says. In this case, this seemingly innocuous and even beneficial measure becomes an extremely powerful tool for effectively neutering the EPA.

No. He's saying that it's impossible to review PUBLICLY what is held PRIVATELY. "Trade Secrets" is the corporate equivalent of "National Security". In addition, corporate snow-jobbing of the public has been going on for decades, and is already quite effective at stalling actions. Remember leaded gasoline? Asbestos? Acid rain? The measures here make it even easier to use those same tactics to effectively neuter or stop regulation entirely.

You can't take crap like this at face value. You have to read it like a politician. This has nothing to do scientific veracity, and everything to do with how to neuter the EPA so that corporate whores like Inhofe can line their pockets with more "free speech" while trashing our environment.

You reading it how a normal person would read it. From a normal person's perspective, it sounds like it's common sense. Read it like a politician or a lawyer. From that perspective, there's loopholes here you could drive a planet through. In fact, the loosest interpretation would pretty much guarantee that the EPA could never pass any regulations ever again which is exactly what people like "I gotsa snowball" Inhofe and his corporate sponsors want.

Easy to say when it isn't your daughter receiving death/rape threats. I don't know of a single parent who wouldn't do this (and more) if their children are threatened.

Then the assholes shouldn't have said anything in the first place. We're not talking about a couple of screwed up kids thinking that they're funny. The people doing this were adults. There is no fucking excuse for this.

Actions have consequences. I don't know why people can't get this through their heads. The same freedom that allows you to post rape treats is the same freedom someone can use to hunt you down and expose you.

If someone came onto your lawn and started yelling about how they were going to rape your daughter, they're not going to get a little slap on the wrist. They'd get arrested, thrown in jail, and possibly be put on a sex offender list.

IF YOU WOULDN'T DO IT IN REAL LIFE, THEN DON'T FUCKING DO IT ON THE INTERNET.

Tough. Shit. They should have thought about that before publicly posting rape threats.

No, he wouldn't. He's not responsible for what people do with the information. He's letting people know that there as some twisted fucks in their midst. That's a public service. I'm pretty sure most parents don't want to be associated with (or have their kids associated with) someone who thinks it's funny to make brutal rape threats.

Actions have consequences. If you can't handle the consequences or potential consequences of your actions, THEN DON'T FUCKING DO THEM. The fact that these assholes/idiots didn't stop to think about all the ways this could come back and bite them on the ass is no excuse. We may be a society laws, but we are also a society of humans.

Capitalism is unregulated corporate greed and all too often it has demonstrated just how ugly human nature can be. Why do you think we have labor laws, health regulations, etc. in the first place? Because corporations gave not a single fuck about people. If they can higher immigrant workers at 10 cents an hour for 16 hours a day to work in unhealthy and dangerous conditions, they will do it. And they have done it. If they can hire their own personal army and intimidate/remove "problems", then they'll do it. And they have done it. If they can buy politicians to further improve their bottom line while crushing competition, they'll do it. And they have done it. If it is profitable to operate chemical plants in 3rd world countries that are basically ecological disasters waiting to happen because any fines would be a slap on the wrist compared to the profits they make exploiting that country, then they'll do it. And they have done it.

Capitalism is not altruistic. Capitalism is not about improving the human condition. Capitalism is about profit. Profit at any cost. If people die, so what. They still made their money. If they have to pay a million dollar fine, who cares? They made $10 million having workers slave away in an asbestos filled factory.

I guess your bias prevents you from reading. Documenting funding source for research is STANDARD PRACTICE. Hiding those sources and then LYING TO CONGRESS ABOUT IT has a tendency to viewed unfavorably.

Yeah, but you get to hit them until they change their tune.

And if you happen to be the target, you are going to have a bad time.

The big problem is quantum effects. It's already an issue that chip designers need to deal with. The smaller you go, the bigger the problem.