Are you suggesting that the intelligent response to complexity is surrender to doom?

A dollar here, a dollar there, and soon enough you have a million. An LED here, and LED there, and soon enough you've saved a mountain of coal from burning. Also, you've saved money on the bulb + electricity cost. But if you'd rather waste your money and surrender to doom....

That's not how free, democratic societies make policy.

Funny thing, wind is already cheaper than coal, and solar is close. Also, even if the article wasn't a gross distortion of the report, being a Standford-degreed Google engineer isn't all that. I've known idiots with similar degrees and positions, and geniuses with neither.

Pumping carbons isn't more dangerous. It is more dangerous to only animals. Plants love the stuff. You know, plants that took CO2 and sequestered it when there was a massive cooling period. The Earth used to be much much warmer than today and plants loved it.

Nuclear is dangerous to every living thing.

Is there evidence to conclude that enough people in democratic countries and enough leaders in undemocratic countries would support sufficient political action for long enough to solve the problem (according to the climate models)?

The opposite conclusion seems to be true so far.

No, I called someone a liar because - despite amply available facts to the contrary - they're spreading false information, on purpose. You know, deliberate deception. Lying.

Why? Here you are commenting on a matter for which all sorts of searchable, link-able documents have been provided, summarized, and repeated (in the sense of the germane details) for you to read. And yet you're pretending that you you're baffled about the availability of that information. You can't be that obtuse, and I was being generous calling you lazy - because you're acting like that information doesn't exist - why?

Not when the topic being discussed is that person's laziness, right? That's just a simple observation.

Well, right. Because the the facts were provided by the corroborated eye witness testimony in front of the grand jury, and by the abundant physical evidence - and nicely wrapped up in the widely disseminated documents that you have indeed been too lazy to read (or too unwilling to, since it establishes a narrative you don't like).

A common argument is that climate change can be avoided if everyone makes a number of small changes in their lives. These guys have determined that marginal, easily affordable changes in people's lives are insufficient according to some climate models. (Unless there's are large, unforeseeable technological advances.)

In other words, a specific approach or category of approaches won't work if you believe the forecasts of some severe climate models. The obvious response would be to stop advocating the unworkable approaches and/or re-examine the climate models to see if they might be overestimating the challenge.

Perhaps the article communicates this poorly. It's still useful info though.

Wow, are you lazy. Well, lazy about everything except ad hominem - the comfort zone for people who don't like facts.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive...

Why should that be impossible? On most hardware it may be, but if you're lucky enough to have a system with an IOMMU, the OS should absolutely be able to defend against such attacks simply by not permitting just any jerkoff application to access the disk controller directly. Applications then have to ask the driver to mediate all transactions, and the OS is definitely in a position to then prevent firmware tampering.

Profiting from sending other people's children (or, put another way, excess population) to die in other countries which can't meaningfully fight back doesn't sound all that risky to me.

The prosecution released all of that testimony, available for you to read. But to save you the trouble, it was summed up during the press conference, because it was very important, in context. But just for fun, consider reading it, just like all of the journalists who have already done so, and helpfully explained the same thing so that people like you can get their heads on straight.

I'm calling him what he was: minus some important details. As pointed out once investigators from multiple agencies, including the FBI got around to listening to recordings of the actual communication. And no, from a distance of course Wilson didn't know that Brown was the guy who had moments before robbed the store. That's why he didn't know who he was possibly dealing with until he got up to them in the street, and saw what he saw. Are you unable to follow the details, here? Why?

I might, but that didn't happen. Multiple eyewitnesses say it didn't happen. The only person making that claim is the warrant-out-on-him guy who also - right after it happened - said that Brown was shooting out the car window, shot a kneeling Brown multiple times in the back, etc. You know, Mr. Lying His Ass Off guy ... who, strangely enough, you think is more credible than multiple African American witnesses who went to the police to tell them what they saw. How are you measuring credibility, here?

Except, you'd be hallucinating, since witnesses say that didn't happen.

It's a shame about your cognitive skills. He went for his gun to get Brown to back away from PUNCHING HIM IN THE FACE THROUGH HIS CRUISER WINDOW. Once Brown's thumb got winged by a shot in the car, Brown started to move off, and Wilson got out in order to keep him from getting away following Brown's assault on a police officer. Feel free to read that a couple of times so you can get that complex chain of events straight in your head.

Such pain, there in your head, where it must hurt to process facts. Ouch, huh?

That's the distance from the cruiser, not the distance from the officer, who was pursuing the guy who had just assaulted him. Mr. Stoked On Adrenaline Having Just Strong-Armed A Merchant And Assaulted A Cop decided to turn around and rush Wilson. The distance between them was nowhere near the distance between Brown and the cruiser that Wilson had left behind.

So we're back to wondering what people who choose to lie about these facts (by spinning fantasy, or through omission of important details) think they're going to achieve. Shouldn't you be out burning down your local grocery store or something?

Companies have an advantage in that H1-B's can't switch jobs and stay in the states.

But while the family back home costing 1/10th the amount is an advantage for H1-B's I fail to see how it benefits the United States to allow that advantage. Just like we charge import/export taxes we should be charging taxes on imported labor to offset those differences for the good of our economy. There is no real advantage to the United States to use imported tech workers when there is a plentiful supply at home.

It's the officer's testimony AND THE TESTIMONY OF MULTIPLE WITNESSES. And every bit of it is backed up by physical evidence. Unlike the made-for-the-media BS the first "witnesses" dished out, which all fell apart the moment those same people were asked serious questions. Many of them admitted to the grand jury that they never actually saw anything, and were just repeating something they'd heard. Others changed their story dramatically as soon as it was pointed out that what they described couldn't possibly have happened.

Which details of the physical evidence and multiple, corroborated eye witness accounts are you having trouble with, exactly? Please be specific.

We have the problem that we expect to be able to work whenever we want. But the sun shines brightest and the wind blows hardest at certain times, not all the time. Solution, reduce waste, and work when the energy is available, or find more power storage technologies and install 'em. Either way, big changes in the way energy is handled.

We're coming to a point where we need less and less workers, but we're expecting to do more and more work. What?