Several things here:
1: I am a scientist, and while I admit I don't know everything ( who does ? ) about climate change I have seen enough data to be concerned, not panicked mind you, but concerned; especially so since anything on a global scale has so many variables as to be be possible to accurately model.

2: While those people you linked may be ranked high in their fields, the pages you linked to don't cite papers published in a reputable journal for peer review... probably because they are not reproducible as science demands.

2.5: It may very well be that tornadic activities will be on the increase, but there are many variables as to why we may see a dip in the generally upwards trendline.

3: your third link is just braindead political bashing.

Ha!
$60 - replace "new improved Clippy start menu" with a start menu that won't drive you insane.

Can you imagine it? " Hi! it looks like you are trying to start a program! can I help you with that?!" *shudder*

$9.99 for PS and Lightroom ( if they still offer that "photographers" bundle ) is actually pretty decent, it ends up costing about the same over the course of several years as buying an upgrade, just on PS itself, without having to cough up the money all at once. As an added bonus if you don't need to use the applications for a while you can suspend the rental until you need them again, saving a fair bit of money over the lump sum payment.

I don't know. Hydrothermal vents ETC are far more likely, the deep water would provide shielding from cosmic radiation. The first bacteria we know of, from ~3.8Ga or so were completely anoxic since the atmosphere had little to no free oxygen... and therefore no ozone to filter out the radiation that was bombarding the surface.

If life had started by surface impact you would more likely than not see adaptations passed down the generations to be resistant to radiation damage, yet we don't see any indication of that even in ancient strains that survive to modern times.

That's not to say the research isn't interesting, since it is. It just doesn't seem likely due to several factors that may or may not be solved for in the future, only time will tell.

Hmmm, that's interesting... pretty sure the original bug filer was using an AMD quad core since several mails had been about core 3 / core 4 being idle at the time of crash. I may be wrong though, I only read through it at the time it was posted on /.

Makes you wonder if it is a AMD multiple of 4 core bug somehow though, and maybe fixable through microcode patching.

They should have gone with option 1, just left the non-working files on the device. As you said, there had been third party software that could access the files, and presumably RealMedia, or whoever sold the tracks in the first place, would still have their media manager that would be able to play the files. If the user was technically savvy enough to use a secondary store + sync software it can be presumed that they could use other software to surgically remove the files instead of clobbering the whole FS.

Instead Apple seems, and it seems to be that this case is to shed light on if it was deliberate, to have forced the choice number 2 on people, forcing them to lose data. If that's the case, when taken to an admitted extreme, it is no different than if MS formatted your computers hard drive on a reboot because you used a word processor that could output .doc files causing you to lose all of your data. Taken to a lesser extreme, it would be like MS releasing a "patch" to Windows that searched the hard drive and deleted all .doc files that had not been created by word... and called it "protecting the user from possible malicious files", I can guarantee there would have been a huge outcry over that.

See that's the thing, it's MY filesystem on MY device.

If the files exploited a hole in the DRM, then the DRM was patched and the files no longer work... fine, the files don't work, but you can't delete my files on my device .

Face it, Apple screwed the pooch and got called out on it. Hopefully they get a sharp smack in the nose with a newspaper, learn from the past and don't do stupid shit like this again, and everyone can move on.

And yet who is to say that I wouldn't look at something for 1/10 second longer just because I absolutely hate that topping and have a hard time believing anyone sane would eat it?

The risk is low period. There have been studies of the indigenous fauna in the area, which have had many generations of breeding, and there has been found only slightly elevated genetic mutation rates, and orders of magnitude less mutations than predicted. As far as we can tell, as long as you aren't rolling around in areas directly contaminated by the core ( nearby the plant itself ) or in areas that are sheltered, lower leveled, and allowed to build up debris and a radio-isotope pool the risk is nearly identical to living next to a pesticide / chemical plant.

Radiation and radiation damage are still poorly understood, there are some arguments that low dose radiation is actually beneficial. In some areas of the world the background radiation is higher than the NRC Total Yearly Dose limits, and the people there have lower incidences of cancer and other illnesses compared to other areas with lower "safe" background doses.

Most of the people that are still in the exclusion zone are the ones that refused to leave. They had been offered help to move and rebuild, but refused due to loyalty to the area / my family always lived here / this is MY land and I'm not leaving damnit, and ETC. Some of them HAD been forced to leave, they came back and the government just gave up on moving them again.

Come now, you know your arguments are invalid:

First and foremost, even if the players are minors they are there with parental / guardian permission. Secondly, the guardians should be the ones responsible, not the government or someone else. Thus my point still stands.

I am willing to wager that 99.99% of Americans who play football know it's a dangerous sport, and further know WHY it is dangerous. Even further along that line they know that safety equipment can help mitigate some of the danger but not all; hence why there are trained medical professionals on site when playing.
It really is no different than any other safety equipment - the general public knows that seatbelts can help save lives, yet wearing a seatbelt is not a 100% guarantee of surviving a crash.
The dangers of football are publicly known, even non-fans can and do talk about the extensive injury lists from the professional leagues, so a person who cares enough about the sport will be more than intimately familiar with the inherent dangers.

Nope, and not all the strawmen in the world will change the fact that everyone involved knew the risks.

Your argument is invalid, and falls short on several levels.

One: Unfair deals are unfair. - tautology, you cannot have a fair unfair deal. The logic of your whole argument is flawed from the beginning.
Two: A student..... with pain. - This is not even an argument, it is an appeal to emotion I.E. a "think of the children" argument that is used when there is little support for a logical argument.

See, thats exactly how logic works.

1: A person is responsible for themselves if they are not required to do something,and especially so if they know it is a dangerous activity, but they do it anyways.
2: Said person gets injured while doing that something.
3: Therefore, said person is responsible for their own injury.

The logic is 100% sound, you may disagree with principle one, but that does not make the logic unsound.

Point A:) Perhaps you should go back to Philosophy 101, and maybe ethics, yourself before you go attacking someone else, which in and of itself is another sign of not having a solid argument, before you go around telling people how logic works.

Point B:) There is no such thing as "fairness", it is a man made construct that can never be realised since there will never be a consensus as to what is truly "fair". Every single attempt to come up with a scheme that is "fair" will have to affect some portion of the population it is being applied to negatively and will be viewed as unfair, thusly negating the whole principle.

Actually your *ahem* "argument" is the one that is wrong. No one is required to play football. Sure, it MAY make it easier to get into school later on, but that is a personal choice. The person who chooses to play football in order to get into a school could just as easily made the CHOICE to study harder and get in on a merit scholarship instead.

As for children, _I_ hope I never have any, whiny little entitled fucks that they are today.

Well how about having the person act responsibly? No one forced any of the kids to play football, if they don't feel that safety needs are being met, then they shouldn't fucking play until they are. THAT is how you incentivize the school to act reasonably, either provide adequate safety or not have bragging rights / a team.

Son of a bitch, these kind of lawsuits are why our society is in the shitter today. It isn't anyones job but our own to take care of ourselves; it isn't the saw manufacturers fault that you cut your leg off because you propped the piece you were cutting on your leg - they shouldn't have to explicitly tell you not to do that, and you should not be able to sue over it.

Specious reasoning on your part.

Under your reasoning, I can take a blockbuster movie, remove one scene ( or even a frame ) that isn't absolutely required for the over-all plot, and turn around and sell / rent it as my own. Sorry, but that isn't how copyright generally works; you need specific licenses to do that or it is infringement.

Not only that, but it would be interesting to see if the publisher will sue ( the one time I would LOVE to see a copyright lawsuit ) for copyright infringement; the school seems to be buying, modifying, and redistributing the book with modified information. Doubly so if the students have to buy the book from the school, since the school most likely will make some profit from the deal then...