there is a Flash exploit that STILL isn't patched, that only requires a user to visit a site with a bit of compromised embedded flash content like a banner ad, and BOOM, owned. You don't even have to click a link, just visit a domain hosting the content on a page.

I notice your account was created yesterday. Please let me be the first to welcome to you Slashdot.

Maybe you could tell us a little bit about yourself, by way of introduction. Like maybe your badge number.

Sometimes differently-abled learners cope best in classrooms with a less demanding curriculum adapted to their needs...

They've tried; but all the enlistment paperwork just disappears when he walks out. Weirdest thing.

Birds heap shame upon their ancestors merely by existing. (Except maybe shrikes; their willingness to keep up a proud tradition of bloodthirsty carnivorous murder despite now being about the size of a sparrow is pretty honorable).

Those pesky disgruntled employees and contractors tend to be on a slightly shorter leash(or less abused, if HQ decides that it's easier to make them less disgruntled than it is to watch them all the time) if their activity relates to something the company cares about.

Obviously, comcast isn't directly in favor of random insulting name changes(no real payoff for them, which puts them even below "billing errors"); but their customer service is as glorious as it is because any aspect of customer interaction that isn't billing or upselling is treated like a cost center and abused accordingly.

and yet, while A does the right thing, it is possible for B to be encouraged to do the right thing.
For example, China's emissions are mostly caused by 2 things:
A) Smelting plants that use coal.
B) power plants that use coal. Back in the early 90's, China was at 65-75% coal plants. They are now at over 80% and still growing FAST.

The vast majority of that electricity goes into manufacturing, not into civilians.
As such, the smart move is for America (and hopefully the entire west) to tax ALL GOODS predicated on where they come from and the emissions / $GDP (real GDP, not PPP GDP). This will quickly encourage China to change their direction, while at the same time, getting the west to change quicker.

But what is happening is BS. Unless ALL nations are involved, then nothing will change.
As it is, the largest polluter, China with more than 1/3 of the CO2 emissions, is being allowed to continue GROWING their emissions while only the west are to cut back.
This will NEVER succeed if this continues.

the only possible solution is if all nations cut back, and if they are cut back predicated on CO2 / $ GDP. The reason is that emissions are NOT tied to ppl,but dirty manufacturing.

It's OK. The alternate Kate Upton has really let herself go and she's become the alternate Melissa McCarthy.

There is no overwhelming evidence towards AGW. The models have all failed to predict the non-growth in GW over the last decade. Only people listening to appeals to authority actually believe the models are working. And worse, the predictions (no ice cap, bad hurricanes ....) all have failed. And when Sandy hits it is AGW, but when no hurricanes hit it is or worse when it is really cold "don't you know the difference between weather and climate" (apparently AGW proponents don't either).

And you have failed to prove that government can solve any problem.

"revenue-neutral carbon tax would be quite progressive"

That is impossible. First off, Government always gets its cut of the pie, so there is no such thing as "revenue-neutral" (first lie). Second, all taxes are regressive, as poor people cannot avoid them as well as rich people can.

And only liberals figure that taxing something is a right of government, and the "go to" game-plan for all progressive "solutions".

If you want to use Food Stamps as evidence of liberal success, I think you have it. More people are on Food Stamps than ever before, SUCCESS!!!!

Oh, and by your version of reality, conservatives hate bears!
http://www.niagarafallsreporte...

Scientific Consensus is Opinion. Global Warming is a theory.

Global Warming is a theory backed by Scientific Consensus. It is an opinion of a theory.

The problem is, people like you think that Global Warming is fact (it isn't) and the scientific consensus is proof (it isn't). But keep making that case all you want, it doesn't help convince people like me who want actual science.

It was the proverbial "y'all" you. ;)

The problem is, we have people using "Scientific Consensus" as equivalent to fact. It is nothing short of appeal to authority logical fallacy. Premise B-E are nothing less than speculation, but often treated as fact. The logical argument that is being made is We should do X because "might be" and "could be" reasons, without adequate probabilities being established. Probabilities can't be established because the scientific evidence is lacking for even a reasonable predictive model.

BUT I am labeled a denier because I want SCIENCE and not opinion.

Well, I'd say that fossil fuels, which are mostly composed of dinosaurs who were unable to adapt(along with plants who were unable to adapt, and various other organisms who were unable to adapt) revolutionized the hell out of our entire civilization...

Maybe if IBM were buried and subjected to a few million years of heat and pressure they too would become a highly coveted resource?