They should totally get you in on this project. I imagine they have no idea they're doing it all wrong.

In the app properties page for pre-installed apps, the "disable" button is replaced when the app is updated with an "uninstall updates" button. After you hit "uninstall updates" you can hit "disable."

The only apps you can't disable are actual system apps. Things like Google Services Framework, Google Account Manager, Google partner Setup, etc, can all be disabled.

You can easily disable those apps.

Sure, but if it never goes away and we produce it for another 100 years......

No one is talking about banning it, really. They're talking about raising awareness and recognizing it as a potential problem. Set up some basic regulations on its production and use now and we won't have to worry much about it later.

Good point. When you consider that, the proportion of anthropogenic warming accounted for by PFTBA would be higher.

Math fail. Should be:

CO2 is 2,000,000,000 more concentrated so it has 300,000 times the impact. Point still stands though, to some degree.

Well, there are no known processes by which PFTBA is broken down or removed from the atmosphere. So the effect is basically cumulative.

The other thing is that atmospheric concentrations are already in the 0.18 ppt range. CO2 is about 2,000,000 times more concentrated at the moment, at least in the Toronto area. This means that CO2 still has around 300 times the impact [ballpark figure based on numbers in the article], but if we keep up PTFBA production it could potentially start to be significant.

"The easy things first" makes sense, but "easy things" and "hard things" aren't always mutually exclusive. And frankly, PTFBA reduction is probably much closer to "easy thing" than CO2 reduction is.

The lawsuit that will be raised for a police officer hitting a lawyer in the bicycle lane with his patrol vehicle.

I dunno about TV, but I learned about this because it was a front-page story on the New York Times. It's not like the mainstream press isn't covering this.

Well that's the point. They're not experts in software. They're experts in law. The lawyers and witnesses come in to explain to them how they work, because it's not that hard to understand.

It doesn't make the justices experts in software any more than someone explaining biology to you makes you a physician.

If these guys were experts in software patents, they wouldn't need anyone to testify.

Judges are not experts in anything except law. That's why they listen to other people make the case and explain the intricacies as the law applies to the subject. They do their research and they ask tough questions. That's their job.