First, no scientist worth his paper will tell you anything is FACT...
Based upon this statement alone, my previous post was not clear. Every scientist I have spoken with, including the ones who are "substantially confident" that humans have had "significant contributions" to global warming recognize that there are areas of weakness in the modeling. (Hence the quoted caveats of my last sentence, which are in fact quotes.) And, at least the scientists I know, are genuinely excited to have "new" information to refine their knowledge base.
Consequently, I never intended to imply that scientists made it a hot button issue. I was thinking of environmentalists, chemical energy producers, and especially politicians - but your point about the media is well taken.
Finally, concerning coin and power, the evidences are all around. One could point to international balances of trade via treaties and trade programs, corporations that allow you to offset your "carbon foot print", environmental groups who have radically altered what we can accomplish for the costs involved, and the UN justifying their ability to levy taxes because of global warming. To suggest that the global warming scare, legitimate or not, hasn't caused a shift in economic priorities or shifts in political power is the only weakness to your response. And, if you cannot see how climate change has been used for social engineering (um, political social engineering, not black hat social engineering), from the cars we drive to the washing machines we use, to the recreational activities that "thinking people" approve of, to the taxes we pay... well, you are just not looking.
I am not arguing for or against the attempt to curb greenhouse gasses, here. But to portray those who have legitimate concerns about how it will effect the economy as being so small minded and stingy that they will not even part with 3.5 cents/gallon is disingenuous at best.
That is the problem and why it is always a hot button issue. Of course the science needs to evolve and of course scientists are refining their models. But you will have to forgive a little cynicism and snarkiness from those who do not approve of the grabs to power, money, and social engineering that this issue has and is enabling.
At any rate, whether you think he is innocent, guilty or somewhere in between it is a "wake the fuck up call".
When the DOJ will engage is such behavior against a sitting and powerful Senator, we, the nobody citizens, are in a very precarious situation.
And, certainly, you don't fly air craft or drive truck or bus for a living. I realize that if you were diagnosed MANY years ago that all of these restrictions may have felt like an undue burden but... well, once can never be too careful.
Dude, there is a reason why medical conditions do not need to be readily accessible. Gattica seems unlikely now, but if you had said it should be illegal to smoke in bars 30 years ago, you wouldn't have even been laughed at; they would simply have smiled at you because you were obviously a crack-pot or feeble minded.
should be "genie" (in portuguese they are translated to the same word, sorry).
Are they really? I can't imagine that Genie (==Djinn, a supernatural fiery creature which possesses free will) would or could be used so interchangeably with genius (==someone who has exceptional intellectual ability and originality).
They have such entirely separate meanings that, aside from their superficially close English spelling, it is strange to think that they would be translated to the same word. What language is Portugeuese based upon? Thinking that it may be Latin, I searched on the meaning of geni, thinking there might be some commonality there. The answer would be no. In the Latin, geni relates to the knee.
(PS. I am a native English speaker (have a B.S. in English) with no knowledge of Portuguese and am genuinely curious.)
LOL. I am sure what you are saying makes sense within a given context but I am not sure what that context is.
All I can see is very disgruntled bees, bitching about management when it is breezy and bees on strike if you blow off their antnnae. Presumably with a mini hand-gun, I guess. =D
From the summary: "In comparison, the best high-power lithium-ion batteries today discharge in a minute and a half, and conventional lithium-ion batteries, such as those found in laptops, can take hours to discharge..."
Um, isn't that the point? In fact, isn't it a goal to have a "longer lasting" battery?
If a knowledgeable person can clarify why this is a BOO-YAA moment, I would really appreciate it. I read the article (I know, please don't hold it against me), and will concede that maybe the inclusion of lap-tops was poor writing because they are actually examples where this would not be useful technology but the article also mentions that it would be useful for quickly recharging cell phones. But, again, while it may be useful to have a quickly charging cellphone, a quickly discharging cell phone... not so much.
Oh, and I am a boring person. Anyone that knows me pretty much knows where I am at any moment. So realistically, it doesn't matter.
I just don't want to be tracked.
It's not hard to admit errors that are [only] cosmetically wrong. -- J.K. Galbraith