Sadly, btjunkie, one of the best of your list, recently threw in the towel due to all this nonsense.

Funny, but based on a "Flintstones" understanding of neolithic humans. Recent research suggests hunter-gatherers generally have and had little concept of monogamy as we know it. Check out Sex at Dawn: http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/0061707813/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335976553&sr=8-1

The short answer is no. There is some speculation about the causes, but it probably wasn't because of CO2 changes, and certainly nothing like the anthropogenic CO2 loading that we see today. It also wasn't a global phenomenon, but localized to northern Europe. Our data for global climate that far back is very unevenly distributed, though: we know the most about northern Europe, and much less about the rest of the world.

I live in Canada. As you say, all of those areas are already highly productive. What I was referring to is new productivity as a result of climate change. Areas that might become warmer--and thus suitable for agriculture--are currently boreal forest. It would take decades of natural processes for that boreal forest soil to develop into anything that could support agriculture for more than a season or two. North of this is tundra, which might have a better soil profile, but doesn't have enough daylight for agriculture regardless of temperatures or precipitation.

* "negative-reinforcement" should read "negative-feedback"

There's no way to know. What we consider "normal" weather is the product of negative-reinforcement systems. Once climate change breaks us out of those cycles, anything goes. Our ability to model weather isn't nearly sophisticated enough to predict it.

No. The point is that weather will get weird. As the global climate warms, weather patterns will break out of their normal negative-feedback-enforced cycles. Freakish temperature streaks, extreme precipitation, drought, and irregular winds will make agriculture much more difficult and unreliable everywhere. For a fun preview of what we're in for, check out the events of 1315-22 in Europe (hint: it's commonly called "The Great Famine").

The best part is that even if other regions (for example, Canada) have warmer weather, that doesn't mean agriculture will be sustainable there. The topsoil in that part of Canada is thin and highly acidic. You're not going to be growing corn and wheat there no matter what the weather patterns become.

There is no argument about Unity. We all agree that it sucks. There is minor disagreement about the degree to which it sucks.

Does that really stop anyone from writing Linux applications?

It's happening. Check out the Mate project. Linux Mint is considering using it in future releases.

Like a lot of /.ers, I'm the person my friends and family call when they have computer issues. I got tired of troubleshooting Windows (Another reinstall? There goes my Wednesday afternoon!) so a few years ago I started pushing people over to Ubuntu. After a quick sit-down and walk-through, people could pick it up, and the number of support calls I got started dropping off as things worked more reliably for grandma et al.

When Natty came out last April, I made sure everyone was still on "Ubuntu Classic" to avoid Unity, which was very clearly Not Ready for Prime Time. I crossed my fingers and hoped Canonical would clue in or make some incredible improvements to Unity by October. That didn't happen. Now people are clicking to update, finding their desktops have changed, and getting weird glitches, bugs, and crashes. The number of calls I've been getting in the last few weeks has skyrocketed.

Mark, when your power users leave you behind, they're going to bring their friends and families... aka your entire user base.