Yes, I'm one of those that can't read too well and would never RTFA before posting.

This comment is being composed on a Nexus S purchased last year. A couple days ago an official release was of 4.0 was installed.

I can't believe no one else got it. Was this what prompted the announcement?

"...our allies and friends. It's only natural that we should ask for certain things in return for these benefits."

You realize a "Friend with benefits" is someone you're fucking, right?

Gateway had the same vendor. I was working in one of their shops and anything with an AMD processor was likely to show up a couple times.

That's one advantage Dell had over GW. GW had built up a reputation that if there's a problem come in and we'll fix it under warranty, then these motherboards hit and there was no way to keep up with volume.

I think you summed it up fairly well.

As a project, Debian is most interested in Freedom and stability. Although someone coming from a *nix back ground shouldn't have much trouble, someone new to computers or coming over from one of the dark sides is likely to.

Enter Ubuntu. Their primary interest is getting Linux on the desktop. Debian is an ideal base because it has everything, so you just need to keep current on the unstable version and put some chrome on it.

Grey beards keep their Debian and the whipper snappers stay off the lawn.

Most of us haven't the time nor resources to go through all the data on global warming. Kudos to you for making the effort.

To your question:

Why is it, when this topic comes up, so many people that are on the side that says human centric global warming is a fact; tend to use the argument that anyone who does not agree with them is a right-wing gun toting SUV driving mentally crippled slack jawed idiot?

Experience.
Since very few people can become experts in ever field, we rely on other experts. Just as I do not expect my users to know much about how a Unix server works and they don't expect me to know much about how account management works, they do their job and I do mine. When the only climate scientists that argue against AGW are nut jobs and those that highlight them are gun toting right wing nuts, we extrapolate.

Of course there are exceptions. Some right wing nuts don't own any weapons and some drive sedans.

Why would a headline be looking at area instead of volume? They give us some numbers (in statues of libertys). Do we not have any estimates?

It's like people that harp on Antarctic ice increasing, when most of that's because it's warm enough to snow and that new ice coverage is not very thick.

However, blocking political sites on a corporate network is perfectly reasonable.

When a corporation decides to block certain content, that is _not_ censorship. That is a corporate policy that likely includes blocking other political sites.

Try going to http://www.antiwar.com/ when you're next on a large corporation's network and see what the response is. Very likely the content will be blocked because it's catagorized as a political website. Then try xkcd.org and it'll likely be blocked because it's a humour site. The arguement for both those sites is that there is no company business that will be served by visiting them.

Now, if the government was blocking the site to private individuals, we could have a censorship discussion.

That's exactly how a republic works. If we were to allow federal law to override state and local laws like this we may as well toss out the constitution, form a parliament, and join the commonwealth.

There's not enough evidence of harm to warrant a ban, but some people will have concern.

To touch on the related GMO food issue. I avoid where possible get buy GMO food because I think it leads to a healthier food ecosystem, not because I'm afraid that I'll turn into a mutant.