Frankly I'd be a bit iffy about the medical field. It has advantages with the guild like features keeping wages high in some positions and there are some obstacles to off-shoring, but it's also a field that will likely come under increasing pressure from AI and robotics in the not too far future. The gains to be made are simply so compelling and anything from diagnostics to surgery is potentially better done by machines (which in turn, due to the nature of the field, means that having an actual human doing either will basically be malpractice.)

Trade jobs that are hard to offshore and difficult to cost-effectively automate are probably a good choice. I'd stay away from the transportation sector as that too is likely to get automated to a significant degree within our life time.

That all depends. Was it a metric boulder (usually measured in liths, like microlith - very small boulder - or megalith - huge rectangular boulder that causes evolutionary changes) or was it an imperial boulder?

Ah, 40 kg - it was a metric boulder.

I'm not confusing anything, the parent is. He wrote "the world's CO2 emissions" (which implies the total), not "the world's excess CO2 emissions" or "human CO2 emissions." Given all the emotion and hyperbole around this issue, I think it's important for language to be accurate.

Or what?

I know I won't see it in a theatre, I simply don't have the patience for watching mindnumbing cgi+action without being able to fast forward anymore. I assume the movie will probably last about 10 minutes if you skip the meaningless bling so I'd probably be better served if someone cut together a summary and put on youtube.

Nobody is making an argument for anthropomorphic global warming - that is, global warming with human-like characteristics.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

That can't be correct. Total human emissions of CO2 only account for about 3% of the world's CO2 emissions, so do you mean that American cars and homes account for between 1/4 and 1/5 of that 3%?

No I got it, and it has nothing to do with the misinterpretation but rather the "1 in 20" being a "majority". Nice try though, claim it was the intent all along.

No I think you're confusing the decimal for a comma.

So how do you fix reading comprehension? One of the 20% is not one in 20. It's one of the 20 out of 100 people. Sigh.

It would make sense if it was a Sith saying...

Google, so far, only uses the info to target ads to you. Not really a bad thing. I would rather see a targeted ad than one for Maxipads or Viagra.

I think you are missing the point here. The awkwardness and privacy concerns arise from the targeting: e.g. when a middle-aged guy gets a targeted ad for Viagra. Or, in my case, when some Google research about STDs later gave me targeted ads for STD tests.

Look at the exe file with a hex editor. All you will see is numbers.

171,000 tonnes. Worldwide. Since we started mining gold. I'd say that's pretty rare, especially considering how dense gold is you don't need many m3 to reach that mass. That's only around 9000 cubic meters.

To be fair, I wouldn't mind storing my wealth in diamonds and rubies and silver, either. The problem with the stones is that the price is artificially kept high. The mark-up on jewelry is ridiculous. And of course diamond mining is an effective monopoly. So you pay what DeBeers wants you to pay - which is too much. But short of them dumping loads of diamonds and flooding the market, diamonds could be a fair way to store wealth as well. The problem with diamonds though is you either get a whole diamond or you don't. Gold can be cut up, shaved, powdered, and a precise weight handed over. Silver and aluminum are far too common. Although silver has also been a store of wealth, its value is always less than gold. And platinum is just too rare.