Against such tremendous cash hoards, $324 million is chump change
So... because Apple has a lot of cash on hand they should have to pay more in damages? Why? The reward should be based on the damage done not the size of the defendants bank account.
'My goal in inventing this clock is to help scientists improve their understanding of what speeds up and slows down the human aging process.
That's a misprint. The actual quote is "My goal in inventing this clock is to become really stinking rich. I don't mean a little rich, I mean Bill Gates rich. Famous too. 'The guy who solved aging' has a good ring to it. Mostly, however, I just want sacks and sacks of cash.
The two events, nicknamed Bert and Ernie, have a 99% chance of originating outside our galaxy
I beg to differ. They either have a 100% chance of originating outside our galaxy or a 0% chance. We may be 99% sure it originated outside the galaxy but that doesn't impact whether they actually did or not. (and don't give me any of the quantum observer effects jargon. These waves functions would have collapsed long ago).
This is as misleading as the studies that "disproved" that organic food is more nutritious. Nobody was making the claim they disproved.
And yes, there are people making the claim that MSNBC is not biased or much less biased than Fox News.
At CURRENT extraction rates there's less than a 50 year supply so making the processing cheaper will just make it run out faster.It's possible some new sources will be found, but no apparent ones are on the horizon.
the prospect of accessing limitless wealth beyond the Earth has caused a bit of media speculation
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
[Oracle pays] about 2.5% at the time (by contrast, grad students and parents pay 6.8%-7.9% for Federal student loans).
Why bother to add this? Oracle is a very credit worthy company with large assets. In contrast, student loans have a very high default rate and are risky to lenders (or the government if they assure them).
Obviously it was added to try to create some outrage where none rightly exists.
Warming has not been lower than forecast (what stinking place did you pull that from?)
I pulled them from a VERY stinking place, some place most people never go, the actual data. Take a look at the IPCC forecasts from 1999 IPCC now take a look at actual data from 1999 to 2012 at NOAA (or Hadley CRUT).
It clearly shows that while there has been warming it has been lower than the low forecast.
If you don't want to sift through the data (although I encourage you to do so and see for yourself), here's an article from an anti-denier site showing Hansen's 1988 predictions similarly being low. Note that this site is in the business of proving that global warming is real, their bias is strong and their data is suspect but even they clearly admit that actual temperatures are below the forecast.
These aren't cherry picked examples either, take most past temperature predictions and chart them against actual and you'll see that the rise is less than predicted. Or check the IPCC predictions from edition to edition and you'll see that they are slowly moving down in the near term (although often have global warming shift into high gear a few decades hence).
To be clear, I'm not a denialist. I do think global warming is real and a problem. But I think Climate Science is a lot like economics, they have a pretty good idea what's going on and you'd be foolish to ignore them, but you'd also be foolish to think that they have everything fully figured out or that they aren't missing some really big and important factors in their analysis.
The solution of this problem is trivial and is left as an exercise for the reader.