The big argument about this being a "smoking gun" is one sentence, where someone typed "dissuading teachers from teaching science" instead of "dissuading teachers from teaching this lousy excuse for a science?"

Pretty weak stuff, overall.

On the other hand, the entire Heartland anti-AGW fund is smaller than the one bribe, er, "grant" paid to one NASA administrator, and a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the various government pro-AGW propaganda expenditures.

Large areas where there's no advanced communications networks.

Of course, nobody really LIVES in most of those huge data voids, which is why nobody puts billions of dollars into building cell towers in those areas, but...

How in the heck to you expect me to celebrate an apocalypse while I'm working so hard to arrange it?

Working holidays can suck, but this one will be well worth it.

There's a lot of interesting things in PowerPoint that most people never see - like buttons, which work very much like the buttons in HyperCard.

Most people never use more than 5% of PowerPoint's features - and even the "power users" seldom use more than 25%.

The thing people keep ignoring in this ongoing story is how most of the "hacking" happened with the assistance of one or more people working for the government: police officers (some of them have already been nabbed for this) and political appointees, along with the standard-issue public employee bureaucrats.

The official who had his computer "hacked?" BS. He sold the information to someone, and when he got caught, he lied.

That's what happens when you give bureaucrats the power to tap phones and other private communications: they sell it to people who would get arrested for doing it, or who are too dumb to do it themselves.

It's not just NewsCorp, too - half of the tabloids in the UK have been caught in this affair.

Pretty much every major technical advance you can think of in internal combustion cars that made them faster and cheaper came from people racing them.

Of course, they've been getting more expensive over the last couple of decades - but a huge chunk of that cost has been the addition of things that cars don't really need to run - safety, electronic gadgets, emissions controls. And even with that, most modern "sporty" family cars will leave all but the hottest 1970s era sports or muscle cars in the dust, especially when handling is considered.

If we made new cars to 1970s safety standards, without mileage and pollution controls, they'd be insanely fast, much lighter, and about 1/2 the price.

The side effects of that can be left as an exercise for the reader.

"except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger"

He's in the land forces. He's just in service in the land forces of an enemy.

That sort of thing happens when you commit treason and declare war against the country you're supposedly a citizen in...

Sorta forgot that part, didn't ya?

Then you're also demanding that James Hansen, NASA administrator and major AGW scientist, should also go to prison?

You see, while he's been touting AGW, he also took in well over a million dollars from organizations with large financial and political stakes in the "science" showing AGW - and he actually committed a crime, since he didn't get prior permission from NASA to do so.

This is on top of his political activism, where he's done and said many stupid things (which would get him fired in almost any other field).

Hansen is a very politically motivated guy - to the point where his scientific opinions and statements just can't be trusted. And he's directly in charge of a very large amount of the temperature and climate data that supposedly supports the whole AGW theory. Data which, for some odd reason, they can't find the original records - only the "corrected" record, which shows warming that others can't account for.

Wait what? Suing the people polluting and causing the problem is the wrong target and they should be suing the government agency that has not had the power to do anything yet?

Except that they have, since the 2007 case.

The EPA issued a ruling in 2009 which says so explicitly, listing CO2 with several other gases which could be considered pollutants because of potential greenhouse effects.