Microsoft clarified later: they gave $60k worth of free donated software, which they regularly do for 501(c)3s who ask. They're not taking sides; you ask, they give. There was no cash contribution, and they don't appear to have done any due diligence. They do, however, get to take it off their taxes.

It's unusual for there to _be_ a company with a lick of design sense. Design is time consuming, and most tech companies would rather get something to the market rather than take the extra time it takes to do the design right. It's a whole extra set of employees, and fussy ones at that, adding to the cost without improving the feature-set.

Especially since, once you do get it right, somebody else will copy it. As soon as Apple comes out with something, everybody says, "Well, yeah, we could have done that." But you didn't. Or they say, "But it doesn't do X." No, it just does what it does, really, really well, and a surprising number of people are happier with a device that does a few things exceptionally than with a device that they can make do other stuff.

What ticks me off about it is the abuse of history. Fawkes (and others; Fawkes was largely the fall guy) was attempting to kill the Protestant King James I so they could install a Catholic on the throne. And an underaged Catholic at that; they would make themselves the regent, tied to the king of Spain.

This wasn't a blow for freedom. It was a coup to replace one monarch with another, and a slightly-tolerant regime with an intolerant one.

The original Fawkes wasn't a hero of any kind. If the book and film have any "greatness" to them, it's in the power of a compelling piece of propaganda to mislead. The anarchists who feel inspired by it were manipulated, and that should be a cautionary tale, not a role model.

That was my first thought, too. I've been trying to figure out why the glaciologists were so surprised by this; it's what I would have expected.

I assume that they've got more sophisticated models than the simplistic one I have in my head, and that their understanding of the weather patterns called for less snow. But I haven't heard much from them beyond this article.

Yep. That's science, doing exactly what the deniers claim it doesn't do, and that's the reason why those who value knowledge over ideology favor the scientists over the deniers.

I've given up worrying about the climate change in itself. The denialists have won, and will win, until it's far too late (as it may already be). I'd kind of like to see science win out over ignorance, and I think science still has a slight edge. It maintains that edge by being the ones who take into account all of the facts to reach true conclusions, and altering their understanding when new facts come to light to keep their conclusions in line with the best understanding.

As a way to understand the world, it's more effective than ideology. As a way to make things happen, it's getting trounced, at least in this area. Perhaps I should care about the latter more than the former, but having lost there, I take what solace I can in at least trying to understand the world. Even if it means that some day the retards get to score extra points.

None of my MREs has a "horse" option. We can fix that.

Ever work with real horses? They require a lot of training, they're skittish, and they're fragile. Horse people say they're born looking for a way to die. They're not as self-feeding in the desert, and require epic amounts of water.

You'd be better off with a mule or camel, creatures not known for friendliness. You need highly skilled operators. And they require care every day. They don't shut off.

In an ordinary news source, I'd call it "mis-translation". For the Daily Fail, it's more likely a deliberate misreading for the purpose of sensationalism. The line between that and an outright lie would is unclear, and both are the Daily Fail's daily bread and butter.

It's a rock. You dumped a rock into your wine.

Thank you for the description of malolactic fermentation. In fact, a nice article devoted to the details of malo would be very informative: the challenges, the kinds of flavors it produces, how it's controlled, etc. That would be great.

I guess if what you're starting with is "some attention whore dumped a rock in his wine, and it's a SPACE ROCK" a science reporter has to do something for a second sentence. So, thanks for accidentally including some value in an otherwise pointless bit of attention whoring.

Small but relevant typo: Santorum has 7, not 8.