250000 sounds like a theoretical number to me. 8 hours per day of the sun directly overhead gives you a theoretical 8 kwh of energy in 1 square meter. 5 days gives you the energy content of a gallon of gasoline. That's roughly 70 gallons per year (I assume 1 year), or about 300,000 gallons per acre. That's a theoretical maximum, the sun doesn't sit overhead. Have they figured out how to get the gasoline out of the water yet without using huge amounts of energy?

I'm not a denialist, but you should get your facts straight and not give weight to the denialist claims that we are "alarmists". Saying islands are being evacuated because the sea level has risen just over an inch in the last 10 years sounds alarmist to me. If they are being evacuated it is more likely that they are sinking due to changes in the crust and mantle.

I don't like people that repeat lies easily proven to be false.

The earth will be fine no matter what the temperature is, but humanity and civilization flourished under current conditions.

Nope, there was an external hd-DVD drive you could buy for it though.

If someone gives you a horse you dont't expect fine print saying you can't ride it.

I've been told people shouldn't look them in the mouth...

Did you read his post? Is is a copyright owner.

You show a complete lack of understanding of the issue, the GPL and of copyright. The poster owns the copyright on the patches he made to the Linux kernel, if Google is distributing code from those patches then they need a license from the author. It sounds like he has licensed that code under the GPL. The GPL defines what source code means, and it includes definition files needed to compile to prevent a licensee from doing just this sort of thing:

The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.

The only standing you would have to complain about "violating the GPL" is if you owned the copyright to code that is used in their closed-source product that they had the right to use because you made it available under the GPL. It doesn't matter if they incorporate the entire Linux kernel into their product, unless you own the copyright to some of the code they use, you have no standing to complain. It doesn't matter if you own the copyright to most of the code of the ext3 filesystem, if they take that out of the code they use then you have no standing to complain. If you suspect they are using code in their closed source product that they only had the right to use because someone licensed it under the GPL, I suggest you talk to the copyright owner to see if he cares. He might well accept a small sum from the company for a closed license to his code as well.

If they own the copyright to all of the code they are releasing under a different license, there is absolutely no requirement for them to release it under the GPL. Any versions that you had that were released under the GPL would still be able to be used under the GPL, but they have no requirement to keep providing it.

Let's take one provision of the GPL as an example. If you provide the object code without the source code, you must offer to provide the source code for up to three years. If the company owns all of the code then they can stop providing the source code at any time. They are not bound by the GPL because they own the copyrights. If however they included code that they had licensed from a 3rd party under the GPL, they would be required to provide the code, or they would have been violating the terms of the GPL and therefore violating the copyrights of the person that owns the code they licensed.

Because he deals skeptically with bad astronomy. For example if someone calls themselves a macro economist, would you think they deal with macro economics or would you think that they were a large person?