The universe is approximately 13.7E9 years old. There are 8.766E3 hours in a year. Thus, the universe is approximately 1.20E14 hours old. So at a rate of 100 hours per second, it would take 1.20E12 second to exceed the age of the universe in YouTube videos. 1.20E12 seconds works out to around 1 million years. So we have a way to go still.

You may want to loosen your tinfoil hat. If you tighten the straps too hard, sometimes it can cause extreme irritability. Ideally, the fit should be "snug" but not "tight."

I would have thought single people to be the most likely to invent new ways of touching themselves

Take a look at the demo video. The deer apparently got away, as when the sight gets back on it after the shot is taken, it is running away, looking uninjured.

I'm not sure why he mentioned NTFS. I believe the Windows file modified event is sent for any changes on any disk type, even on remote NFS mounts, that are done by a process on the local machine that is using the Windows api to create files. If it is limited to NTFS then Microsoft is completely bonkers.

The original unit should be put back and allowed to fail...

Climate change will cause one half of species to decline

That's not what the article says. The article says that a third of the animal species will see a substantial decline in their range. It says nothing about a decline of species or even their populations.

We don't need evolution to fix this. With increasing global temperatures, more land will probably become suitable for cultivation of mainstream varieties of corn and other food staples. In addition, we have a wide range of other varieties that we could plant.

In fact, climate change does not mean that you can simply add the average increase to local temperatures to get the new climate. Higher temperatures have historically meant an extension of plant growth to more northern latitudes without an increase of temperature near the equator. Instead, regions near the equator just tend to see higher precipitation. Overall, AGW may well result in a significant increase of arable land both up north and near the equator.

The article talks about a "dramatic decline of habitat range" for "half of plant species" and a "third of animal species". This does not mean a dramatic decline of species or anything like that.

You could describe the same result as "The study shows that almost all species will have more than enough habitat to survive even under the worst case scenarios of global warming and pessimistic assumptions on their ability to adapt".

It depends on how much you consider "knowledge". I can read pretty much any OO language well enough to understand any recent graduate's code for hiring purposes. I also understand enough to be dangerous in all of them; that is enough to open the IDE, change behavior to suit a requirement, and make sure it works. What I don't know in most of them is when I'm re-inventing the wheel, when I'm doing something a backwards-ass way, etc.

Right, which is why we have the Sherman Antitrust Act. In fact, I took a whole class on antitrust law in law school, and it was an awfully thick book, so I know first hand that we already have a ton of antitrust law. We don't need the McCain Micromanagement of Media Act.

At least Obamacare actually matters, whether you love it or hate it. I want my legislators to care about what's going on with Obamacare. I don't want them micromanaging my television.

At the risk of being a "me, too," seriously, they can't find anything more important to focus their legislative energy on? On the one hand, I kind of like the idea of a la carte television. On the other hand, I kind of don't care because I pretty much already do that with Netflix and iTunes (for Doctor Who). On the third hand, why is it the federal government's business how cable companies package their product? If there are antitrust issues, fine, we've had the Sherman act for more than 100 years. If that doesn't get you there, maybe it's none of your freaking legislative business.

Then there is no major American political party for you.

Mostly true. It does change the calculus some. The risk of future events like this/mitigating those risk increase the cost of issuing the cards. Therefore, they may be willing to increase prices (slightly) and issue fewer cards (slightly) to re-maximize profits.

But yeah, this particular event is a one-time cost, so not going to change their pricing structure/desire for profit.

Although there's 3 other veins where the effect may be felt.

1. An "anti-fraud" surcharge may be added to cards, because non-sticker costs have a different impact on consumer behaviors than an identical transparent charge.
2. There may be the ability to transfer liability to the consumer (increasing their total costs), with or without the option of purchasing insurance. Or even claim that they provide insurance for something the consumer is not liable for.
3. This may serve as a trigger that allows all banks to raise their rates at the same time without violating anti-collusion laws.