I think you may be committing at least two errors here:

1. Confirmation bias #1: Thinking that "GW alarmists tout every earthquake, every drought, every flood as proof of global warming".
Global warming affects the climate, which affects the weather - generally, in making it more extreme.

2. Confirmation bias #2: Thinking that just because you experience cold weather there is no global warming.
The longer, colder, more snowy winters are actually an effect of global warming, counter-intuitive as that may seem.

The Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991 emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2.
Human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2.

Volcanoes emit about 1% of the amount of CO2 that humans do, per year.

Weather is not climate.

Neither the warhead nor the missile would gain much in either cost or simplicity of manufacturing from having a 3D printer available. Any part that could be made by a 3D printer is not a part that's hard to make or acquire by other means. The manufacturing challenges of both missiles and nuclear weapons lie in areas where 3D-printing is of no help whatsoever.

3D printing isn't magic, and it's not a sci-fi replicator. It can only work with one material at a time, and that material must currently be a (rather brittle) plastic. It is unlikely in the extreme that 3D-printers will ever be able to work with metal due to the temperatures needed.

So there's no need to Chicken Little just quite yet.

Two, actually:

Call of Ktulu [sic] on Ride the Lightning, and The Thing That Should Not Be on Master of Puppets.

Indeed.

Thanks, Iain.

Korben. Korben Dallas.

Thank you for tuning into "You're using the wrong name!". Coming up next: Section two of "Morning for Pedants". Stay tuned!

If we're talking SMS from my smartphone, I can't recall ever having sent more than 10 in a single day - but I *can* recall my son saying he broke the 2000 messages/month included in his plan - it's an age thing, I guess ;)

If we're talking IM, other chat systems, mail, tweets, and G+ updates, it's probably in the "over 100" category.

From perlfaq1:

What's the difference between "perl" and "Perl"?
"Perl" is the name of the language. Only the "P" is capitalized. The name of the interpreter (the program which runs the Perl script) is "perl" with a lowercase "p".
You may or may not choose to follow this usage. But never write "PERL", because perl is not an acronym.

From wikipedia:

Though Perl is not officially an acronym, there are various backronyms in use, such as: Practical Extraction and Reporting Language.

From Learning Perl, 2nd Ed:

Perl is short for "Practical Extraction and Report Language," although it has also been called a "Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister." There's no point in arguing which one is more correct, because both are endorsed by Larry Wall

Either way, typing the name of the language in all-caps is wrong.

Pray it's the Chinese... and it's not SCORPION STARE.

Although if you know what that is and don't have GAME ANDES REDSHIFT clearance, I'm afraid you're in for a change in work environments - hope you like British bureaucracy!

Chicken little.

They're talking about capturing a 7-meter asteroid. Those already impact the earth roughly once every two years. And when I say "impact", I mean "break up in the atmosphere and do little to no damage to things on the ground".

Not really. 7 meters is a *lot* less than 100 meters when we're talking about asteroid impacts. It would break up in the atmosphere.

Here's a more detailed look at what would happen, I'll highlight the relevant parts:

* Energy before atmospheric entry: 1.63 x 1013 Joules = 0.39 x 10-2 MegaTons TNT
* The average interval between impacts of this size somewhere on Earth is 1.9 years
* The projectile begins to breakup at an altitude of 65500 meters = 215000 ft
* The projectile bursts into a cloud of fragments at an altitude of 41400 meters = 136000 ft
* No crater is formed, although large fragments may strike the surface.
* The air blast at this location [1 km away from the impact point] would not be noticed. (The overpressure is less than 1 Pa).

In many places, it already is.

Most of the EU, for instance, seem to think that the Israeli are being quite unreasonable with the land the UN gave them in 1948.
Sure, it's a game of I-slap-you-because-you-slapped-me-because-I-slapped-you ad nauseam, but one of the parties slap rather harder than the other; often unreasonably so.

But they have the backing of the US, and as long as they do, nobody's going to protest too much. If they didn't have uncle Sam condoning their every move, my guess is they'd be struck down as a rogue state in a matter of weeks.

That video... sure isn't action-packed.

At first I thought I was watching a scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Like 2001, this video is interesting but slow :)

It wasn't supposed to be a contradiction, it was supposed to be educational. Of course I'm aware those battles were fought before the French revolution. That's not the point. The point is that the military the Americans are so fond of mocking is the one that helped them create their very nation.

Mention Ticonderoga, Yorktown, or Chesapeake to any American military buff and they'll get something proud and patriotic in their eyes - but it was really the French that carried those victories. That's something they choose to forget - hence the "arrogant" part of my post.

Some further tidbits about the French military:
Of 125 major European wars since 1495, the French have fought in 50, more than Austria (47) or England (43).
Out of a total 168 battles they've fought since 387BC, they won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.

That's quite the record, wouldn't you say?

FWIW, I'm neither French nor American. I'm just tired of the chest-pounding, the short memories, and the ungratefulness of it.