Speaking of incomplete, I notice your post has no calculations whatsoever. Don't just sit there and say, "You're wrong!" Tell me why I'm wrong and provide whatever it is you think I'm missing.

_It is true pipelines would transport oil using less carbon emissions compared to rail transport. But they also reduce transportation costs, thus allow more oil to be used and allow oil to undercut renewable sources of energy. So it makes sense to oppose the pipelines._

No. No it doesn't. You are intentionally trying to make oil more painful so people won't use it. This only makes sense when there are viable alternatives. Sorry, but wind and solar won't get the oranges from the groves in Florida to markets in Maine. All you are doing is making everything more expensive needlessly, benefiting the Chinese worker, punishing the American worker, and again, you are increasing the amount of CO2 that gets put into the atmosphere.

Somehow, this doesn't seem very smart.

_ Any single rail accident would spill far less oil than a spill or break in the oil pipeline._
Are you sure about that? Remember, that we are not just talking about rail, but also tankers that will take the oil across the ocean to China. Then, of course, the Chinese will refine it, using God knows what kind of environmental safeguards. Once it is refined, it will be loaded back into a tanker or pumped through Chinese pipelines. Still think this is a better idea than a single pipeline to US regulated refineries?

_And these accidents would create enough pressure to make the rail transport of oil safer._
But pipeline accidents won't create pressure to make pipelines safer?

There is about 100,000 miles of oil carrying pipeline in the US. If they ran a story every time one went 5 years without incident, there would no time to write about anything else.

This is such a stupid Idea! Assume is't 12:00 UTC, you work in Moscow but need to contact someone in Chicago. Are the people in Chicago up and at work or should I wait a while? Now assume it's 4:00PM in Moscow, is anyone at work in Chicago? I guess I could be wrong but I think the mental calculation is easier.

I have a hard time believing crude in tank cars is measured by volume and not weight. By the very nature of the components of crude, with things liken propane, hydrogen, kerosene, etc, weight would make much more sense.

Not just Obama, but the by anti-oil people. They think by blocking the pipeline, they will be reducing CO2 in our atmosphere. The sad part is, they are actually INCREASING the amount of CO2 and other pollutants.

Rather than move the oil from Canada to Texas via an electric powered pipeline, they are forcing the oil to be loaded onto trains, where they are transported to a port where they are loaded onto an oil tanker where they will be transported to China. All of these modes of transportation are diesel powered. Once in China, they will be refined by Chinese workers under Chinese environmental regulations into various petroleum products. Then they are loaded back onto tankers and shipped around the world, with all profits going to the Chinese government.

Or, we could transport the oil to Texas refineries, where we have control over the emissions the refineries emit, by a pipeline using electrical pumps.

Tell me which option makes more environmental sense (not to mention the economic sense!)

Every town has traffic problems at 5:00pm. I've experience the traffic in Austin, Houston, San Antonio. Dallas, Chicago, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus (OH), Louisville (KY), New York, Buffalo, Toronto, Detroit and several other places around the country. Austin traffic is not bad at all.

It's all a Jimmy Fallon prank on Leah McGrath Goodman. He's been setting it up for months.

That is going to be quite a surprise to the ancestors of the Asian tribes that actually were the first to settle the Americas ;)

How so? What is interesting about a router doing...you know, routing? It's trivial from a technical standpoint. Routers do it all the time.

I'm not condoning it, mind you. I think it's a terrible idea and I'm glad I don't have Comcrap as my ISP.

That's sort of the point. M-Theory might just be a dead end. If we don't find the supersymmetric partners in the next run of the LHC at the very least string/M theory will need considerable re-vamping if not a total scrapping.

A lot of people also think McDonalds tastes good.

I don't think there is one. Simply but probably poorly put, supersymmetry postulates that each particle that we know of and have observed has a heavier 'super-symmetric' partner particle. The significance of this is that if true it explains a whole bunch of how the observed Universe works. If it is not true it's almost as exciting really, at least to me, because it means there are some big missing pieces to our current models and a lot of new and exciting work will need to be done.

The short version of the article is that the LHC should have detected supersymmetric particles by now. There's still a slight chance that the next run will, but the energies that fit the current theories are running out. If they are not detected soon physicists might just have to move on to new theoretical models. For one thing, string theory will probably need to be scrapped.

It's all on one page, and it's paragraphs separated by useful, illustrative graphics. ADHD much?

You are probably too young to even dial your own phone number on a rotary phone!

F^@$ I just said that, I'm doing the old angry guy thing, I've become one of them :(