Not the whole ocean, but as I said, it could affect the local environment.

Did I say they shouldn't put warm water in the ocean?

What should be done, in all circumstances, is a study on the environmental impact. Such a thing may find (for example) that the original design releases the water in a secluded shallow bay where there is little circulation. As you said, a simple fix would be to make a longer pipe and release the water in deeper water, where there are stronger currents.

Environmentalism is not about doing nothing because well everything affects the environment. It is doing the optimal thing based on scientific evidence.

Releasing warm water back into the ocean could disrupt the local environment. Every company should minimise impact on the environment where possible. That is the rational thing to do, not something only 'hysterical environmentalists' support.

For example, the area might be a breeding ground for fish. Should they impact the level of fish in the sea just so a data centre can reduce their power bill? It seems almost all of Norway's energy comes from hydro, so it isn't reducing greenhouse emissions.

This is why I hate IT support. Most people I have dealt with in IT don't really know anything about computers. They just read from a script/troubleshooter. Only once they realise it is beyond their 'expertise' will the problem get elevated to someone who actually knows what they are doing. Sometimes you will get people who know a little, but not enough, try to fix things and then cause critical services to break in the middle of the work day.

Also the company I currently work for has a very bloated IT department, even though all support and server stuff is contracted out. Even with all these people in IT, our IT infrastructure/support/service is terrible.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I see lots of quotes pulled from Wikipedia, none of which back up your original very broad, very unscientific claim.

Really? That "criteria" sounds like you just came up with it. Define strong. Define negative.

And this guy I know is a real dick, does he have a mental disease? He has a "strong negative effect" on everyone he meets.

Why did you put Marx and Lenin in with those others...?

Ok. So despite what the article says, he is being charged for supplying equipment to undercover agents, and not for planning to fly a toy plane into a building.

Huh? How does the charge relate to the act?

What does King James have to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls? And as someone else pointed out, people didn't speak like that 500 years ago...

They could... but if they bypass security, one pilot could do much more damage than otherwise. They could easily bring in bombs or guns or whatever, and distribute them to other non-pilot accomplices. Then they could target multiple planes in one incident.

That isn't a Hollywood/studio movie, it is an independent movie that cost $400,000 to make.

Even successful directors/writers in Hollywood are having trouble getting original/unconventional movies made.