Don't forget about the dumb fuck UFO conspiracy nuts who think a government that can't cover up blowjobs would be capable of preventing leaks about alien visitors for over 60 years.

Is Yahoo a money laundering operation? How the fuck did they have $1Bn lying around to begin with?

You have violated the CFAA. Please report to your nearest DoJ branch office for processing.

Imagine the republican attack ads if this White House decided to switch over:

"Obama wants to force your kids to use metric...just like those socialists in [ominous musical stab] LIBERAL ENGLAND."

Are you sure about the genesis of PEEK/POKE? I was using them in Integer BASIC, before MS came out with Applesoft.

Why do you think it appears to give intelligent reactions?

Google's broken analytics keep telling me I would enjoy Drudge and Limbaugh apps, when I know damn well that I won't. To be fair, though, it's based on what's popular in my area. Other things "popular in [my] area" of Denver include local channel 7 affiliate apps from fucking Michigan and the like.

Google's shotgun approach to personalization has yet to impress me.

"Hurf derrrf I have cocks in my mouth!"

Nailed it.

"Ever notice how 18-wheelers drive on a highway in heavy stop-and-start traffic? Notice how they generally let giant holes open in front of them?"

That's a direct effect of mass, not because truckers are interested in making traffic better.

Cities aren't the only ones who try to get away with this. I was ticketed by campus police for parking on railroad tracks. I sent in a photo of the car, parked on the tracks, with the decades-abandoned tracks running right under the pavement still in frame a few feet from the car, along with a note that told them to go fuck themselves. Never heard anything more about it.

Ignoring your attempt to drag religion into an otherwise insightful comment, it's an interesting question.

I guess the truth is that there's a pretty large amount of uncertainty about the effects of global warming. Such uncertainty would make the deliberate warming of the globe ill advised. But that same uncertainty tends to gut arguments that we should take drastic action, such as the misanthropic neo-luddite position that we need a strong central world government that is largely socialist in order to control the actions of multinational corporations, and/or individual government actions to reduce us back to a "low energy" society world-wide (i.e. back to third world standards of living).

If you object to my characterization of socialist, realize that it would necessarily involve the governmental power to dictate the utilization (or disuse) of capital resources, the very definition of socialism.

Ultimately, taking a "wait and see" position is taking a position of optimism in humanity, and having faith that the people of today and tomorrow will have the intelligence and problem solving ability to develop technology in response to actual problems that arise.

The irony is that to take the pessimistic position that humanity will blindly run things into the ground and not do anything about it requires faith in technology as well, faith in the computer simulations of a chaotic system (actually two, climate and economic), designed primarily by people with a leftist political bias, and fed only 40 years of reliable detailed data in combination with historical data extrapolated from ice cores with a significant margin for error.

Which position is the smallest leap of faith? That humanity will be able to find solutions to any pressing problems that arise, or faith that a computer simulation of a very chaotic system based on limited data and designed by those with a political bias is correct? And to go further, that we should spend trillions of dollars of resources to address these problems that haven't happened yet?

To me the latter position is untenable. It's not a question of politics when examined in these terms, it's a question of healthy scientific skepticism and an application of taking the position that requires the smallest leap of faith.

Good to see I'm not the only one who realizes this. The peak oil types seem to imagine a world that is incapable of developing new technology or adapting to alternatives as the prices of something slowly increase over a period of 100 or more years, which is a ridiculous assumption.

It's nice of you to actually admit that the ulterior motive is a powerful global socialist government. Most climate change people stop short of actually admitting that.

"That's about one drink for a woman weighing less than 120 lbs., two for a 160 lb. man."

Of what? Wine? 3.2 beer? Everclear? How many Olympic-sized swimming pools of this mystery liquid would it take to put half a football field full of average-sized men (lined up head to feet) over the new legal limit?

Suck it, AP.

"Wait till that gene transfers to the weeds."

It already has.