Yes, there is a long term trend to remove nearly all CO2 from the atmosphere. However, your lack of reading comprehension ability has resulted in your failure to note the part where I said "won't be a concern for billions of years." Try again.

You're absolutely right. People love to complain about Big Industry concerns related to fossil fuel production and consumption, but they don't seem so inclined to talk about the sprawling industries built around various forms of alternative energy production (with all their spectacular fiscal abuses, corruption, and failures of other sorts), climate change studies, government programs to research and produce reams of new legislation every few years, etc. Meanwhile, our society continues to be okay with current death rates from an assortment of diseases and widespread famine. People say they care about those things, but their focus and money say otherwise. Apparently, it's cooler (no pun intended) to care about CO2 levels in the atmosphere than it is to do a better job of dealing with things that are killing millions of people right now.

CO2 levels have fluctuated a *lot* in our planet's history. The amount of time we've spent measuring these concentrations is tiny by comparison. The long term trend for our planet, human influence aside, appears likely to be a virtual elimination of atmospheric CO2 as it becomes trapped in landmasses. This of course would result in the elimination of most terrestrial life on Earth as we know it, and won't be a concern for billions of years, but it is the likely trajectory nonetheless.

That's a rather poor example. In the case you've cited, parents are responsible for what their children are exposed to, and should be the most significant force in their lives of those children when it comes to offering alternatives to things like fast food. We don't generally watch television in our household. Also, I don't know many eight year olds who are permitted to run around town by themselves. Perhaps it's different where you live. Then there's also the angle of allowing children to make their own decisions at various stages, but with open discussion of what's happening in lives of those children. I'm a parent, and I practice what I'm preaching here. Are you a parent?

You should read the GP again. He wasn't disagreeing with your position or advocating use of a rolling release.

You can run an official Google Chrome build on Debian/Ubuntu/Fedora/openSUSE. You can also run XFCE on current releases of these distros. What functionality is missing from any of the available mail clients available in their repositories? All these things are supported with current security and bug fix updates as well. It seems you're complaining about nothing.

Debian 7 is less than 24 hours into being the stable version, and went into release freeze status less than a year ago (2012-06-30). I'm endlessly amused by what people consider "old" these days.

"Best practices" is such a wonderful term; its sheer flexibility permits the person invoking it to assure his audience that he meant exactly what he said, even when he didn't say much of substance.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm late for a game of bullshit bingo.

A whole bunch of the folks who aren't paying federal income taxes also aren't paying state income taxes. I see you've nicely dodged the point regarding people paying their fair share in general, though. Most people would consider fair to be a number greater than zero.

Do you seriously believe that events, suppositions, theories, possibilities, government-backed PR statements from $insert_nation_here, and similar fodder that winds up in mainstream media reports represents the sum total of events that relate to or are orchestrated by the intelligence community? If so, pat yourself on the back; you've surely got it all figured out. What will you do with all your free time now? I suppose you could start by making your way off the couch to retrieve another Mountain Dew and bag of Doritos. You must be running low after all that excessive thinking you just demonstrated.

This is a fallacy. With government as large as the combined federal, state, and municipal components that make up the bureaucracy of the United States, accountability to a single person or even any particular locale is diluted to the point of being nearly inconsequential. Larger government bodies tend to do what they want, with little actual oversight or consequences for their actions in such a climate. While those bodies are comprised of individuals, the personal responsibility and accountability measures of any single individual in such large bodies becomes diluted in a similar manner. Reference the TSA for practical examples of how this state of affairs comes to pass and the consequences for civil liberties.

You fail to mention an individual's ability to leave a company should his or her beliefs and needs fail to be satisfied by that company. Apathy on the part of the population and a culture of "gimme gimme gimme, I'm owed everything I want" may reduce the tendency for people to exercise this ability, but it doesn't change its validity. You also fail to mention an individual's ability to start a business venture of his own that acts in a manner aligned with that person's beliefs; apathy and laziness tend to inhibit this as well, but that's the fault of the person, not the rest of the world. There has always existed a relatively small subset of the population that actually builds things and manages their growth, with the balance of the population largely filling what might be considered basic support roles in any given industry. Everybody isn't the same, and pretending they are accomplishes nothing.

Would you consult an automotive mechanic for medical questions? Would you feel comfortable hiring a doctor with no background in information technology to act as the chief technology officer for a company you founded? What you're proposing is in fact worse than either of these options, and to say it's an inefficient proposition is generous at best.

People spend entirely too much focusing on whether somebody else might have his feelings hurt in the process of examining how things work. This isn't about personal insults; it's about reality, which has little to do with whether people get upset over seeing their personal vision of how they want life to work confronted with the unfortunate reality of a harsher set of terms. You appear to suffer from a common tendency to think that the way things work now, for better or for worse, is somehow new and different from how human society has operated for ten thousand years. You're mistaken in that, and I suspect you'll continue to believe what you want because it's more comfortable than facing reality. That is your problem, not mine.

That's the point. Nothing is misunderstood, aside from your misunderstanding of economics. You probably also suffer from an unfortunate tendency to view markets with blinders and therefore see large players dominating various fields at any given snapshot in time as a bad thing, but without the ability to see that such domination is still better than the alternative of unskilled bureaucratic control that is necessarily comprised of similarly flawed human beings with no real accountability to speak of in the same examined period, with those two options being an exclusive OR proposition, and without understanding that disruptive forces periodically come along in said markets to upset the entire deal in a constructive manner.

In other words, you probably aren't somebody who effects large scale change in the first place, and happily you're not somebody who will wind up having any real influence on things in any event. You probably think you speak for the masses in some respect, but the truth of the matter is the masses don't even know what they truly believe beyond their own personal lives. This has always been true, and will always be true as long as economic scarcity exists. You might as well stop wasting your time concerning yourself with such things and just live your life.

TLDR: This is how the human species operates. Get used to it and relax.

Monsanto is quite relevant here. It appears you're trying to be funny and failing, or you're entirely unfamiliar with Monsanto's history of claiming ownership over genetic sequences of living organisms and couldn't be bothered to review the material provided at the link above, or you have financial interest of some fashion in Monsanto and are attempting to halt conversation on the topic. Which is it?

Tell that to Monsanto.

To be fair, an awful lot of folks had the Commodore Amiga 1200, which utilized the lower cost 68EC020 processor with a 24-bit address bus. Your point still absolutely stands.