LOL. Never mind.

Interesting. The thread is about the IPCC and someone posted a comment about the IPCC and you went off topic to attack someone entirely unrelated to the IPCC. I understand why you did that, and I understand it was perfectly reasonable and justified in your opinion. I also understand why you falsely assumed I had expressed an opinion about global warming or was aligned with any earlier commenter. I get it. Fine. No problem.

This has nothing to do with Chris Monkton or Anthony Watts.

There are people here who are posting opinions and facts here. You did not respond to the opinions and facts posted here. Instead, you avoided what was posted here and made personal attacks against people who are not here and who cannot respond.

That's pretty safe, isn't it? You don't have to provide facts, you don't have to express an opinion about what was said here and defend it.

As I said in the beginning - that isn't very responsive to the discussion here by people here is it?

"Oh for goodness sake", why don't you argue the issues instead of attacking random people? You should be embarrassed.

Do you really think that ad hominem attacks are responsive? In my opinion, the person who feels they must resort to ad hominem attacks has admitted they have lost the argument.

"The new technology will destroy civilization as we know it!!!1!!!!"

Why is this stupid article even considered news? Someone will always predict the End of Civilization as We Know It when new technology disrupts the old, Right Way to Do Things, technology.

And they are always wrong. Things change. Deal with it.

(Protip: The destruction of the middle class has nothing to do with the Internet).

Definitely! There are protections, or used to be, that made certain information totally off limits to law enforcement no matter what kind of "proper warrant" they might have. One example: conversations between husband and wife.

In your world, there would be no such protections.

So now everybody is a "bad guy" - and the military and law enforcement can do anything to us?

It is important, very, very important that we keep in mind that you can't "catch the bad guys" if you become the bad guys. If the military and law enforcement break the law to gather information, then they are the bad guys!

Yes! When my kids were young, we always had fun and Santa was real. We were never religious but, like you, I don't object to religion. I feel sorry for deeply religious Christians having to cope with all the crass commercialization of "their" holy day - but that's another subject.

Now that my kids are all grown, there really isn't any reason to continue that. I love the time and getting together, but the whole decoration and gift-giving is for children - to continue the "magic".

I tell everyone, "If I want something, I'll buy it. If I haven't bought it, I don't want it." This relieves everyone the agony of trying to figure out what to buy me. I opt out of the crass commercialization and save everyone some time and money.

That being said, I look forward to making the time magical for any grandkids.

In general, the mega-study found no significant benefits specifically for cardiovascular disease, cancer, and cognitive function. And "mortality".

From that, they claim there are absolutely zero health benefits from supplements.

That just doesn't follow. There is a huge area outside of "cardiovascular disease, cancer, cognitive function and 'mortality'" that could come under "better health".

Talk about drawing vast, generalized conclusions from narrowly defined studies.

Ah, did you miss that "I won't do that" part of that quote? I'm trying to figure out how "I won't do that" is a threat. Trying... Nope, not happening.

Scott Adams did not "threaten to kill someone". Read what he wrote. He only wished that those who actively oppose assisted suicide be condemned to experience the same agony and suffering they have imposed on others. Actually, I think that's probably exactly what's going to happen for some of them.

My first computer was a DigiComp. No memory at all.

What I always did with change requests: The rule was, you must get an estimate and approval for ALL changes. The estimate would include how long it would take -- and I was real good at estimating that. The approval would explicitly be for the additional time required for the change -- meaning how much that change would push back the schedule. Most "urgent changes" became "oh, never mind". Any that survived and got approved automatically adjusted the budget and schedule to accommodate the change - so I remained on schedule and on budget.

So you think the app is a good idea?

What a stupid and horrible idea. If you are driving and some road-rage idiot is after you -- you can't call for help? What about those stuck accelerator situations? What if you are speeding to the hospital with some badly injured person and need directions to the nearest hospital? I could go on and on. What a stupid idea!