Also heavy vehicles use less fuel on cement because they have to push a wave of asphalt in front of the wheels on asphalt which deforms more than cement.

Steel is quite good to recycle.
It takes about 25 gigajoules of energy per tonne to make steel, but if you recycle it you can get back 18 gigajoules per tonne.
In carbon emissions it takes 2 tonnes of CO2 to a tonne and you get back about 1.5 tonnes.
If most of the boat is steel that makes 9,000 tonnes of steel wasted , 163 petajoules of energy wasted or 13500 tonnes of CO2 emitted for an artificial reef.
The energy is around the same required to run a 1 GW power station for almost a day.

Wow you are a unique specimen, I love discovering people with unique value systems.
Your not being afraid of things unless they threaten the extinction of your species is probably unique in the animal kingdom. It requires a high level of consciousness to distinguish whether the threat is in fact a threat to the species or just to your self. It also requires a level of altruism not observed before in even the most social of insects.
You don't fear car accidents, AIDS, sharks or any other threat that doesn't threaten the species.
I suggest that this value system can be proved to be an evolutionary dead end for two reasons :
1) Without knowing the fate of the rest of the race, the last member will still not recognise the threat to the species.
2) Inheritance of this value system is unlikely because of the lack of fear individuals possess almost certainly will result in their deaths.

When these alarmists start infringing upon my freedoms though I'll have a problem - Not exactly consistent with former "survival of race is all that matters" position. This is more consistent with a position of : I can't be bothered implementing the tiny changes to my lifestyle necessary to avoid dangerous climate change , so I will construct irrational value systems in order to justify my position.

This is not a reversal of climate change.

Reflecting more sun from the top of the atmosphere while increasing greenhouse gasses will place us in yet another unknown region of the earths dynamics.

It might work in controlling temperature - for some small part of the earth - if you get it right, but this is a multi variable system, people might not like your attempts to control temperature if rainfall patterns are altered, winds and currents change, and we get less sunlight to run solar and wind power and grow crops.

We already have one uncontrolled multi decade experiment running, lets start another. I'm quite certain there are no precedents that would indicate that rapidly constructed fixes to problems cause any more problems than the original one.

Denialists - I didn't say who was a denialist besides those who chose to pick isolated data sets that agree with their world view to prove their point.

Genuine skeptics would have been interested in the Antarctic cooling data too

But point taken It is probably not nice to feel you are being called silly names.
Have a read of some of the sites out there, I think the term is quite fitting, besides what else could you call them. It's getting pretty late in the game, the stakes are getting higher than they have ever been, there is so much evidence about global warming, that it's going to become increasingly difficult be politically correct by giving any respect to irrational people who cannot follow a logical argument.

The start of the sentence : "I think" means I don't have any data - just a guess. Probably shouldn't publish a paper with just that sentence in it should I ?

The Antarctic as a whole is not cooling, but warming with the rest of the world, some data from some places showed it was cooling and of course this was expounded by denialists as proof that warming wasn't global.

see : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue

The Antarctic's ice is melting much less than the arctic because the antarctic gets a lot of it's coldness from it's altitude (mountains etc), whereas the arctic is just floating ice, and is also adjacent to more land and less water - water stabilises temperature - so this makes the arctic more sensitive to temperature changes. But the edge bits are melting.

I think the ice shelves breaking is more likely to be caused by sea level rise though. Where the sea level cracks the ice off from the land. Which shows the non linear nature of ice melting. We don't just get ice melting linearly with temperature increases, we can get whole chunks breaking off and floating away

Imagine a large thin sheet of ice floating on water that has formed over thousands of years. The ice has formed slowly from immense glacial flows and some snow falling on top, the forces that constrain it are the floatation on the water and the force of gravity, which have been fairly constant during the formation, forcing the ice shelf to form at an elevation where gravity balances it's floatation force.

Suddenly (in ice shelf formation time scales) the sea level changes slightly. The two forces are out of balance, and the ice is bearing load. It breaks.

I made all the above up, have no specific knowledge of ice sheets but hope that it refutes your claim that it is cretinous to think CO2 could cause ice sheets to crack.

CO2 has caused sea level rise which has been accelerating lately : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

The warming reversed meme can be discarded by your reading this : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/global-trends-and-enso/

If you RTFA it says the ice shelf was mapped in the 1930s and has been constant size until very recently. We also know bits (this big) don't break off every now and then, where every now and then is less than the age of the ice currently in the shelf (which has been measured to be thousands of years old). Otherwise it would have already broken off.

I have to ask why you have not self imposed the carbon tax ?
Especially since you are so sentient and don't need the government to tell you what to do, and clearly agree with paying for your emissions.
It is relatively easy to buy genuine carbon offsets (not tree planting).

Is'nt this exactly what modern operating systems do ?

After the first read, the files are cached in memory, and unless they are pushed out of the cache, will be there next time you compile ...

Seems really quick, great UI improvements.

Must have been a tough decision to go with 'windows standard' font rendering by default. People must be so used to crappy blocky rendering that smooth stuff might scare them away from a new browser.

This browser drags my XP installation into the 21st century.

Alex

Quite the contrary.
This is the first time climate change has certainly contributed to the violent deaths of people incinerated in their own homes.
First world people too (not those third worlders we are used to watch die).

It's not just a matter of your emissions killing some rare frog somewhere, it's now people.
This realization would turn the environment vs people argument on it's head, but instead, knowing people, it will result in even more vehement denial.

So really its 'non greenies' that are 'human haters', or more accurately : 'people that don't give a shit about anyone but themselves' are 'people that don't give a shit about anyone but themselves'

GW was renamed climate change by US liberals because it sounded less threatening.

What you are saying is :
They said it would change.
It did change.
But it would have changed anyway.
So I don't believe them.

Can I suggest that the issue may be worthy of a more detailed study ?

Meshing will never be the same again.

This is really educational for kids (and adults) to learn about structures.

My view on relational DBs is that architecturally they are a bad way to implement software.
I think they should be just used for tables with indexs, no stored procs or triggers anything else.
There should be code written in the language of your choice to control all the transactions and business logic etc.
Giving out database schemas as an interface and giving out database logins to client software is a disaster IMHO.
Much richer, more explicit and typesafe interfaces can be provided by modern programming languages than are possible with DB scripting procedures.
The DB providers have a vested interest in developers using all their more complicated, DB specific features to avoid their product being a mere commodity.
But like any other API or technology on offer, it is just as much what you reject that makes good software as what you accept.

In summary I think the relational DB as a marketable technology may be dead, as to my way of thinking it is just an API that does indexs on tables larger than memory and knows all the searching tricks and disk access performance tricks necessary to scale to large data sizes.