You aren't using significant in the statistical sense. They're basically saying that there was an effect that happened at the same time, but they aren't sure whether it was a random effect or not.

Because of the stigma I'd guess. I know teenage girls who got pregnant and their parents pressured them into keeping the baby instead of putting it up for adoption even though it was going to destroy their lives.

Of course, that doesn't excuse the murder in the slightest.

Unfortunately, not everyone can live in a city with decent pizza. For the rest of us, Papa Johns is better than the other national chains.

It wasn't pertinent to the point I was trying to make and is covered in full in the link that I provided. Sorry if that was legitimately misleading, but my point wasn't that natural sources are so much larger than human ones per se, but that choosing volcanism was misleading and that the overall tone was too hostile.

I'm sorry, but what lies and bullshit am I using? I pointed out that human CO2 production IS dwarfed by natural production. I didn't go into the other facts because it didn't factor into the point that I was trying to make, that while combating people who disbelieve AGW we should be accurate. The link I gave you went into the full details. I didn't go into the full details because my point was that your comment wasn't accurate about why he was wrong and it was overly combative to boot. I'm curious as to why you're attacking me so strenuously. I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, just that the way you've said it is overly combative and not a full answer. Yet you're attacking me by saying I'm spreading lies and bullshit.

I know. I'm just saying that if you combat ignorance with condescension and hostility, then the ignorant are going to continue being ignorant because of their knee-jerk reaction to the assholes on the side of science.

Or we can keep this argument in the realm of emotion, assholery, and dogma and continue in the way we've been going. I'm sure that'll work out for us in the long run.

While the GP is wrong in his conclusion, he's right in saying that humans don't product that much CO2 relative to nature. From http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm -

You're right that volcanism is a very small modern source of CO2, but human activity is still a very small minority of global output. Choosing to use volcanism as the comparison is misleading at best. The science is conclusive in favor of global warming, so accuracy and facts are enough to combat bad conclusions.

That's what W8 is. Tablets require a better development stack to abstract out different hardwares, a touch-friendly interface (you're much-hated tiles), and stripped down internals. Isn't that basically what W8 is?

Gates doesn't want any part of that I'd imagine. He seems to have embraced philanthropy pretty strongly, and he's be walking into a possibly unwinnable war.

My favorite part of the conspiracy theory is where the government is competent enough to cover this up indefinitely, but not competent enough to come up with a better plan.

So what you're saying is that it's a high risk operation with no reward? And that somebody involved would probably have come forward by now since that would be a huge news story, they'd be a hero, and there's no moral justification for the action?

Sounds like you're the crazy one!

I think you misunderstood his comment. While what you say is true, the marginal reward he's talking about is competitive advantage over those not cheating. If you cheat and nobody else does, you get an advantage over everybody. If you cheat and everybody else does, you get no advantage. The more people cheat the less advantage there is to cheating compared to everyone else.

That's not taking into account the other societal problems that rampant cheating creates, though, and I think everyone can agree that everyone would be better off with no cheating.

Hundreds or thousands of engineers working on something and a technically unimportant piece slipping through the cracks?

I would expect it to be a lawyer who's not embedded in the engineering department and didn't see the need or even realize the potential of checking a service pack. Taking into account that this probably isn't their primary version of windows, and it seems pretty easy for this to legitimately slip through the cracks.

Just like capitalism/free markets, when done correctly it's great and absolutely vital to the welfare of the nation. It's when things are taken too far that we have problems.

She's not. She made the choice to believe instead. Too many atheists, people like you and Dawkins, act like assholes about their lack of religion, and that's one of the reasons she chose to believe in her religion.