The U.S. surrendered in an another country after a long war. The French surrendered immediately when they were invaded. Hardly the same thing.

While we're neing pedantic, Dictionary.com's defintion of rust is:

a: the reddish brittle coating formed on iron especially when chemically attacked by moist air and composed essentially of hydrated ferric oxide

b: a comparable coating produced on a metal other than iron by corrosion

So yeah, alimunium rusts but it's not iron oxide. (Though I love someone else's joke about how Ford will find a way to turn aluminum into iron oxide. Classic.)

There's a step before 1 that's prety important. How do you determine who wishes harm? Partly through combing through vast amounts of various kinds of intelligence data. I totally agree with steps 3-5 and I support the 4th amendment BTW. (IAA Intelligence Analyst)

See that first link? It quotes the high volume. Things can have more than one cause, and sometimes two causes work together. A lot of grown ups understand this.

That being said, having your gifts arrive a little late falls in the First World Problems category. Get over it.

They idea isn't to switch, but to put pressure on Comcast et al. Users unable to switch would complain. It's a start.

That would be insulting if it described a single person. But hey, if you get off feeling persecuted for being in the majority religion by a tiny minority of the population, go for it I guess.

WTF is that, and how does it differ from other forms of Atheism? Being an Atheist myself, I must admit to being ignorant of the various denominations of Atheism.

A 50/50 split would give me pause for concern. I'd have to wonder if we really knew what what was going on. 50% on one side, with the remaining 50% split among 30 competing theories would be slightly better, but I'd still be cautious. An overwhelming majority (97% in this case) leads to me be believe that we're on the right track. I look at it this way. There's a right answer out there somewhere. Did 97% miss the mark, and some tiny minority actually figure it out? It's not that they all agree that makes it right, it's that there's so little argument over the big picture: we're contributing to climate change. Frankly, I don't see how we could cut down the number of trees we are and NOT affect the climate, just from that, but hey what do I know?

Mining Bitcoins isn't all that great either. It's getting more and more computionally intensive, which requires a lot of power, which means computers running on coal-burning power and being cooled by coal-burned power. There was an article here recently about the effect on the environment from Bitcoin mining, wasn't there?

On the one side is the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists (97% agree with anthropogenic climate change) who have repeatedly gone back and re-evaluated the data with the same conclusion, and on the other are people who want to keep consuming and polluting to their heart's delight with nary shred of scientific evidence to back up their claims that everything is hunky dory. Which side sounds more like a church again?

I sometimes joke with my Apple fanboi friends that they're paying four times as much for something twice as good. But it's worse than that, isn't it?

My comment was about Reagan being President in the 70s. Which he wasn't.

Bul tin foil hats block it, right?

Your weird obession with denying the overwhelming evidence we're destroying the environment aside, I was referring to your statement that Reagan was President in the 70s.

Wait, what?