That's what netbooks offered and still do. Perfect for touching up a presentation on a long flight without having to double the amount of carry-on with a fracking laptop case/bag. Macbook Air provides precisely that functionality but at $1200US compared to the average netbook's $200-300. Tablets? They are entertainment, _not_ working machines. MS Surface might seem like a good working tablet, but it's priced as a laptop; MS successfully co-opting both the network and tablet markets while extorting an unreasonable price. Once again, big companies hijacking affordable computing from users.

... should be any leader's mantra, unless you intend to rule by fear and intimidation.

The error margin is 50%? So the 2.4 was twice what was expected BUT with the margin of error, it actually could be what was expected?
What is satisfying is seeing someone actually included the error margin. The climate models never seem to. The best you can say is that they reflect their assumptions very precisely, you just never know how bad the assumptions are.

The article starts by making the statement that the "CO2 emissions" are responsible for the climate change. The nuance in this study is the inclusion of a new feature: "... include simulations of how ocean chemistry would interact with an atmosphere with higher carbon dioxide levels in the future". So the sources of error are the corelation of 'emissions' to climate changes AND the modeling of the interaction of CO2 with the ocean (and coral's hardiness in the face of change). The latter two in particular are still very very poorly understood. So the margins of error are pretty big on this new model. Bravo on the modelling work but stop with the calls for sweeping changes based on them.

  If your car (or aircraft!) were designed with models of such comparably low granularity and poorly understood principles, you'd be dead ... if the governement even let them on the road (or skies).

turn in to tumors?! And that's a known hazard?? That's a bit of info I never read in all the articles I've seen here that are 'pro' embryonic stem cell research/use.

Famous last words, as well as being the second evidence of protectionism of the 'profession' of medicine. The first was the reason NOT to autopsy as making medical staff uncomfortable as it might reveal mistakes. The second downplaying of the technology's potential is typical. Machines are already on-par with humans for diagnostic accuracy virtually anywhere they've been used. The machine's problem is that when a mistake is made, it can't baffle the patient with BS to talk their way out of a lawsuit nor do they have a profession ready to leap to their defense.

High school gives you a broad overview so you enter adulthood with half a clue, so you can understand to some degree what the media, advertisers, etc. are telling you. After high school nothing prevents additional education, in fact, shouldn't education really be an ongoing process? If the author really sees high school as a last chance to learn something like 'public speaking', what a sad sad statement.

Mind you, that kind of attitude does pave the way for the fulfilment of Ayn Rand's vision of how things should be.

Didn't read them well ... they a PiHKAL and TiHKAL ... spelling.

Could they/have they set up crowd sourcing of the planning and construction that must come next. I, for one, would happily give a week or two of my time to work on the site. I can bring carpentry, electrical, data management, and project management skills. Any others up for somethinng similar?

Not old. Go and retrain, or not. Your question is procrastination at its worst, how the hell would anyone else but you know whether you should retrain or not? Really!?

If they put this up for contract it, they would get _zero_ serious bids. That shows exactly how serious they are. This was a cheap way of garnering media attention with a hot internet topic.

Who ever said 'organic' had more or less nutrients. It's always been about the growth environment ie. lack of pesticides, artificial growth supplements, etc. What's more frightening is that these were scientists. The comment about the variability of nutrients between plants is common knowledge which, you would think, would have rendered the need for the study kind of doubtful.

More useful would have been a study on:

a) the non-nutrient compound differences ie. besides nutrients, what compounds are present and how do they differ between organic and non-organic?
b) what of the non-nutrient compounds are good/bad for consumers and to what degree?
c) how have the levels of non-nutrient compounds changed over the years ie. have non-organic foods seen a rise or decrease in non-nutrient compounds and how does that affect consumers?

blah blah blah MIGHT CAUSE blah HORRIBLENESS blah CATASTROPHE blah AWFULNESS

Or ... it MIGHT NOT

When they say 'MIGHT', what exactly is the probability they are suggesting? Pretty much unknown ... like most climate related FUD.

10% less efficiency is 10% _less_, it's wasteful, no matter how much power is involved. Wouldn't you be delighted if your vehicle was 10% more fuel efficient? And yet, the car companies will make a big show over small single digit improvements.

Instead of grandiose carbon sequestering schemes or other mad schemes to attempt to control the purported man-fuelled climate change, why not instead simply try to do things more efficiently? Energy consumption inevitably continue to grow simply because the planet's population will continue to grow. The most practical way to deal with the associated environmental impact is to lessen the byproducts through efficient consumption.

Releasing a study reflecting its own cultural bias, from which it stands to profit handsomely, laced with insinuated fears lacking any kind of meaningful statistics. _This_ is the state of medicine. It's about the money.