This is absolutely true -- over millions of years. It does not explain the warming trend in the past century. Your mode of argument is like saying "all will eventually die of old age, therefore automobile accidents don't kill people." There can be more than driver of climate change, and the timescale over which a driver of change operates is very important. Even if car accidents are less likely to kill you than old age, the fact that they kill you at 19 years old rather than 90 makes a big difference.

Four degrees C rise over 100,000 years is no bit deal for the human race. The same change over a century is a very big deal. Not species extinction for humanity by any means, but massive economic dislocation. Imagine the western US as much more arid than it is now; it could mean the end of agriculture on the Great Plains.

I care more about *how much* and *how often* you read, than *what* you read. If you read more than 50 books a year that tells me a lot more about you than the titles you read. I think everyone should read at least 20 books a year, with two or three genres of fiction and non-fiction represented. Once we get to that point, THEN we can argue what titles should be in the "canon".

This is not the middle ages, where a gentleman could return from university with a library of fifty or so books that'd do him for the rest of his life. There's just too much information in the world and entering the world to rely exclusively on a canonical list of titles. It's more important to be a habitual knowledge seeker who can take pleasure in reading.

And we need some kind of antidote to the 24 hour news cycle, in which the more people read or watch the less informed they become. That antidote is books, in large quantities.

Unfortunately for you, this style of argumentation is just easily refuted in the same style: SEZ YOU. You're obviously a mindless puppet of the Koch brothers. Not a very satisfying argument, is it?

If you want to debate this at a higher level than middle-school playground reparte, you should address the researcher's argument: that at higher temperatures the cloud forming moisture at lower levels gets dispersed into the upper atmosphere. This reduces the rate of cloud formation, which in turn reduces the albedo of the Earth. That means that models which weight reduction of cloud formation higher are more likely to be accurate.

Feel free to take issue with any of the points raised in the previous paragraph. Or we can leave it as SEZ YOU.

I was going to put the Bible in there, but then you should include several versions, and several other such works as well. The Gita, Qabalah, Koran.

The Iliad and The Odyssey. Canterbury Tales. Moby Dick. Oedipus trilogy. Beowulf. Rubaiyat.

The nexus 7 is 1920x1200 at 300 DPI for $199 just about everywhere.

I think this story must be cursed or something.

Anyhow, what we have in the story title is a misplaced modifier. The phrase "Using Hubble Telescope" functions as an adverb modifying the verb "confirm", but the editor has *misplaced* it in such a way that it could easily be misread as an adjective modifying "clouds". Yet while this modifier is misplaced, it is not quite "dangling"; to dangle it must refer to something that isn't in the sentence at all.

Dangling is usually the result of incomplete editing. You might start with "Using the Hubble Telescope, researchers find evidence of clouds on an exoplanet." After editing, you might end up with "Using Hubble Telescope, clouds are discovered on an exoplanet." The latter is a dangling modifier; its target "discovered" has been removed from the sentence, leaving the adverbial phrase "dangling". There is no alternative parsing in which the orphaned modifier makes sense, because what its target simply isn't there.

Wrong. The argument is not that religious *organizations* ought to have some special privilege, it's that employers in general have a right not to cover medical treatments they disagree with.

Medical treatment choices should be matters of *personal* conscience. The Church has every right to teach its opinions to anyone it pleases; it has no right to force its opinions about legal, private behavior on its employees, or to punish them for their purely private behavior.

Well, that's just a slippery slope argument. The real problem with the Catholic position here is that it is incoherent.

Covering contraception under a health plan is not "paying for contraception". It's paying for contraception *coverage*, because it is the employee that decides to take the medication -- which by the way has numerous other therapeutic applications besides contraception. What's going on is the RC church trying to interfere with their employee's medical coverage.

Short, simplistic answer: the ISP found a way to fraudulently skim a percentage from online retailers for every purchase made by the ISP customers.

Slightly more detailed answer: the ISP directed users looking for online merchants like "amazon.com" to it's own bogus server. That bogus server then re-directs the user's browser to the merchant's server in such a way the consumer doesn't notice and the merchant thinks the customer is following a product referral from an advertising partner. Thus the ISP collects a kickback intended for people who make product recommendations and referrals, without actually having made any recommendation or referral.

the topic it describes would be an acre of bread.

My kids came home from their first day of school asking "are people really this stupid?" They weren't asking about the students. They were asking about the teachers. They knew kids didn't know stuff, but the idea that their teachers might be ignorant also was a shock. My answer: yes dear, but don't let them know you know how stupid they are, or they will hurt you.

I wish I could claim this was the benefit of my genome, but it is environmental. If the kid learns to read at 18 mos, they will develop some way to evaluate the text on their own and establish their own ethical domain. They will experience the mainstream educational method in that context, objectively finding it ridiculous.

Intel bought McAfee because the guys in charge of Intel have no fucking clue about technology or trends. They're MBAs applying formulas that might apply to 19th century rail monopolies. They have under their direction the engineers who could totally kick the world's ass, and they feel it is their purpose to guide them in a fruitless direction. I totally feel for the long suffering Intel engineer held back by his corporate overlord. They know the way, but their bosses won't let them go there.

Somebody had to say it. I'm not sorry. Nerds are geeks. We are also sophomoric.

If ever there was an article begging for a "hot oil on Uranus" comment, this is it.