I can live with them or without them, but they need to pick one way to do it and stick with that.
Uh, no. 'No wireless, less space than a Nomad, lame".
You can actually get a pretty good handle on how a bit of technology will do by using the inverse of what the Slashdot hive mind says on any given subject.
"You have been selected to receive our exclusive offer! For only $1500...!"
It's a commercial product. Soon (maybe already) anyone with the money will be able to buy one. Probably for less money.
If you want a Google Glass invite code, there are plenty of them on eBay, all with 0 bids. $8.99 or best offer is the going rate for Buy It Now.
Google has two kinds of stock, A shares and B shares. A shares get one vote. B shares get 10 votes. The founders have all the B shares. Facebook has a similar setup.
The NYSE used to prohibit multiple kinds of stock for listed stocks, back when the NYSE had more clout. (The exception was Ford, which was grandfathered in. Ford has a two-tier stock scheme that has kept the Ford family in control for a century. That's why Ford didn't go bankrupt when GM and Chrysler did. A bankrupcy would erase that deal.) But the NYSE caved a few years ago. Now it's common with tech issuers.
The cherry picking and slanted explanation of the data most assuredly does.
Good thing that climate scientists aren't puzzled about that. If they were, they would have wigs (or breast implants these days) and be called weatherman (weather persons?).
it may form a large part of their activities,
No, it forms a large part of the political excuse to create and fund these entities.
Yes, there's a whole prepaid purchase industry out there, and whole racks of their cards at most retail outlets. This is just another one.
Burger King had the most honest description: "Pay now so you can eat later".
Or Google Maps. This has been done a number of times. The 'interesting' spin here is that it is hooked to a Formula One car and they have rigged the streams to allow multiple people to 'point' the camera. And of course, an iOS app. Gotta have one of them.
So I'll admit my knowledge of the Cretaceous asteroid impact is the simplified version of public education combined with the History Channel. 32,000 years though? I thought it would have been a matter of decades, because the particulate matter thrown in the atmosphere reduced the incoming sunlight, which essentially reduced plant life substantially and having a cascading effect up the food chain. I would imagine that would take a couple of years to decades, but not millenia; what am I missing?
One question the TFA doesn't address is exactly what is meant by impact times. Certainly it's not the case that the event occurred one day and 32000 years later, everything is hunky dory. The volcanism events happened over hundreds to thousands of years, the asteroid impact, a couple of seconds. In the vulcanism scenario, I imagine that things changed pretty gradually, there may have been a 'tipping point' or several. In the impact scenario, the changes happen relatively rapidly with likely a long tail into the new normal.
So I would take the durations with a grain of salt and think more along the lines of geologic time frames. 32K years is just a sneeze. The Anthropocene so far is only 6000 years duration at maximum, likely the most change has occurred in the last 500 years. Not even a blip in the geologic time frame. It may be that several million years from now, the only evidence of Homo industrialis will be a thin layer of concentrated metal and assorted complex compounds sitting in some deep strata.
Are you that determined to reject climatology that most of the science that goes on in the world is disposable?
It does make for an easy to swallow, mindless approach to a complicated and scary world. For many people, this is reason enough to go that route.
Don't go getting Randall all worked up again.
There can be no twisted thought without a twisted molecule. -- R. W. Gerard