Awesome

I saw the movie last night and I agree with you on most of your points.

Of the plot holes, I expect T movies to have plot holes, however it was very easy for me to put them aside and enjoy this movie.

I loved the action scenes, esp the first sequence, just awesome.

I thought Mackenzie Davis was fantastic to look at and to watch, she was amazing.

I thought Sarah Connor character was just ok, but Linda Hamilton seems to be not that good of an actor.

Maybe I had low expectations but I really enjoyed the movie. To intellectually tear it apart seems like a weird thing to do. Go watch it to have fun.

As far as I understand, even the ‘fly by wire’ gas pedal in a GM vehicle has two potentiometer that have to agree or a diagnostic gets tripped.

1983 Sony Walkman?

Does this mean that some jackass can wipe my phone by grabbing it and entering the wrong password 10 times? That would be a nasty prank.

An awesome transparency feature would be a button explaining why you were targeted for this ad.

Of all the times I have used the word 'gay', almost always I meant 'some degree of bad', I rarely meant 'homosexual' and almost never meant 'happy'. When did the sexual connotation of the word begin and why is that the overriding meaning now. Many words have multiple meanings, the context is key.

"Not long ago, the music industry was losing money left and right."

Are we all supposed to accecpt that as fact? The kind of accounting they do will prove that they never make money and rarely owe artists any royalties.

For a while AltaVista was for sure the most relevant search engine. Like all the others, they evolved by chasing the easiest dollar. Front page ads, paid for results, etc. Small minded stuff.

Google on the other hand took the long view, they kept the front page clean, kept the search results pure, and kept the advertising in check.

Chop down two trees, burn one to heat the other in low oxigen, this is a carbon neutral activity. Now take that biochar and bury it deep in the earth, or use it to condition the soil.

Plant two trees and let them soak up carbon.

I don't see any thermodynamic paradox there.

You could just bury trees, but I think the idea is the charcoal doesn't degrade back to carbon dioxide as quickly.

I think you would fire the furnace with a carbon neutral source, like wood. I think you would fire it with the very vegetation that you are carbonizing. I think they just restrict the amount of air they let in to the chamber.

Also I believe the proposed solution is to apply the char to soil to condition it.

I did a quick google of "pyrolysis carbon sequestration" and then "biochar"

I would say that most of the carbon sequestration ideas I have heard of sound much more crazy than pyrolysis of vegetation.

Personally, I would never support carbon sequestration anyway. I would say I am against purposeful human intervention of climate. If we have messed things up so far by accident or out of ignorance, imagine how bad things will be when we mess with climate for politics.

You sound like a dick taking cheap shots at GNU.

I heard an idea that seems too simple and cheap to actually ever try but, if we do ever need to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, the proposed solution is to cut the trees and convert them to charcoal by pyrolysis, then bury the charcoal, of course plant new trees and repeat.

You have almost certainly broken sharia law of many nations, how would you feel about defending your self there. Should you be extradited? Should your assets be frozen so that you have no chance of financing a reasonable defence?

This doesn't make sense, mass equates to energy, not the rate of energy.
I understand watts to be power, or the rate of energy usage.