Let me ask you this: back when your son was in elementary school, did he not only learn how to spell encyclopedia, but sing the spelling? My sister and I did back in the '50s, thanks to Walt Disney and Jiminy Cricket. If you don't understand, hunt around a bit in YouTube.

All they had to do is tell the Democrats that the probe was the B Ark and it would fill up to capacity in almost no time.

I first learned about the Metric System when I was in seventh grade, or, twelve years old. By that time, I had a good, solid, intuitive grasp of the SAE units and found it easy to understand how big things were based on those units. But as that was in the early '60s, I almost never encountered them outside of school for many years, meaning that I never had a chance when I was young to develop a similar intuitive grasp of the metric units. I've never had any problem working with metric measurements as they're logically defined but I still need to translate metric to SAE to feel confident that I know how long a distance is, or how heavy something is. Members of the current "younger generation" shouldn't have this problem, because they're learning and using metric measures right from the get go, and that's a good thing.

As is "incentivizing." An ugly, word that should never be used to replace the shorter, clearer word, "encouraging." It has no use other than to make somebody sound learned and important, especially when it's used here on Slashdot.

So, I take it, then, that you don't believe that the climate has fluctuated in the past, before humanity was able to contribute to the process? How do you explain, then, all of those paintings of winter scenes showing far more snow on the ground than we get today? How do you explain the Frost Fairs on the River Thames?

I'm not trying to trivialize anything. I'm trying to make people understand that this isn't completely a man-made event, and that there are factors causing temperature rises and falls that have nothing to do with humanity.

To an end user its a confusing technology that were being told to just "trust us its better, easier, and safer" (counting down to the first security flaw being discovered btw).

Before starting to read the comments, I looked up passkey in Wikipedia, and found a dense, confusing mass of jargon that nobody who isn't already familiar with the subject is likely to understand. This type of "explanation" is going to chase large numbers of potential users away, because they'll come to the conclusion that the article is written that way to hide something bad. What's needed is a simple, easy understand description of how you set it up and use it, without any more details about what's going on under the hood than is absolutely needed. Those of us who need or want more detail can always find out later.

That I don't argue with. It's the fanatics that try to pretend that AGW started with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution that I have no use for, especially as the early parts of that were powered by water, not steam.

If that's not the expected result, why do they refer to a "stable climate?" I'm only responding to what was in TFS.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to remind people that not all of the current warming is man-made, and that the Earth warmed and cooled long before humanity was able to contribute to it. Pretending that the climate never changed until humanity started pumping lots of CO2 into the air is misleading them.

Referring to well-established facts as a "talking point" only proves that you're not interested in the facts, just your cult.

That part is true, but how do you think we're going to stop the type of changes we know happened before the Industrial Revolution?

Considering that I'm in my seventies and have no children that I know of, I sincerely doubt that.

You can't; the climate is always changing. Sometimes, like now, it's getting hotter, sometimes it's getting colder like it did during the Little Ice Age. Sometimes it's wetter, sometimes dryer. We may be able to reduce the effect humanity is having on the climate, but we'll never get it to stop changing.

The only reason that people are still talking about "the year of Linux on the desktop" is because the meaning of the phrase has changed, and not for the better. When it was first coined, it referred to the year when Linux reached the point when average computer users could use it with no more hand holding than they'd need with Windows. Somehow, it morphed into looking forward to the day when Linux was more common than Windows, which may or may not ever happen.