Hold on, you forgot to list the many many other scenarios that arise when it turns out she just doesn't like playing video games. Thats what you really need to be careful of.
If she's willing to give it a shot then it probably doesn't matter what you start with or if you beat her every time (btw why play competitive games against her?). But if you are just "getting her to game" you're headed for disaster. Before I was married I tried to "get her to autocross" (driving your car in a timed run around cones in a parking lot) because whats more fun than throwing your car around in a safe environment with a bunch of other gearheads right? Disaster. She is not a speed freak. Right after the inspection she was too upset to do anything and ended up leaving. I had ruined BOTH of our days trying to get her to have what I consider fun. I'm glad I learned that lesson before we got married (and yes we did in fact get married). The moral is: the most important thing you gotta think of is how is she enjoying it. If she's not into it after a few honest attempts you best drop it.
HOWEVER
Why not just sneak in a little gaming on your own in what little free time you might have? You probably didn't game with her before you got married, you maybe you just need to find a new way to game thats still fun if your buddies aren't around. I realize this may be impossible with kids (which we don't have yet) but my wife is totally cool with all of my car hobbies. I went to a race track the weekend after we got back from our honeymoon and there were no complaints (visible or otherwise...I hope). Just because you're married doesn't mean you must have all the same hobbies. She doesn't try to get me into nail polish or knitting either. I just make sure we spend a good bit of the rest of our free time together.
A lot of responses so far mention standup desks, doing pushups etc, and even treadmill desks. While these are all great things to do, they may be impractical or just not available, especially in a lab situation. I can't imagine the number of employers willing to spring for a treadmill desk is very large, after all how many of us have been stuck with 4/3 19" monitors for years after widescreen 24" monitors dropped below $200? If that's your situation (like it is for me) then you can always stay fit AFTER work. Give up 2 hours of internet/tv time (notice I put internet first) and join a work/social sports league, a gym on your way home, or clear out your living room and do P90x. All you have to do is stick with it and it will work.
Indeed, with this deal, Fox News will no longer be the only Arab news channel widely broadcast in the US...
In 2010, Alwaleed's stake in News Corp. was about 7% worth $3Bn; and News Corp. had a $70 million (9%) investment in Al Waleed's Rotana Group, the Arab world's largest entertainment company.
Couple of guesses off the top of my head...1) The market for movie theater projectors is much smaller than home projectors so you lose economies of scale. 2) to retrofit optics, there would have to be some standard to conform with so I see it as unlikely that the manufacturer will maintain backwards compatibility with a design that's probably 30 years old, also the light sources may be incompatible between film and digital 3) the warranties probably go above the 30 day manufacture defect one you get at best buy 4) You likely have to have a professional set it up and calibrated with specialized equipment. I can see that easily doubling the price of the hardware alone 5) training time for employees might be built in to the cost.
Or you could just easily avoid the accident as the GP did and get home for dinner on time and rant for 3 min about some idiot on the road. In the process you'll save yourself an hour at the scene talking to police, 6 hours in the emergency room, 2 hours on the phone with your insurance, a week waiting for your car to get fixed, a day talking with your lawyer, a day or two in court/mediation, 1-2 years waiting for settlement negotiations, and then another 6-12 months for payment assuming its not doled out periodically over many years (*my numbers are wild speculation but the hassle is not). Seriously, bad drivers piss me off royally but I'd rather not give up potentially hundreds of hours of my life for spite and a small chance of a financial return greater than all of the work hours I missed if I can just avoid the accident. Not to mention if I actually did end up with whiplash and have neck problems for the rest of my life.People in your country should learn from slashdot nerds and get a hobby. Bad drivers suck but sometimes its best to just let it go.
Ok so Ireland gets $4M they wouldn't have otherwise got as a tax haven. But how is that working out for them? Aren't they on the verge of bankruptcy? Did they become a tax haven before or after their economy went to shit? How is being a tax haven helping them out of it? I realize its a complex problem with many causes all interconnected through the global economy. But can someone tell me if its really a sound financial policy to reduce your tax rate to virtually nothing? A big point of contention for the US is it has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (not counting exemptions, and breaks). Is that the only thing keeping us afloat? How are the tax havens doing financially when corporations just register their companies there for the low rates and don't actually hire anyone aside from the guy that checks the PO box?
Thanks for the link. I perused a few chapters and it looks legit. I also read the sections that Alec Rawls highlights as the "Lead story from the Second Order Draft". His claims are 1) Climatologists finally admit there is some unknown amplifier increasing the suns effect on GW and 2) Other authors are liars because they still claim that human activity is the cause despite the possibility of an "unknown mechanism"
To me this smacks of the ol' "cherry pick a seemingly inconsequential potential loose end to singlehandedly refute a 50 year body of work with a mountain of evidence backing it up". Just like when fox news (ironic perhaps given how they are the source for this story) breathlessly shouted that GW is a hoax because a Himalayan glacier grew slightly in 2011. Nevermind any analysis on what the cause might have been or the fact that virtually all other ice on the planet is receding. It does produce talking points such as "Tax funded AGW is treason when its a FACT that glaciers are EXPANDING!". Technically true but completely off base (as fox is wont to do IMO).
Here is how I see the cherry pick is applied by Rawls: The line he took is from the aerosol chapter in a section talking about the theory of cosmic rays amplifying changes in the sun based on a few observations. Then he implies the theory or one similar to it means the true cause of GW is the suns variance according to the scientists and thus they are liars.
HOWEVER...
The quoted section is actually only refuting the theory that cosmic rays have a significant effect on GW. The observed properties of the theory (cosmic ray induced free ions alter cloud properties) is too weak to have a significant effect on anything, closing with: there is no observed trend in cosmic radiation in the last 50 years to match the warming trend. Section 8.4, the one actually devoted to solar radiation measurement and observation, concludes that solar output has not varied much in the time empirical data was available and if anything, improvements in measurement techniques and additional data suggests that previous reports over-estimated the effect of solar radiation on climate change.
The bottom line is, IPCC AR5 is not a smoking gun against AGW. It unequivocally states that our planet is undergoing a significant warming trend in every geographic region from the bottom of the ocean to the top of the atmosphere. There has been significant research in many aspects of climate science, many of which have a medium to high degree of confidence. The conclusion of the report is this: there is current global warming, almost entirely due to human activity. Period. There is no logic bomb hiding in section 136.4.16.347.4.a subsection 13 appendix B or anywhere else. There will be nothing to cover up. It will not be difficult to throw up a website with the cherry pick attack though. Look I can even do it with your posts:
CO2 levels in the atmosphere keep rising, every year the chances that this could be a statistical fluctuations in a long term trend diminishes
going to be difficult to cover up.
And speaking of websites, "stop green suicide"? WTF? we're all going to die because $80B has been spent on research? Gimme a break. Even if that figure is correct, Exxon pulls in 6x that in a year. The US will recover from banks losing $trillions and spends close to another trillion on the military each year. I might believe it if the site was called "stop scaring the executive board"
In closing (yes believe it or not I'm going to wrap this up) I would like to sincerely thank you for this thread. This is the most research I've done on AGW to date. I looked at all of the denier's evidence and gave it an honest chance (BTW, I couldn't find anything to corroborate your original "theres no warming" post which got this whole train moving - that chart may well be somewhere in the report but if so I think its a safe bet it was taken out of context). What I have now I believe is a more balance
Indeed, unlike my link which was published in the past, your link was published in the future. Coincidentally, that's when we'll find out who's right. If AGW deniers are right then they get to laugh at scientists. OTOH if AGW is occurring as the greedy grant chasing scientists claim, our kids are all fucked...from our POV anyway. Maybe tropical resorts in Canada will all be worth it. I do know one thing about the future, no matter what happens in 2014 when the report is published, AGW deniers will say its bullshit because there's a cover-up or its bullshit because previous predictions weren't on the nose.
But as my buzz wanes, I'll get to the point...why keep throwing dubious charts around when we can take reasonable steps that that actually sound like great ideas to everyone that's not going to be put out of business by abundant clean energy to avoid worst case scenarios based on the best knowledge available at the time instead of spending millions (billions?) trying to discredit researchers. Will funding renewable energy really destroy the economy or will it just destroy OPEC/Exxon's shareholder value while creating a whole new industry? I say we find out!
PS: I spent a good 15 minutes trying to find the source data for your chart, searching numerous AGW denier sites. If you still feel like debating some schmoe on the internet, please include a link to the "leaked" report before it gets "covered up". Thanks - MGMT
I believe the misconception that there was no warming since 1998 comes from it being tied with 2005 for having the hottest surface temperature on record. 1998 was especially hot due to the century's strongest El Nino event. But even when you pick 1998 as your starting point, there is still a warming trend over the past 15 years. I'll see your blog's.gif with a peer reviewed paper: http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf
FYI, the rest of us are actually living 37 years after 1975, not 5-10. On a more serious note, despite a few predictions of cooling in the 70's the majority of the climate community still endorsed global warming. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html) Funny enough, the cooling theory was based on human particulate pollution outweighing the human caused greenhouse effect. Good thing we got a handle on pollution right?
I can't comprehend analogies unless they involve cars. As for the 20 tags/20 guns, I thought that the goal was to register a gun to a user, not sell RFID tags. A single tag could unlock all the user's guns. Maybe he can even have a spare in case one gets lost....oh oh oh....like how you often get two keys when buying a car....but thats only for one car....perhaps you can shoot me back a better car analogy?
What about all of the other legitimate uses of firearms? If someone has a bunch of pistols or rifles because they are a target shooter wouldn't all those complexities be a great way to mitigate accidental discharges? While you're target shooting (and maybe even hunting) you have plenty of time to move your finger to the right position or switch to left hand mode. Police can still use the "simple gun" since they are more likely to use it in a life/death situation than someone that hangs out at a gun range. Hell, keep one simple gun under your pillow in the extremely unlikely case of a break in. But if you have 20 guns for fun it seems to me there is less chance of an accident if 19 of them have some attempt at idiot proofing. Am I wrong?
How obvious is it that support is not free? Maybe a few more notices would help. Perhaps some on the main site, by the download section, and by the support phone number.
They've supposed spent just under $200 million in total on various things, including anti-AGW stuff. That's slightly more than a year's funding for the World Wildlife Fund, one of the larger AGW advocates.
Are you suggesting that TWO HUNDRED MILLION dollars spent by a single family for the sole purpose of political gain is somehow insignificant compared to an international environmental organization's entire budget? I just don't understand your argument that AGW advocates are somehow stomping big oil when it comes to funding (hope I'm reading your post right). Ok so Exxon only made $41Billion in profit...a few more than shell...who made a few more than BP...etc down the line of the hundreds of billion dollar oil companies. But they aren't even the biggest producers. State owned companies dwarf the private companies but they don't publish financials so no one talks about them. Where are the hidden trillion dollar AGW cartels pulling the strings on the poor oil industry? You provided some speculation of how Carbon credits might take off but it won't mean anything if those 98% of scientists are correct and the global landscape shifts faster than we can adapt.
There's also big money to be had in the carbon trade markets. $180 billion worth of carbon dioxide emission credits were outstanding in 2011.
Holy smokes thats a lot of money! Thats over a third of Exxon's revenue for 2011! It was $486 Billion btw. For one oil company. What got me is back when BP had that the oil spill in the gulf and everyone was reporting that they put $20 Billion in escrow, a few sources reported that's less than a years worth of profits (note profits, not revenue which is also in the hundred billions). If Germany is increasing its power exports with a $130B investment (http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/09/clean-energy-loving-germany-increasingly-exporting-electricity-to-nuclear-heavy-france/), Imagine what they could do with $500B. As for political motherlodes, what do you call the 10's of millions the Koch brothers spend on lobbying every year?
And I like reasonable non-scorching summers and winters where the snow lasts until march. If I move to a higher latitude and you move to a lower one, we can both enjoy our lives without your whims requiring a potential massive painful shift in global society.
If you're ever near Washington DC, take a stroll through the Air and Space Museum in Dulles. Its much bigger than the one on the Mall. Of particular interest are the many early rocket projects that were cancelled. The plaques all start off telling how awesome the project was and end with "canceled due to cost overruns". There is most certainly a precedent.
Especially since TI themselves make a wide variety of advanced processor cores with built in touch screen display controllers. I'm guessing its more to do with schools requiring them and thus guaranteeing a market so why spend on R&D?
Too many think the government is going to make it all better
As well they should. As someone who pays into a system with a multi trillion dollar budget the least I expect is for it to show up when shit hits the fan. I'm all for being prepared and not panicking the minute the lights go out. But when your entire street gets washed away those flashlights and canned beans are going with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Hold on, you forgot to list the many many other scenarios that arise when it turns out she just doesn't like playing video games. Thats what you really need to be careful of.
If she's willing to give it a shot then it probably doesn't matter what you start with or if you beat her every time (btw why play competitive games against her?). But if you are just "getting her to game" you're headed for disaster. Before I was married I tried to "get her to autocross" (driving your car in a timed run around cones in a parking lot) because whats more fun than throwing your car around in a safe environment with a bunch of other gearheads right? Disaster. She is not a speed freak. Right after the inspection she was too upset to do anything and ended up leaving. I had ruined BOTH of our days trying to get her to have what I consider fun. I'm glad I learned that lesson before we got married (and yes we did in fact get married). The moral is: the most important thing you gotta think of is how is she enjoying it. If she's not into it after a few honest attempts you best drop it.
HOWEVER
Why not just sneak in a little gaming on your own in what little free time you might have? You probably didn't game with her before you got married, you maybe you just need to find a new way to game thats still fun if your buddies aren't around. I realize this may be impossible with kids (which we don't have yet) but my wife is totally cool with all of my car hobbies. I went to a race track the weekend after we got back from our honeymoon and there were no complaints (visible or otherwise...I hope). Just because you're married doesn't mean you must have all the same hobbies. She doesn't try to get me into nail polish or knitting either. I just make sure we spend a good bit of the rest of our free time together.
A lot of responses so far mention standup desks, doing pushups etc, and even treadmill desks. While these are all great things to do, they may be impractical or just not available, especially in a lab situation. I can't imagine the number of employers willing to spring for a treadmill desk is very large, after all how many of us have been stuck with 4/3 19" monitors for years after widescreen 24" monitors dropped below $200? If that's your situation (like it is for me) then you can always stay fit AFTER work. Give up 2 hours of internet/tv time (notice I put internet first) and join a work/social sports league, a gym on your way home, or clear out your living room and do P90x. All you have to do is stick with it and it will work.
Does that mean Fox News is the saudi royal family's lapdog? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal
In 2010, Alwaleed's stake in News Corp. was about 7% worth $3Bn; and News Corp. had a $70 million (9%) investment in Al Waleed's Rotana Group, the Arab world's largest entertainment company.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal
Couple of guesses off the top of my head...1) The market for movie theater projectors is much smaller than home projectors so you lose economies of scale. 2) to retrofit optics, there would have to be some standard to conform with so I see it as unlikely that the manufacturer will maintain backwards compatibility with a design that's probably 30 years old, also the light sources may be incompatible between film and digital 3) the warranties probably go above the 30 day manufacture defect one you get at best buy 4) You likely have to have a professional set it up and calibrated with specialized equipment. I can see that easily doubling the price of the hardware alone 5) training time for employees might be built in to the cost.
Or you could just easily avoid the accident as the GP did and get home for dinner on time and rant for 3 min about some idiot on the road. In the process you'll save yourself an hour at the scene talking to police, 6 hours in the emergency room, 2 hours on the phone with your insurance, a week waiting for your car to get fixed, a day talking with your lawyer, a day or two in court/mediation, 1-2 years waiting for settlement negotiations, and then another 6-12 months for payment assuming its not doled out periodically over many years (*my numbers are wild speculation but the hassle is not). Seriously, bad drivers piss me off royally but I'd rather not give up potentially hundreds of hours of my life for spite and a small chance of a financial return greater than all of the work hours I missed if I can just avoid the accident. Not to mention if I actually did end up with whiplash and have neck problems for the rest of my life.People in your country should learn from slashdot nerds and get a hobby. Bad drivers suck but sometimes its best to just let it go.
Ok so Ireland gets $4M they wouldn't have otherwise got as a tax haven. But how is that working out for them? Aren't they on the verge of bankruptcy? Did they become a tax haven before or after their economy went to shit? How is being a tax haven helping them out of it? I realize its a complex problem with many causes all interconnected through the global economy. But can someone tell me if its really a sound financial policy to reduce your tax rate to virtually nothing? A big point of contention for the US is it has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world (not counting exemptions, and breaks). Is that the only thing keeping us afloat? How are the tax havens doing financially when corporations just register their companies there for the low rates and don't actually hire anyone aside from the guy that checks the PO box?
Thanks for the link. I perused a few chapters and it looks legit. I also read the sections that Alec Rawls highlights as the "Lead story from the Second Order Draft". His claims are 1) Climatologists finally admit there is some unknown amplifier increasing the suns effect on GW and 2) Other authors are liars because they still claim that human activity is the cause despite the possibility of an "unknown mechanism"
To me this smacks of the ol' "cherry pick a seemingly inconsequential potential loose end to singlehandedly refute a 50 year body of work with a mountain of evidence backing it up". Just like when fox news (ironic perhaps given how they are the source for this story) breathlessly shouted that GW is a hoax because a Himalayan glacier grew slightly in 2011. Nevermind any analysis on what the cause might have been or the fact that virtually all other ice on the planet is receding. It does produce talking points such as "Tax funded AGW is treason when its a FACT that glaciers are EXPANDING!". Technically true but completely off base (as fox is wont to do IMO).
Here is how I see the cherry pick is applied by Rawls: The line he took is from the aerosol chapter in a section talking about the theory of cosmic rays amplifying changes in the sun based on a few observations. Then he implies the theory or one similar to it means the true cause of GW is the suns variance according to the scientists and thus they are liars.
HOWEVER...
The quoted section is actually only refuting the theory that cosmic rays have a significant effect on GW. The observed properties of the theory (cosmic ray induced free ions alter cloud properties) is too weak to have a significant effect on anything, closing with: there is no observed trend in cosmic radiation in the last 50 years to match the warming trend. Section 8.4, the one actually devoted to solar radiation measurement and observation, concludes that solar output has not varied much in the time empirical data was available and if anything, improvements in measurement techniques and additional data suggests that previous reports over-estimated the effect of solar radiation on climate change.
The bottom line is, IPCC AR5 is not a smoking gun against AGW. It unequivocally states that our planet is undergoing a significant warming trend in every geographic region from the bottom of the ocean to the top of the atmosphere. There has been significant research in many aspects of climate science, many of which have a medium to high degree of confidence. The conclusion of the report is this: there is current global warming, almost entirely due to human activity. Period. There is no logic bomb hiding in section 136.4.16.347.4.a subsection 13 appendix B or anywhere else. There will be nothing to cover up. It will not be difficult to throw up a website with the cherry pick attack though. Look I can even do it with your posts:
CO2 levels in the atmosphere keep rising, every year the chances that this could be a statistical fluctuations in a long term trend diminishes
going to be difficult to cover up.
And speaking of websites, "stop green suicide"? WTF? we're all going to die because $80B has been spent on research? Gimme a break. Even if that figure is correct, Exxon pulls in 6x that in a year. The US will recover from banks losing $trillions and spends close to another trillion on the military each year. I might believe it if the site was called "stop scaring the executive board"
In closing (yes believe it or not I'm going to wrap this up) I would like to sincerely thank you for this thread. This is the most research I've done on AGW to date. I looked at all of the denier's evidence and gave it an honest chance (BTW, I couldn't find anything to corroborate your original "theres no warming" post which got this whole train moving - that chart may well be somewhere in the report but if so I think its a safe bet it was taken out of context). What I have now I believe is a more balance
Indeed, unlike my link which was published in the past, your link was published in the future. Coincidentally, that's when we'll find out who's right. If AGW deniers are right then they get to laugh at scientists. OTOH if AGW is occurring as the greedy grant chasing scientists claim, our kids are all fucked...from our POV anyway. Maybe tropical resorts in Canada will all be worth it. I do know one thing about the future, no matter what happens in 2014 when the report is published, AGW deniers will say its bullshit because there's a cover-up or its bullshit because previous predictions weren't on the nose.
But as my buzz wanes, I'll get to the point...why keep throwing dubious charts around when we can take reasonable steps that that actually sound like great ideas to everyone that's not going to be put out of business by abundant clean energy to avoid worst case scenarios based on the best knowledge available at the time instead of spending millions (billions?) trying to discredit researchers. Will funding renewable energy really destroy the economy or will it just destroy OPEC/Exxon's shareholder value while creating a whole new industry? I say we find out!
PS: I spent a good 15 minutes trying to find the source data for your chart, searching numerous AGW denier sites. If you still feel like debating some schmoe on the internet, please include a link to the "leaked" report before it gets "covered up". Thanks - MGMT
I'll give it a shot cause I'm now on vacation
t | ___/__ /___ /____
e | __/__
m|_
p |
--- year
I believe the misconception that there was no warming since 1998 comes from it being tied with 2005 for having the hottest surface temperature on record. 1998 was especially hot due to the century's strongest El Nino event. But even when you pick 1998 as your starting point, there is still a warming trend over the past 15 years. I'll see your blog's .gif with a peer reviewed paper: http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf
FYI, the rest of us are actually living 37 years after 1975, not 5-10. On a more serious note, despite a few predictions of cooling in the 70's the majority of the climate community still endorsed global warming. (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html) Funny enough, the cooling theory was based on human particulate pollution outweighing the human caused greenhouse effect. Good thing we got a handle on pollution right?
I can't comprehend analogies unless they involve cars. As for the 20 tags/20 guns, I thought that the goal was to register a gun to a user, not sell RFID tags. A single tag could unlock all the user's guns. Maybe he can even have a spare in case one gets lost....oh oh oh....like how you often get two keys when buying a car....but thats only for one car....perhaps you can shoot me back a better car analogy?
What about all of the other legitimate uses of firearms? If someone has a bunch of pistols or rifles because they are a target shooter wouldn't all those complexities be a great way to mitigate accidental discharges? While you're target shooting (and maybe even hunting) you have plenty of time to move your finger to the right position or switch to left hand mode. Police can still use the "simple gun" since they are more likely to use it in a life/death situation than someone that hangs out at a gun range. Hell, keep one simple gun under your pillow in the extremely unlikely case of a break in. But if you have 20 guns for fun it seems to me there is less chance of an accident if 19 of them have some attempt at idiot proofing. Am I wrong?
Thats nothing. Try parsing some serial bytes coming from a microcontroller.
Due to counter intuitive business models,when printing per square inch you're mainly paying for ink.
How obvious is it that support is not free? Maybe a few more notices would help. Perhaps some on the main site, by the download section, and by the support phone number.
Nope. It doesn't have a cellular modem. http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/pages/Low-End-Google-Nexus-7-Carries-$157-BOM-Teardown-Reveals.aspx
They've supposed spent just under $200 million in total on various things, including anti-AGW stuff. That's slightly more than a year's funding for the World Wildlife Fund, one of the larger AGW advocates.
Are you suggesting that TWO HUNDRED MILLION dollars spent by a single family for the sole purpose of political gain is somehow insignificant compared to an international environmental organization's entire budget? I just don't understand your argument that AGW advocates are somehow stomping big oil when it comes to funding (hope I'm reading your post right). Ok so Exxon only made $41Billion in profit...a few more than shell...who made a few more than BP...etc down the line of the hundreds of billion dollar oil companies. But they aren't even the biggest producers. State owned companies dwarf the private companies but they don't publish financials so no one talks about them. Where are the hidden trillion dollar AGW cartels pulling the strings on the poor oil industry? You provided some speculation of how Carbon credits might take off but it won't mean anything if those 98% of scientists are correct and the global landscape shifts faster than we can adapt.
There's also big money to be had in the carbon trade markets. $180 billion worth of carbon dioxide emission credits were outstanding in 2011.
Holy smokes thats a lot of money! Thats over a third of Exxon's revenue for 2011! It was $486 Billion btw. For one oil company. What got me is back when BP had that the oil spill in the gulf and everyone was reporting that they put $20 Billion in escrow, a few sources reported that's less than a years worth of profits (note profits, not revenue which is also in the hundred billions). If Germany is increasing its power exports with a $130B investment (http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/09/clean-energy-loving-germany-increasingly-exporting-electricity-to-nuclear-heavy-france/), Imagine what they could do with $500B. As for political motherlodes, what do you call the 10's of millions the Koch brothers spend on lobbying every year?
And I like reasonable non-scorching summers and winters where the snow lasts until march. If I move to a higher latitude and you move to a lower one, we can both enjoy our lives without your whims requiring a potential massive painful shift in global society.
If you're ever near Washington DC, take a stroll through the Air and Space Museum in Dulles. Its much bigger than the one on the Mall. Of particular interest are the many early rocket projects that were cancelled. The plaques all start off telling how awesome the project was and end with "canceled due to cost overruns". There is most certainly a precedent.
Especially since TI themselves make a wide variety of advanced processor cores with built in touch screen display controllers. I'm guessing its more to do with schools requiring them and thus guaranteeing a market so why spend on R&D?
Too many think the government is going to make it all better
As well they should. As someone who pays into a system with a multi trillion dollar budget the least I expect is for it to show up when shit hits the fan. I'm all for being prepared and not panicking the minute the lights go out. But when your entire street gets washed away those flashlights and canned beans are going with it.