Actually, I believe this is the idea behind Cap and Trade, though the implementation is terribly flawed.

The CO2 per capita is a completely specious argument. The only question is your net CO2 consumption, but all the figures thrown about are the gross production. According to this book: http://www.amazon.com/Bottomless-Well-Twilight-Virtue-Energy/dp/046503117X , North America is the only continent which consumes more CO2 than it produces. It can do this largely because it is sparsely populated, and has a large amount of forests and vegetation compared to its population. It should be self evident that a given land mass can only support so many people given a particular level of technology. My suspicion is that Europe and China are over that limit, and the USA is under. As others have mentioned, much of the world outsources their agriculture to us, and we outsource much of our manufacturing to others, so we can't just say everyone gets so much CO2 per square foot of land. But we also can't just say every person gets so much CO2. It is a complicated global problem, and the best we can do globally, is to make sure that the cost to maintain our CO2 at healthy levels is incorporated into the price of the goods and services produced. The problem is that, while the task can be stated simply, it is quite complicated to implement.

Or perhaps Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1611224/

Wait, are you saying CSPAN used to be interesting?

And Congressmen

I've got no problem with them throttling, but throttling and then calling your plan unlimited is False advertising, and should be outlawed. Perhaps we need some new language to describe what they are actually doing, but Unlimited is not it.

Is that ironic, or just sad?

Now with Siri, they've caught up. 2 year advantage just like they said. Now as for the Google killer comment, has anyone checked to see the response when you ask, "Siri, will you kill Google for me?" I'm a little afraid.

A tack which I've always generates some traction is to state that they could be right. God may have created us an monkeys separately and completely formed, but he also created an awful lot of evidence that we are decended from a common ancestor. I wonder why he did that.

I must of course post explaining to you that you have misused two and in fact you meant to use the word too. Then someone needs to come along behind me and post .....

Woosh!

It's like you people aren't even trying any more :)

Ok, the parabolic instinct explains Angry Birds, but now explain to me the Pet Rock, the Chia Pet, or anything sold by Ron Popeil. Sometimes people just fall for something inexplicably stupid and pointless. I'd write more about it, but I have to get back to World of Warcraft.

Apparently you're unaware of Newton's 4th Law. "Any natural disaster travels at the speed of the transportation you happen to be in at the time." Of course later Einstein showed that relativistic effects could add or subtract 10 or 20 miles per hour, but only in faster vehicles which weren't available in newton's time.

After reading your article, I've decided I'm going to have to see if I can find myself a jerkmeter. If I read the article correctly, you could find someone you think is a jerk, crack them over the head with it and say, "See how big a jerk you are." Of course then I'd probably have to do the same to myself.

This is why I love particle physics. I am a scientists by training, but not a physicist, and while I have the sense that you two are not speaking gibberish, I can't be sure :) Or to put it another way, to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced physics is indistinguishable from gibberish."

This is why I believe it should be referred to as "domestic terrorism". This would have several positive effects. First it would be more accurate, and second, people would understand how it differs from a standard crime. If 3000 people were killed in NYC on 9/11 for 3000 independent individual reasons, that is not nearly as big a crime which aims to terrorize the entire nation. This would also help people to understand the purpose of the distinction. If the people who killed Mathew Shephard killed him because they hate gays, and Mathew made a pass at them, or made fun of them. That is a crime against Mathew. If they selected him at random from a population of gays to send a message to all gays that being gay openly will get you killed, that is terrorism, and should be treated accordingly. In both cases they hate Mathew because he is gay. Only in the later case to they commit a crime against an entire group in addition to the individual crime.