Look, I subscribe to the idea that climate change exists and man is a significant contributor to the effects; however, anyone who goes spouting off "moar hurricanes b/c climate change" or "werse hurricanes b/c climate change" undermines the climate conservation movement.
To make an allusion to the commercial markets, the changes can only appreciably be measured over years and decades. Case in point would be to look at the Accumulated Cyclone Energy tracked by Weather Underground. The trend is certainly up over a 3 decade sample, but small when averaged out over the sample. Compared to the hurricane cost trends, there is something of a mismatch. The line drawn between hurricanes and climate change does not match the when "the big one" swings through the US, but only in media clickbait. Scientist, at the same time have to politely tamp down their advocates because the selling point us unattainable. Namely: Hurricanes have existed long before humans messed with the environment and will continue to exist long after we (hopefully) stop. The cause is tied to the cost of the damage, and the damage is the result of our housing, city planning, and insurance policies that have supported risky investments in coastal areas. The US appears to be the only 1st world country that cannot seem to get its act together in matching planning and policy with the threat and impact of ANY disaster based on my travels through Asia, Canada, and Europe. The won't be a "Dust Bowl" moment for climate change so we need to stop chasing them. While US climate refugees are a small cost today, this will be an ever-increasing cost and we can make the economical argument today without all the other squawking.

The USA is roughly made up of 7 regions and they all have different need. Simply eliminating the electoral college puts all the value on the 2 coasts, which is exactly the sort of situation the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid. The Electoral College isn't the problem, it's how we vote that is. No where in the constitution does it say that we are limited to one person, one vote. If we can vote by ranking (or any other system that allows for multiple options), the problems we have with the electoral college solve themselves!

Eliminating the Electoral College will absolutely NOT fix the underlying problem our system has. https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3F...

The President can pardon a turkey and I've never heard of one going to court.

Personally, I am a big fan of Jails over VMs. It's a much smaller footprint and essentially has as good of a sandbox. I haven't run it in a production environment, but by logically breaking out my jails into more discreet functions like I would with VMs (in my home environment), I feel like I have excellent control and reasonable security I would otherwise not have if all the apps were on the same platform.

"DNC emails leaked regarding insiders' placements on DNC Cybersecurity Advisory Board. The DNCCAB releases statement, 'It depends on your definition of hacking.' Nude photos of Clinton found among the leak which boost her in polls by 75%. Trump tried to counter by leaking his own sex tape, but the effort tanked because no one wanted to hear him dirty talk Chris Christy."

... if any of the above headline becomes true, the terrorists have won

Obligatory XKCD: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fxkcd.com%2F538%2F

I agree that this is a clear vulnerability... but seriously: if a single lock is the only thing separating an intruder and your valuables, bluetooth isn't going to save you anymore than a standard tumbler lock.

If anything, the data spillage on the password is the biggest problem (given people's propensity to recycle passwords). NOW the *ahem* "hacker" probably has a good guess on the login to your computer, wifi, bank account, etc. To prevent this human performance error, they should probably ditch the password in preference to some other key salted from a sensor on the device itself. That way, it's set once, provides a key to input to your mobile devices, and then be changed whenever you find out your spouse is cheating on you.

In deference to the XKCD, though, said spouse would probably kick the door down... so better make sure there's a backup plan!

I've had the opportunity to work as a cyber security assessor for a nuclear power plant that is part of a fleet. I have never seen such a concentration of deliberate, careful, and conservative people across so many skill sets. There are plenty of times where they fall into the "too smart for their own good" category, but they know EXACTLY forces they are dealing with every-single-day. I haven't met a single "Homer Simpson." I even had the opportunity to meet some of the engineers from Fukushima Daini (Daichi's neighbor 5 miles south) to hear first-hand accounts of their harrowing story and their lessons learned form the 2011 Tsunami. If they are flying these guys around the US to discuss lessons learned, they are taking their work seriously in a way few others can really appreciate.

That doesn't mean that the don't have their own problems. The industry is extremely insular. It's a mix of both intentional reasons and unintentional consequences. These power plants are pretty far out of the way from major population centers and they can be easily mistaken for other power plant types if you don't know what to look for. There are ONLY 68 running Nuclear Energy Sites in the country and, because of 9/11, they have surveillance and buffer zones that make it hard for casual onlookers to even get close. Essentially, they become out-of-site/out-of mind. Case in point: NONE of my New Orleans neighbors realize there is a nuclear power plant less than 10 miles away! (Waterford 3 is not the one I've worked at).

The next problem is the US's abysmal investment in infrastructure in the last 40 years. The last site's construction finished in 1990 (started 1978) in the US. The new AP1000s just started construction within the last 5 years... and there are only 4 of them! MEANWHILE, Canada, China, the UK, Japan, and the like have been regularly innovating and investing in nuclear power that makes our old system look broken and decrepit.

Finally, the biggest failure on the commercial side of nuclear energy is the whole-stock abandonment of Breeder Reactors. Because the Navy had plenty of water to cool their ship reactors and there were increasingly more availability of uranium, these safer and more efficient reactors never made it to market. But little was done after the 60's to push the tech and it is only now being rediscovered This is tantamount to you driving a brand-new car with only 1970's technology under the hood (no computers, catalytic converters, etc)... you may have a nice shell, but good luck getting the power, fuel economy, or dependability (100k mile warranty anyone?).

Then there is the elephant in the room: FUSION. Lockheed Martin claims that they will have a fusion reactor by 2024. Germany has this freaky-looking stellarator that, by the test conducted in February, will be able to sustain the 100 MILLION Degrees Celsius heat needed for fusion to occur with its next upgrade. China apparently did something with something to ensure people knew they were in the race.

The bottom line is that renewable energy will not whole-stock replace our needs for a consumable fuel given any of our current scientific knowledge. It will not replace our needs in space exploration nor in deep water. Nuclear may take a long time to get places, but it is consistent and predictable and transportable in a way that no other energy generation currently can be. We have the most good science on how to make nuclear energy work for us in a way other fuels cannot and we should not leave it on the side-lines because we have limited ourselves to an in-the-moment mentality about how to save ourselves and the world around us.

...why only 4 out of 5 dentist approve of Crest White Strips

If we occupied their country and dissolved their government, then, yes, I say we invaded Germany. I'm not making a rant against either WWII or Iraq. There are PLENTY of difference between the two wars.
But justifications (either ahead of, during, or after the fact) for actions in BOTH cases were made based on some very inaccurate information. What's done is done. I am questioning whether any of this could have (or *maybe* even should have) been avoided where we can draw parallels between the situations. Do the ends justify the means?
In my opinion, the key differentiator between the two was that we were already in the fight during WWII and nothing is fair about war. You fight to win. On the other side, using WMDs as a justification to start the Iraq war was a poor decision... especially when considering the use of Sarin and mustard gas in the region over the last 2 decades has not directly translated to military action on the part of the US.

On invading hostile countries with weapons of mass destruction, but only criticized for 50% of it.

OK...OK... I have a few more....
If McAfee becomes president, all government shutdowns will instantly be his fault.
After McAfee ruins the government, will it find and remove all the spyware?

If McAfee is installed in the White House, do we havet/get to renew his subscription every year?
Time to fight fire with fire, McAfee is the only bloated slow unusable solution for our governments problems
I don't believe John McAfee is running for president. He's so tripped out from the bath salts that he probably thinks he's ordering Thai food from an Irish pub on a dare his talking gorillacorn (yes, that's half gorilla, half unicorn) made.

To all of you who helped a Katrina Refugee in the dark days and month afterwards as we worked to evacuate, relocate, return, or rebuild:
You have my deepest gratitude...

Snowden leaks a bunch of sensitive information and government officials beat their chests over the jeopardy of his actions, never allowing him to be forgiven. Meanwhile, Katherine Archuleta and her OPM staff walks freely on the streets even though the security was Bridge of Death Easy and not Mission Impossible Hard
Clearly, the government's priorities are screwed up.

If you're going to willfully allow the spillage of sensitive government material, work in the civil service. Katherine Archuleta from OPM just had to lose her job.
Of the two, who do you think did more damage to American interests and/or jeopardized our clandestine positions?
I think the government has it's priorities VERY backwards.