Rotundus.com

This seems rather like most apologies these days.

Climate change standards seem to assume that burning biomass (e.g. wood) is carbon neutral, but that isn't really the case:

[A] report, done by Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, makes it very clear that most forest biomass is not carbon neutral. In fact, the report finds that burning whole trees to make power would leave the atmosphere 3% more polluted between now and 2050 than burning coal over that same period." "Under a best-case scenario for sourcing and forest management, the study finds that 40 years of wood-derived power could actually be 11% better than 40 years of coal. This is still very far from 100% better, which is what carbon neutral implies

- Source: Magically carbon neutral biomass, evil EPA rules and other myths

Burning leftover woodchips from processing lumber might be reasonable, but growing trees solely for the purposes of burning may be unhelpful.

Another TSA Outrage

This is even more amusing that the TSA's new approaching to molestingsearching airline passengers. Apparently US soldiers are permitted to carry assault rifles (no bullets) onto a plane, but their nail clippers will be confiscated.

The Worst of Times:Cookbook writers are ridiculously bad at guessing how long it'll take to prepare a meal.

The article also notes that they're seeing less experienced cooks starting to do more. But this appears to be the most important reason, at least as far as Gourmet Magazine is concerned: "I called up Ruth Reichl, who told me that each recipe in Gourmet was tested by cooks who made it many times over, and also by a 'cross-tester,' who made it only once. But the printed times came from the cooks who'd made the dish repeatedly, and Reichl allows that may have been a mistake. 'When you've done a recipe eight times, you get a lot faster,' she pointed out. 'Probably we should've used the cross-tester's time, and not the developer's final time.'"

#18 Awareness

"you get all the benefits of helping (self satisfaction, telling other people) but no need for difficult decisions or the ensuing criticism (how do you criticize awareness?)"

For Frequent Fliers, a Radiation Risk in the Skies

"Airline crew members flying long-haul high-altitude routes receive, on average, greater exposures than the typical radiation workers in ground-based industries where radioactive sources or radiation producing machines are used" ... and that seems to be before the new scanners which according to Business Week if working properly will result in 1 in 30 million getting a fatal cancer. Where's the proof that any of this makes terror attacks less likely?

Here's a news segment I stumbled across recently discussing men taking classes teaching them how to lure women:

One of the people in the video mentions simultaneously dating 15 women. Seems yet more proof that the Sexual Revolution has resulted in an increase in the objectivization of women as sex objects rather than a decrease.