Allow user tips and transactions with other users and take a percentage cut. That's the best model because people who are broke like myself and can't afford the $X or opportunity cost involved with giving payment information to test a new site out that doesn't give me a chance to make my money back just wouldn't be worth the sign up process because of the paywall.

I have had an unimaginably difficult, anguished, systematically oppressed, and overall terrible life. That said, this year has been particularly better than usual as I see a light at the end of the tunnel and have won many opportunities both because of and in spite of my life's hardships. Although, I would not say that I have yet reached par for a good life.

I would like to share, but I am sure my identity is easily revealed (that just complicates things and might be embarrassing), and I'm sure anything I write would come across as a humblebrag, which would not be my intention.

The leading culprit for carbon emissions in the travel sector is the shipping and freight industry. We could have a fission reactor that is relatively safe on every boat like the military does with subs, but you'd need a highly trained nuclear physicist on each boat to handle that correctly.

According to this awesome chart, it's quite clear that it is the energy sector producing the largest amount of CO2. If Fusion reactors are a required means of producing grid energy, then our travel emissions will be easily balanced out naturally, especially if we can require reactors on freighters and large ocean transport since I believe that is about 3% of total world emissions and a good chunk of travel emissions.

Plus with battery cars like Tesla getting more popular, consumer emissions will continue to shrink.

The problem with fission reactors is that while they are safe, people don't want them in their backyard and a lot of regulations get in their way. They also need extra cost fortification when compared to other power sources and startup is difficult. Plus with Fukushima, almost everyone has realized that the "Black swan" phenomenon is not so unlikely. They also have a long term cost of radioactive waste and storage or recycling.

Fusion byproducts are not very dangerous. It's only bottlenecks will be dealing with corporate interests that are not aligned with companies producing fusion (and increase cost of startup or bad press, etc.) and scalability/distribution of the reactors. 10 years to get to market another 5 or ten to scale and we have reduced all our carbon emissions form the energy sector. This is one reason why I'm not worried about global warming. It is not a doomsday scenario at all.

Is there a link to the whitepaper or does anyone know the color/strangeness makeup of the pentaquarks? Both seem to be missing from the article.

There are SO MANY great courses online that you should take advantage of. Check out what Stanford offers at iTunes University. Those are some of my favorites. Other places you can look to learn are The teaching company, which is not free, but has some really easy to understand, but relatively thorough lectures available. Also, Kahn academy, which is free, has some pretty straightforward lessons and tutoring in physics and math.

Don't start with the quantum mechanics... you will build up to that, but also, don't be afraid to read about quantum theory and so called "laymen's" books on quantum physics: just make sure they are by a real scientist like Hawking or Kaku. Avoid woo-woo like Deepak Chopra.

Take a good introduction to classical field theory and electro-magnitism, and try to learn calculous along the way. Don't be frightened by those who say you need to know all of pre-calc to get into calculous. While you will eventually need to know all of pre-calc, there is nothing that should keep you from learning both calc and pre-calc simultaneously. Just learn things as the problems present themselves. When you find them again in the classroom, you'll have already had some experience and it won't be as difficult.

From one relentless auto-didact to another, Good luck!

I disagree, because this is very much a politicization of a scientific finding. The issue is not whether or not the science is right, but what should be done about the findings. The fact that the "debate" is framed as being between so called climate "deniers" and scientists goes to show how the media skews the actual political debate. The debate is not between climate deniers and scientists, it's between economists and regulators. @tehstone linked this article in his comment above. While this article is also biased, it does give insight as to what people are really talking about in the "debate".

The fact of the matter is that the UN is the primary force behind pushing climate change regulations, and as a political entity, one must have caution when looking at the motivations behind the reports they choose to publish. To keep from bias, one must keep an agenda in mind; this goes for any political organization and any funding source for any science.

This is my first post, but after reading around here for a few days, I get the feeling that hubski welcomes alternative views, so here it goes:

Here's why legislation to affect climate change is a bad idea: Let's assume Climate change is happening and it is due to human use of carbon based energy which creates a greenhouse effect. Let's not deny it and fully accept it as a reality.

In less than 10 years we will have small fusion reactors in commercial operation.

Any legislation to combat climate change will be obsolete and used against the people and against free enterprise at the expense of the economy and for the consolidation of a more powerful world government. Let's remember who pushes the climate change agenda: the UN. Why? Because this is a global problem which can only be solved by a global power and the only global power that has the authority to solve this problem is the UN. Climate Change is a global power grab by the UN and not much more.