Why.... is this government completely inept?
This would totally work. Except for WiFi, 433mhz industrial radios (easily available), CBs, ham radios, family band radios (from walmart, target, etc.), never mind anyone who was really serious about whatever they wanted to do and went through the effort of acquiring wireless communication gear not so commonly available.

This is a fine example of how DHS is *reactionary* and a complete waste of my tax dollars.

That's all well and good, but we don't [yet] live in the world where everyone is *choosing* to make that clean factory, although the vast majority of Americans seem to think that all of these technologies come from it.
At least you accept and understand the situation. My point is that the vast majority of people don't, and that's why I'm glad to see an article like this.

Not so. While I'm a nuclear power proponent, I have nothing against wind and solar power. I even like them in concept. However, I've never seen a single reference to a study of the effects of windmills on regional wind patterns, massive areas of solar panels on regional temperature/wind/etc., let alone manufacturing of these things. Are they issues? Perhaps not. Maybe even "probably not". But the "green" community doesn't even entertain the possibility that they could be problems. It's just as bad as the hard-headed idiots that don't see issues with continuing heavy fossil-fuel use.

Nice try there. I actually use two-wheel transportation (motorized and otherwise).
I'm not saying the Prius is necessarily bad. But as we seem to be heading inexorably in the direction of battery/electric transportation, is that really the best option? Alternatives such as Hydrogen (Toyota seems to be making progress there) have their trade-offs as well, but perhaps it is better in the long run to stay technology-neutral as this technology takes root rather than building a huge infrastructure for battery/electric cars? Again, I don't know the answer, but I don't think the vast majority of people even consider the question. That's the problem.
Incidentally, the articles you linked to didn't have references to much supporting independent research. The KPBS article linked to research conducted by the "Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership", and the Car Connection article compares a Prius to a HUMMER-- How would you even think that is relevant to my point? Thank god it's more green than a hummer! I never would have imagined that!
The HowStuffWorks article is based on a single, albeit reputable, paper, and points to another paper from the same laboratory which concluded that plug-in hybrids could emit 10% more greenhouse gases than some conventional vehicles (according to the HowStuffWorks summary).
So as much as you obviously buy into this stuff pretty easily, I would caution you and others to use a more critical eye before just assuming you know the answer. Is the Prius better than every conventional vehicle on the road? Perhaps. But your understanding of the answer is based entirely on a single paper that has been hyped up by a single website. (I won't consider the KPBS and Car Connection articles to be part of your argument, because they are non-sequiturs.)

Indeed (though was that because you were no longer making subsidy payments or because AT&T loves the environment?).
It's not the carriers that need to make the change though. People need to make better use of what they have rather than buying the fancy new gadget because it is cooler than theirs. You and I have overcome that. Most people haven't.

In this case I'm pretty sure you've done a good job of following your sig to great detail, seeing as how you haven't provided much useful data.

I've always been concerned about people who can't see the negative side of all the "green", modern technologies today.

I buy a new phone about every 3 years, when my previous one is worn out. Most people do this every year or two. What a waste.
The motors and battery (which needs to be replaced every X years) for your new Prius are not so great for the environment. Sure, it makes you feel good to not fill up at the gas pump, but what is the true environmental cost of that car?
Same goes for windmills, etc. Are they really better for the environment than, say, nuclear power?
This article shows what you're missing when you sign that lease, or buy that new iPhone.

I'm glad someone out there is forcing us to look at the downside of all of the technology we use. Kudos to them for doing it.

I have a Design BFA degree from a major 4-year school, and I am back in school for Electrical Engineering (having studied that prior to art originally).
I am a software engineer and have been for years.

The design degree was complete bullshit. 90% of the time my work was being "critiqued" I could give a completely ridiculous explanation and it would be more acceptable than a well thought-out answer from the analytical side of my mind.
Art History != Art.

Thus far I've found I haven't learned anything useful in either program.

That's all well and good, but which do you think we are more lacking in the world?
a) Engineers with "perspective" on the world and people around them ...or...
b) non-engineers with highly critical thinking skills?

Surely this is obvious.
For most engineers worth their salt, humanities exposure happens on their own time and in good measure. I can't say the same for non-engineers I work with, who receive little to no exposure to actual critical thinking of any variety.

It's always good when terrorist groups act like 13-year old haxxor boys.

I hope their god is proud of them.

Yes! This!

It's frequently all too obvious that people critical of ideas that originated (or were perpetuated by) that woman have absolutely no understanding of the ideas and frequently haven't even read the books.

Love that phrasing, btw: "I'd like to work on mine and it would be nice if you would get out of the way".

You either have extremely poor reading comprehension skills or are just an idiot. Either way I'll take the bait.

Socialism does not fail because it "has made most of society's lives better". It failed because it DID NOT do that, and worse, always seems to result in an oppressive regime with the only goal of keeping itself in power.
That is a failure. Don't you get frustrated when you can't do anything to fix whatever lousy situation you happen to be in? Now imagine it were legislated specifically so that you were unable to.

Next time try reading what I wrote, instead of twisting it to fit your bigoted, uneducated, and perhaps brainwashed view about opponents of socialism.

To be fair, there could be an example of an amazingly successful government (perhaps beaten into the ground by the evil freedom lovers somewhere in the world) that I'm unaware of, so please give me an example of a thriving socialist paradise where everyone is happy living out their lives for everyone else's benefit, since they're unable to influence their own lives through their own effort.

I'm waiting.

Not at all. But civilization doesn't have to always be the bureaucratic mess it is today, as perpetuated by the established "liberal" and "conservative" (that is, entirely anti-freedom and advancement of society on both sides) incumbents.

Socialism in particular fails because the only motivation inherent in the system is to improve the lives of others. The cool thing about making a society more democratic and less restrictive (that is, moving toward the libertarian sense of what a government should be) is that it makes it really obvious how you can benefit from the self-improvements of others, and how they can benefit from your own self-improvement at no cost to yourself.

Why does everyone always think that a libertarian ideal is completely geared around making money? It doesn't have to be. My ideal would be as much humanist as libertarian, and I expect that's more of what is being talked about with the "seasteading" project as well, since it seems to come from the Randian vision of how to define a model person.

So... you had a kid recently then?

Some of us try our best to live up to the standards set by the society we live in without being forced to, because it's in our own best interest.
And sometimes that means you collect your own trash.

Socialism has been tried in the "modern era" and it failed-- why are so many people against trying the opposite? (To my knowledge it's never actually been tried in modern times, especially with only people who give a damn.)

Irrelevant.

I am back in school (at age 30) in no small part because of the excitement and interest that the Lewin physics lectures instilled in me. His alleged misconduct in any other arena is irrelevant. It's not even as if the content of the lectures could be perceived in some "bad" manner-- it's totally unrelated!

For those that haven't seen those lectures, I cannot recommend them highly enough.

This is a terrible move for MIT. They should be embarrassed.

Since when has Slashdot of all places become accepting of general mediocrity over personal excellence?

" Perhaps the advice-giver wants to sound smart, or simply wants to avoid the possiblity of having to admit they were wrong (if you make your advice hard to follow, that reduces the chance of somebody actually climbing that mountain and then pointing out to you if your suggestion didn't work). So it's not just that the advice-giver is being unhelpful, it's that they're being a dick."

Well, I'm glad the author cares about the overall performance of his advice across 'everyone'. Personally, when receiving advice, I prefer searching out and researching all reasonable options and choosing the best one for me rather than taking generic advice applicable to a wide range of people. And when I give advice I try to do it in such a way that leaves the advice-taker able to evaluate the options and take the best option for them, rather than giving them advice that may help "anyone" a little bit but won't help them in particular a whole lot. If the advice-seeker doesn't have the interest to look at the options and make a choice that's their problem.

+1 UI madness.
For me the problem with git is the extreme un-usability of the standard command-line client.

There are countless ways of doing the same operations, all of which are confusing. Unless I use a specific command on a daily basis I end up having to look it up and sift through results with varying ways of doing the same thing. It is extremely frustrating. Some of the other dvcs solutions are far superior in this regard.

Architecturally, git is fantastic. It seems to me it shouldn't be that difficult to make the standard client app easier to use on the command line. Too bad this article is a joke, I would actually love to see it happen.