Thats a general patent law / large corporate corruptions / shitty FDA issue. The reason why Monsanto is in the position they are is that genetically modified foods are sometimes just that damn good. That they give the owner of the patent too much power. Once again. There is no problem with genetically modified foods.

There are too many stupids in this nation for the buying habits of the smart to influence the stupid.

Is that the source of these volcanic beads was near a particularly large( for the moon) source of water. I am not an expert but this seems like a more reasonable guess than there is as much water on the moon as on earth. At least to a laymen

I am against the use of antibiotics in the situation (we use them far too much for people even not just animals) But I have no problems at all with genetically modified foods. I consider opposition to them as crazy hippy bullshit and Id consider myself very liberal. Also factory farming is not inherently bad. Its just our government has not performed on its responsibility to properly regulate it.

Yes I have watched at least a few of these movies myself.

Correct however it does not make hydrogen fall into the same category as Wind Solar etc. The fact that some tit always brings it up when discussing renewable energy is more than a bit annoying considering simply its not an energy source.

Ev's can charge in 5 minutes not really a problem.

their system failed but Id hardly call that catastrophic . Any engineering project has a chance of failure. Blowing out some steam and not generating power is a long shot away from killing thousands of people al la

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnstown_Flood

Im sure there are other examples out there. It just does not seem like the risk of geothermal is anywhere near that of carbon based or dam based power.

Uhhh......."geothermal have the possibility of catastrophic failure." wtf no?

Hydrogen power is crap all.

Whats the point of using hydrogen if you need to use the other sources to originate the power/energy.

There are some advantages but they are tiny. Converting to using hydrogen is like slowing changing from driving on the left side of the rode to the right side of the rode...slowly. .. At best pointless at worth very costly.

My point is as the article stated that Apple has a near 100% strangle hold on the tablet market. This would not be possible if there was a real market for tablets. Your numbers on apple's composition with android etc in other markets supports this statement. I personally have no problems with the ipad it is a semi decent product. The reviews have actually pointed it to be semi worth while in a price/performance respect. The thing is I have seen no indication that 99% of any one who buys a tablet of anykind has any real use for the things. This is subjectively backed up by my other belief (one that I would put money on) that most of the sales of ipads are to the cult. I would bet that vast majority of people purchasing one of these has either a iphone or a macBook.

"Oh who am I kidding, with the tone of your post if Apple open sourced the whole of iOS tomorrow and donated all of its cash reserves to charity you's till twist it round as something evil." No I would think this would be a great thing. I have no problem with Apple they are a semi decently efficient corporation and they have made several wise marketing decisions I wish I had invested in them a few years ago. What I believe is that Apple's customers are mostly idiots and have no idea what they are purchasing.

They are the size of a laptop with the functionality of a phone (IE the worst of both worlds). Every last feature mentioned by you is done just as well by a phone or done better by a laptop. There is next to no market besides apple fanatics for them(complete idiots).

10 out of 10 times I see any tablet being "used" is to play angry birds or some other crap little game while the kid with the PSP siting next next chuckles at the pretentious sap with the ipad.

I do freely admit the ipad has defined the market space and that market space is next to worthless as far as worth goes. The profit Apple is and will make off it is not due to the value of the market space but simply sheeple following apple around like lost dogs. Over the next handful of years you will continue to see the pattern of major electronics makers producing the ~ the same product at ~ the same cost and consistently getting virtualy 0 market share.

This is not going to be the products fault but the business managers failure to realize Apple owns 100% of the "Apple" market place. IE the individuals purchasing these are not interested in the product itself but simply the brand name. Apple could be selling chocolate covered turds and their cult would buy it up.

By the time tablets could become mainstream, phones will have completely taken over the market once again. All tablets are trying to do is fill some magical void between phones and laptops and there simply has been no historical market for this, and they likely never will be.

A good test of this will be if there is any succesfull competitor to the ipad in the semi near future . There is no way Apple will be able to dominate the market the way it has if there is any true outside market for the niche .

No one with anything to do worth while wants a tablet. Tables have never and will never likely be the go to platform for those who actually want to accomplish something other than looking pretentious.

In that respect apple and tablets have a lot in common (next to useless)

http://www.econport.org/content/handbook/Market-Failure/Imperfect-Information.html

Imperfect information IS a reason for market failure

"that's all subjective and opinionated". No its not. 100's of millions a year are spent on QUANTITATIVE evaluation of these things. and BILLIONS a year are spent as (a large part by insurers) based off these quantitative models.

"The fact is that the costs inured are long down the road and evolution as well as the theory of it will take care of those costs as they start to rise. It naturally becomes normalized with time."

Again the costs are occurring NOW/YESTERDAY and tomorrow. They have gone to little villages near sources of damage and measured how long it take for paint to peel , how many times a year people are ill how long a car's air filter last etc etc etc and compared these to locations without as significant exposure. The results of this is that there is MASSIVE damage NOW. I have not even mentioned global warming etc which is another MASSIVE although estimated cost. These other costs are NOT estimated they are measured.

The CURRENT costs each year caused by the growing terrain slowly drifting due to climate change in the US has been estimate to reach the billions of dollars level.

They are accepting the externalities. But thats due to imperfect information one of the prime reasons for market failure. and savings implies that it somehow costs more to do it the other way. The net total cost is much lower for many non fossil fuel based sources.

"Your right. But more efficiency equals more profits and we know profits is what business is about." If your talking about the social profit or social "surplus" than yes. However most wealth is not enumerated on the balance sheets of the Forbes 500. + Even if it is, if everyone is dead who is there to enjoy it (thats not expected but hyperbole depicting the declining utility of wealth being concentrated in the few).

"Externalities are already paid for in the savings of cost of the product." That would be theoretically possible however just about every bit of research ive seen have put the costs at high multiples of current prices . In fact I have not seen any works Id consider reasonable that says that total net prices are any way near half the net externalities alone.

not that I give much credence to the hippies but the following link gives an intro to the economics. http://www.environmentforbeginners.com/content/view/47/51/

There have been multiple international studies put together by leading experts in their fields all concluding to massive external costs which are not being properly accounted for. I cant find the more important ones at the moment but http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/emerald-publishing/external-cost-of-air-pollution-from-thermal-power-plants-case-of-X3B0iiXTKr

This one concludes that there is over a 1 billion a year of damage to Greece alone. Which is fraction of the size of the US. Using that figure to extrapolate the net world wide loss in productivity is easily within the low/mid 100's of billions a year. Which is on the low end of what I remember seeing. External costs range from poor health / more sick days / the walls of buildings needing to be painted and rebuilt more often (the chemicals in the air help erode the building materials/ cars break down more often (same effect and more crap in the air filters) etc etc.