do you realize that main producers of energy get wholesale rates and grid resells it with a markup to pay maintenance, invest and make a profit? Grid companies DON'T WANT the solar energy from consumers if there is a much cheaper, more reliable, hassle free alternative. Laws forcing to buy unneeded energy at full retail prices are pure unadulterated economic bullshit.

Bullshit, in this they are against stupid laws trying to handwave the economic reality because "hurrr durrr green energy!!".

These subsidies for solar mean higher prices for everybody else. Solar users using 0 net energy and getting retail prices for their output are a net loss and it's not like maintenance and protecting the grid from sudden surges in panel output is free.
Think about it, they are using the grid as their personal battery for $0 which would set them back thousands of dollars otherwise, drawing and pushing energy when it's convenient. All the baseline capacity, all the gear required to stabilize erratic flow - it's all on the energy company and the solar users don't pay for it in their bills, dirty peons who can't afford teslas and panels on the roof do.

ther e is nothing wacky in it. The difference stems from the local tech level/productivity. Long story short you have it baked in the price of everything, including wages.

That also means that even exact same job with exact same productivity (eg artists) can be paid differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

care to elaborate how on earth are corporations directly responsible for hundreds of millions deaths required to beat the score of the 20th century govts?

Appliances don't change the characteristics of the grid. Energy is pushed in one direction and all the energy provider needs to do is to fine tune the output.
Solar panels pushing energy upstream means high degree of unpredictability. In the span of minutes the direction can change several times. This requires more specialized hardware in order to stay within the specs if not prevent frying the grid in extreme cases.

If these solar panels didn't send surplus to the grid, there would be no difference between energy saving appliances and panels, but they do. If your net usage is 0 you've just externalized the cost of batteries you would have to have otherwise - grid becomes your battery for next to nothing and other people have to pay for it. It's a double whammy against poorer people who can't afford the panels and see their costs rise.

true that, and then there is another billion souls in the queue, this time in Africa.

are you certain that average non-(libertarian retard neckbeards) want to deal with the followup?
Imo most people pay lip service but if you told them what measures would have to be taken to even make a dent in emissions they would not be amused. And it's not like India and China give a shit, with Africa following. That's 3 billion people who want a piece of the action too, even if it means some CO2.

Eich did exactly what you promote here. He kept his private life and opinions separate from the work, he was never heard saying eg "being gay is unprofessional" from a position of authority that made employees uneasy and influenced their behavior. Some longtime coworkers were actually very surprised to find out he supported prop8 because he never let himself slip in his professional conduct. Apparently he even supported company-granted bennies that extended to employees' partners no matter the orientation.

The only reason for this shitstorm are the disclosure laws, as the donation was on a private time and dime.

so disagreeing on the definition of some word on religious grounds is hate?

Either way I don't have a name, but the disclosed data about donations was used to create a google maps overlay with names, employers and amounts. People who supported prop8 were harassed, received death threats, envelopes with white powder, etc. Doesn't that fall under terrorism (fear and violence used for ideological or political goals)?

> However, I do not, nor do I think most people, support everyone's *legal* rights.

Are you sure most people support let's polyamoric marriages? I wouldn't be so sure and all these marriages would do is to remove yet another arbitrary constraint, this time not on sex of people involved but on a number.

Either way, by harassing people like Eich who always kept a strict separation between private and proffesional life, perpetually offended busybodies legitimize the opposite, like hounding gay rights supporters in backwards places. Long story short, if your stance on how to conduct business between 2 sides of the issue doesn't survive multiplying by -1, it fucking sucks and is hypocritical.
Half the progressive state of California VOTED for it, ffs.

And it's not like you will change people's minds when your politically correct zeal pushes them underground. They feel wronged and the persecution only fossilizes their worldview.

Despite being a majority in Cali at that time (prop 8 passed after all), the supporters were harassed, received death threats and envelopes with white powder because somebody used the disclosed donation data and created a convenient google maps overlay with names, employers and amounts. One could argue it fits the definition of terrorism understood as using violence and fear for a political or ideological goal.
That doesn't say anything good about the moral integrity of the pro-LGBT crowd at large. If you want progress, you better take the high road and lead by example. If you resort to petty eye for an eye methods at the end of the day you are as much of an asshole as people you fight.

you are begging the question - you assert that he is a homophobe with no proof and flow from that. Not agreeing on changing the definition of the word he might hold dear is not a proof of hate. I am against sending free food to Africa but that doesn't mean i hate black people there. Unless you have a legit proof of actual phobia you should avoid calling people names because you escalate unnecessarily.

so when does half of the state of California start losing their jobs for supporting and VOTING FOR prop 8, a controversial, but still legit lawmaking initiative?
Obama himself in 2008 said he is anti gay marriage, where is the outrage?

why are they 6 years late to the party (he was a CTO after all) and when do they start boycotting javascript?

the fact that he supported prop8 is known for a long time, why was there no outrage when he was a CTO, also an important figure?
Professional victims woke up from slumber or what? So when do they start to boycott javascript?

bollocks. Freedom of speech is a two way street. If you hound people in their jobs for things they say on their own time and dime, you legitimize hounding people you like by the people you don't like for whatever bullshit reasons. So what now, half of Cali should lose their jobs because they supported and voted for the Christian definition of marriage and professional victims in LGBT movement have an issue with that? And then in retaliation every Dem loses his job in red states?
"No, b-b-but it's different you see? i am RIGHT and they are WRONG".
No, you are a fucking hypocrite. If your stance on how to conduct business between the 'good' guys and the 'bad' guys doesn't survive multiplying by -1, it fucking sucks.

The state of California as a whole supported Prop 8, and even Obama was antigay marriage in 2008. What we have here is a convenient scapegoat from 6 years ago because someone, somewhere was not outraged for too long.