Does RF imply FRAND?

Having no restrictions at all is Fair.
It's also Reasonable to charge nothing (at least from an implementer's perspective, which is what counts here).
Everybody is charged nothing and not restricted in any way, so it's Non Discriminatory.

So there's nothing actually bad about FRAND compared to nothing, but RF is at least equally as good (from an implementer's perspective).

Is that 100% accurate? (I haven't been following this debate).

You don't have to remake coal or oil. You can use lower-energy storage forms, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage

I've seen many mistakes and even one alarm go off due only to DST.

The biggest problem with it, IMO, is that not every point in time is represented by a unique DST measurement. Typically, there's two "2 AM"s or similar on the day when the extra hour is squeezed back in.

This could be fixed by using a 25 hour day, although I'm sure that would annoy some other code.

Do you have links for those patents?

I'm just working on something related to one of those items.

All well and good, but what about the fully foreseen consequences?

Global warming is one part of a two-part catastrophe, the other being ocean acidification. The oceans are taking far, far more hurt than the land. The bottom of the food chain (coral, plankton, etc) that ultimately gives us fish that make up a significant part of our diet (and many jobs) is in severe danger, and seeding the oceans with iron might just cause mass extinction.

We need to fix the CO2, not just the warming, else we devastate ocean life.

If we can do that through advanced science, lets do it. However, AFAICT, the best method we currently have is mass reforestation.

Of course it fails to explain many things. There are numerous other variables in play. "All other things being equal" is generally implied, and is certainly not the case with your examples.

Other planets: Different gasses, vastly different masses of atmosphere, vastly different gravity. Also, don't mistake windspeed for violence / chaos.

Antarctica: There's no foliage or water for friction. It's mostly topographically very flat due to ice build-up. It's at high altitude. Convection is most active at the extremes of a system.

Yes, if you take a simplistic glance at a complex system you're likely to perceive anomalies (the brain's geared toward finding em), but if you mistake your simple glance for something worthy of propping up an opinion (ie, I don't really buy...) that contradicts the vast majority of those (climatologists) that study said system, you're crazy.

Carbon is a zero-sum game. Released minus recaptured.

It is possible (theoretically) for humans to have even a negative effect on global warming (and the ultra-important but media-ignored carbon acidification) while still using many carbon-producing technologies simply by sequestering the carbon (say, in trees).
That might just take replanting half the world's forests, but if we wanted too we sure could. It's not unachievable, it'd just take far more than our predominantly lazy selfish culture is willing to give - even if giving would help us (eg: eating less).

Anyway, we wouldn't have to put up with drastic action for too long. We have the silver bullet solution, fusion, becoming viable most likely some time this century (if we supply enough funds for the research, that is).

I couldn't agree more (although I did just look up Gopher and it needs a lot of work to make it suit).

However, I don't see any fast way forward. People are dumb, too accepting and too lazy to actively change to something better en masse.

When more people go to check out your band, your company, etc by way of Wikipedia simply due to its readability and consistency, perhaps things might start to change. Perhaps something like this is the way forward?

Those billion people online are likely to make use of the wheel and fire a great deal. Even the fans and disk platters on their computers are wheels, and said computers are ultimately powered by wheels (which are quite likely to be powered by fire).

And the vast majority of non-internet users use wheels and fire.

One thing I hardly see in official discussions of the debt ceiling is any hint that they know voluntarily defaulting is not just fiscally, but _morally_ wrong.

Nowhere do I read about direct concern for those who have invested in the US. Only, sometimes, indirect concern that they might not take the same risks.

I know it is unlikely that these people wouldn't have been paid, (and I know that many of these people aren't totally deserving of compassion), but isn't refusing to pay people that you owe, when you can, morally wrong, akin to theft?

Not sure if this has been said before somewhere significant (or even here), maybe it's just chance I haven't seen this said. But it irks me.

TFA says "Clearly what is optimal for a lazy Maths Master is to push the lawnmower the shortest distance possible." and goes on from there.

While an interesting NP problem in itself, the things you're more likely to be trying to minimize are time, fuel, cost. Hence, turning matters significantly.

I know, I've spent lots of time thinking on this but through experience come to the conclusion that using long parallel strips as often as possible is easiest on mind and body because, finally, acceleration is also quite important.

IMO this is the classic case of something getting so big that a superior system can never challenge it.

The web, to me, is a under-functional core with over-functional (read: insecure and often able to do things against the users' wishes) bolt-on additions (eg java), whose security holes are then repeatedly patched up with incomplete fixes. It's inefficient, kludgy, and very badly misused by web authors.

A few of the more annoying parts are:

Some time midway through its history, the idea that content should be adaptable by the user (as was a big initial selling point) got diminished, as you can't adapt scripts or flash. A good example (but only one of a million) is that scripted links usually can't be opened in new tabs.

The biggest problem (as I see it) is that web authors (for example, /.'s) that have sites perfectly capable of being transmitted in the cleaner, more efficient script-less "old" method choose to go with scripts "because they can", or because it sounds better to say (either to the users or to HQ) our site now has here. These scripts routinely perform erroneously on non-standard browser setups.

Compared to an optimal replacement for the web, information takes far, far too long to download, for a number of reasons:
1. Poor caching, especially of "advanced" content.
2. Various protocols and multiple servers meaning that content can't be sent as one big chunk and must instead require multiple establishments of communication channels).
3. Lack of compression of much content, such as text and many images.

IMO, the web is a good pet project suitable for hobbyists and enthusiasts. It's not good enough for prime-time - sad that it's used there.

While semantically correct, hydrogen fuel cells are not what is meant by the colloquial "renewable energy"... That's always about generation.
Alternative power storage is an important issue but there's a very large number of important issues and they can only pick a subset.

One question did ask precisely what role government should play in setting school curricula. (From none to complete control).

I agree a finer scale and more options would be beneficial to their attempts to find the best candidate.

However, I agree that it's doomed to fail - unless they can guarantee 1 USAian 1 vote. I could create thousands of profiles here and I'm not even in the US.

Although I would say allowing foreigners in democratic nations to vote in US elections would be a plus :)

I think there are just certain people that it doesn't bother. The technology can't get better, visually, then polarized glasses (at least not without monitoring eyeballs). It can just get less uncomfortable.

I love 3D and also experience no issues.

The way I see it is, if you like asparagus, I'm not going to tell the stores to stop selling it even thought I hate it. So if I like 3D and you don't, just go see it in 2d and don't complain. Nobody's forcing 3d on you.

As for directors diverting too much effort into 3d effects - that will only last as long as 3d being "new".

The only downside is special effects budgets.

Disclaimer: IANANS

Is this what you mean?

1: Fusor in centre radiates neutrons.
2: Neutrons convert N14 to C14 in capsule.
3: The concentration of C14 eventually becomes high enough that it's decay releases useful amounts of energy.
4: The C14 decays back into N14, releasing electrons (-) and (wikipedia) electron antineutrinos. The N14 is short 1 electron (initially, on average) and thus acts as a cathode.
5. The released electrons are captured in an anode.
6: The cathode and anode are used to drive a transforming system that then powers the grid.

Questions:

1: Where is the anode (step 5)? Is this perhaps an outer shell?

Initial thoughts.

1: Won't the vast majority of electrons get re-absorbed by the cathode (any emissions not from the outermost part of the gel or not emitted in the right direction), such that the major ultimate power output of the decay process is thermal.
2: Won't the electrons that do get emitted lose their energy (thermal loss) ploughing through the liquid nitrogen?
3: Any electrons that do strike the anode will still have some kinetic energy which will again be converted to thermal.
4: You have to have enough separation, or low enough voltage, to prevent a short back through your liquid nitrogen.

To me it seems this would produce thermal energy many orders of magnitude higher than direct electrical energy.

However, some version of this electron capture idea might be viable in another form (perhaps create heaps of C14 then reprocess it as ultra-thin shaped sheets with magnetic fields to attempt to focus the emissions with little excess kinetic energy).

Once again, IANANS.