We do all choose to consume those fossil fuels, but that is exactly why it doesn't make sense to subsidize them.

We are going to buy them anyway, and they are going to make billions in profits. Why should we all pay taxes to pay oil companies so they can sell us gas cheaper? It doesn't make sense at all.

It does make sense to subsidize investment in cleaner, newer tech. It is harder to sell, but better in the long run for us. You subsidize it until you can make something better and cheaper. You don't subsidize something everyone is going to buy anyway.

Why would I give you 50 cents to sell me something 40 cents cheaper?

That's pretty much what Congress is made up of now.

I don't know why everyone is being so hard on them. They've been pretty bored lately, with all the healthcare, debt ceiling, spending, and military issues all being recently solved.

No, I think the the Fox commentator meant that Germans are brighter than the Americans when it comes to solar energy policy.

I don't think she does understand the economics of the situation. Solar energy is an area that deserves research money (it does make economic sense). Getting rid of politicians that fund pork projects makes economic sense. It's unfortunate when those two collide, but it's bound to happen.

There is no "detriment" to natural gas because of the solar industry. Natural gas is crazy profitable, as are most fossil fuels. They don't need or deserve subsidies, but rake in billions each year. We pay those subsidies, they profit, our politicians get money from them. That doesn't make economic sense.

I'd believe it if they rallied against the 10-54 billion (depending on how you count) subsidies we give to fossil fuel companies, who rake in trillions in profits. Half-billion to a failed solar company is bad, but not as bad as 10+ billion to already established, ridiculously-profitable industries.

I think too many people miss this point. Corporations are not people and can be regulated, and there's a lot of credibility in the idea that both corporations and people have different, but substantial, rights to privacy.

Governments might have a need to keep secrets in order to function well, but they don't have the right to keep secrets. (I mean, they have given themselves the right, but that doesn't make it "right".)

Governments must be accountable to the people they serve, and to the greater world. When government information is leaked to someone who is not represented by that government, how would you want it handled? Would you want them to keep and hold it, sell it to the greatest bidder, or release it to the whole world? Don't you want to know the secrets your government is keeping when they have been leaked? Did not everyone in the US have a pretty decent opinion of Wikileaks when they were mostly exposing secrets of other governments and worldwide organizations before they were given a large number of US documents?

If the tables were turned, and a Russian military officer downloaded volumes of information on current Russian operations, leaked it to a third party, and it contained information the US would want to know, wouldn't everyone in the US praise them for releasing information vital to the US that the Russians were keeping secret?

You don't have to like what wikileaks is doing, but they are generally accountable to their employees and supporters. When they aren't breaking the law of the country they operate in, what more do you want? Either believe them, or call BS and move on.

He might sound like it, but I have no reason to either, and I've generally had pretty darn good experiences, both with consumer and with enterprise support. I've only dealt with enterprise support once, but it was super easy.

Sure, you might have to go through the effort and it might take you an hour with support, but you can't expect them to send out someone to replace a motherboard without asking questions. I've found, if you answer the questions correctly, act very cooperative, and try just a couple things they suggest without complaining, you can usually get what you want in 20 minutes or less.

You must realize, that for everyone that calls and actually knows what they are talking about, there are 10 that call and say their "hard drive box" is bad, get upset, and ended up not having the thing plugged in - or worse, someone of that level of intelligence that demands ram chips or something be fixed because their very knowledgeable nephew said so.

.

Maybe Amazon should consider moving to the cloud...

I live in a rural community that limited DSL through Verizon and cable through TWC. A company called Cinergy Metronet, now just Metronet, came in and started offering fiber-to-the-home. The day they went live, TWC doubled their advertised speeds and dropped their prices to match Metronet.

I think the argument is what you define as "per infringement".

It is just as easy to share a whole library as it is to share a single song. Does that mean each sharing of a song is a single act of infringement? If so, someone's kid could still create a life-destroying event quite quickly. (5,000 songs x $120, plus other fees.)

However, if that is a single act of infringement, it's $120 plus other fees, which would still be double the cost of all the songs according to this panel.

One is a stiff fee and one is life-destroying amount for most people. Both results can come from a kid messing around on my computer for 10 minutes.

Maybe if you don't think $120 is enough of a deterrent, you could raise it to $500 or something, but I have a hard time believing each shared song should be considered a separate act. They certainly don't need a separate physical action to do, and if I steal a CD from the store it's a single act of shoplifting and not a separate act for each song on the CD. Even if I steal 2 boxed sets and 6 video games it's still one act, just one of higher value.

I don't know where you work, but in my experience C level management is continuously expanding, but it's not related to supply and demand. For the supply and demand system to work, you have to assume a level of intelligence - that these people are paid based upon the value they bring to the company. Once you reach a level where you "are" the company, I can't believe that's true.

I don't totally agree with this statement, because I think immigration can be quite valuable to an economy, regardless of it's current condition.

However, these visas aren't immigration. It allows a company to bring in workers, tie them to said company as a condition of being in the states, and then eventually ships them home.

This program is good for immersive training so these workers can continue to work for said company through outsourcing when they go home and work for a lot less money, but have US living experience.

Immigrants, on the other hand, have a vested interested in their future here (since they don't plan on going home) so they will invest more money, time, and effort into making their new country a nice place to live.

I certainly agree, but I don't think it's that black and white. I think skilled labor should be able to leave their home country and go somewhere else where they have a better shot at making it. America is pretty awesome, and it used to be a lot easier to have the dream of coming to America to make it big.

I've had a number of highly educated foreign friends (coming out of US universities) that found it staggeringly difficult to stay and work here. Most of them would have been great assets, and at least one would have started his own company here, but it's frustrating and hard, so they leave. I don't think we should make it this easy for companies to hire cheap workers using a complex system that the average person can't navigate. I think we should make it easier for these people to setup shop and actually become Americans.

If you tell an Indian guy he can live here for a few years and work, but then he'll have to go home, he will work for cheap and think he's doing pretty well compared to the same job back there. If you tell him he can work and live here forever, he might work cheap for a while, but the American sense of entitlement, rights, and equality appear quite quickly.

Didn't dogpile just aggregate Google, Yahoo, and Excite or something like that?

Sounds like he would be happy at 10 up, but he's 10 down, probably on the lowest rung cable connection, and probably only has 768k or 1 up.