The first word shouldn't be "no". Bubbles don't imply all the companies are worthless, only that they're overvalued. The company being "fine" doesn't mean they won't lose value. If social media investors suddenly realize they've been over valuing them all along it would create a market stampede for the doors. Even when bubbles "pop" most companies survive just fine but they're no where near previous valuations. Sometimes for years, sometimes forever.

This is the equivalent of UPS charging an online retailer additional fees for delivering too many packages thereby placing an undue burden on UPS's existing their distribution network, even though all of their buyers already paid for shipping. Common sense should already deem this silly.

Don't get too excited guys, it still needs water, oxygen (plants), and a magnetosphere to support life such as ourselves... not saying it's impossible other forms of life could be there. Now if they find an oxygen filled atmosphere... holy smokes, maybe they're reading slashdot too!

While I agree everyone should have a minimum level of technical expertise to survive in today's world. I'm picturing my mother calling me asking how to open a prompt, type in the command, among 1000's of other commands... everyday. No thanks!

The problem is electricity generation only accounts for 33% of all greenhouse emissions (source: http://epa.gov/climatechange/g...). Ahem, so what about the remaining 67%... so how do we care to try to address that lol?

Makes good research but I wonder if it could ever by economically viable. Maybe someone can enlighten me and explain otherwise.

I imagine if it ever hit mainstream with usage on a public daily basis, you'd need millions of embryos, perhaps even every day? What? Would women be expected to line up for embryo drives like we have blood drives today?

Except nobody's paper wallet is connected to the internet, and few people carry significant hordes of cash in their wallet anyway so this isn't really a fantastic comparison. Yes, one could say, "well you can move it offgrid" then you can also do the same thing with your wallet and toss it in a safe or bank security box, only then would they become equals?

That being said, your wallet is anything but a "safe" place but I'd still say a networked computer is worse. Bitcoins on a networked computer would be probably be akin to someone leaving their cash in a safe, unattended, in an inconspicuous, publicly accessible place.

I have to admit that saying they're jobs we don't need sounds a bit misguided. Who says? Why wouldn't they be? Are you suggesting we shouldn't have a technical work force? That's what it sounds like... but if I were to guess how you'd respond if asked that, you'd say that's not what you're trying to say at all.

That being said, technology already permeates every industry. Even service, manufacturing, construction, and it continues to increase more and more every year. There's a growing need (and gap) in tuning our workforce to be more technical. Hence the growing calls for pushing math, science, and technology in schools. While there will always be a need for blue collar jobs like manufacturing/construction/service for the foreseeable future, those won't last in the same state as they do today either. So it's kind of inevitable. And in reference to exporting those jobs exported oversees, you probably already know the same jobs would only be a 100th in size over here because of the automation we'd employ.

As for taxes in my opinion, we already have a sliding scale that almost works OK. If we could eliminate some "loopholes" - first being special treatment on specific types of income like dividends and capital gains and instead treat them as ordinary income - second eliminate all interest deductions including mortgage interest. I believe those changes alone (allowing for no exceptions) we'd fix 80% of our tax problems and also simplify taxes for everyone across the board.

Regardless of whether or not mankind is fully, partially, or trivially responsible for climate change. Calling it a weapon of mass destruction is fully moronic. It's a distortion of reality for the sole sake of sensationalizing the issue. It's not worth tainting the argument for the sake of getting the point across.

Now it's just a matter of time before we start arresting people for starting bonfires or driving to work. Gas guzzler, hybrid, or all electric you'll all be terrorists wielding WMDs! /tongueincheek

Any builder will also sign a contract stating to such an effect, or at least verbally state as much and take them on trust. It's certainly not some magical worldwide automatic assumption. That's what "binds" them to rebuilds/repairs. No contract, no binding agreement. Depending on project type and size, a builder may or may not add that stipulation to their contract. However a smart builder that wants to stay in business tomorrow, will price accordingly with that stipulation in mind.

Also, people get their panties in a twist over contracts. "But you signed the contract, you have to do it!!!!" Yes they do, but a contract is only good if it's followed. If someone chooses not to follow it, the only recourse is taking them to court.

Now slightly off topic but that's why imho trust >> contracts. Trust is "free" but hard to obtain, little nebulous but it's also far more reliable. Drafting a contract is easy and unambiguous (assuming the work is specified in there) but enforcing it can often be prohibitively expensive from both time and money. Dealing with bonded contractors can remove some of the burden because you have a small "guarantee" that someone else will do it if they don't.

Short answer: it doesn't apply to you unless you agreed to it upfront. So, the analogy is working off of fictitious assumptions.

Probably not a good idea. I suspect it will probably attract the students that shouldn't be going into engineering in the first place. I don't know what would be worse, having more subpar engineers or having fewer superb engineers.

Instead, all the focus should be made during childhood education. By either family or schools, preferably families. Along with touting maths and sciences, we should also drill children on how to use and how not to use money while we're at it. But those pesky 20-year-solution-plans are so distasteful, quick useless bandaids sound so much better tasting...

It's also not unreasonable to assume a majority of his house will likely be made of wood, a renewable resource. An argument can also be made that concrete, brick, and asphalt is also renewable since that can be crushed and repurposed. If you want to pick on other materials he would use like plastics, metals, and shingles you could still renew those materials if you really wanted to.

Anywho, let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. None of us here are innocent of using resources. I'm just glad you have no real power, you'd be in everyone's business sooner than you need to be.

I've always thought of schizophrenia as those of us who have an imagination like the rest of us, but can't always recognize the difference. If you think about it, anyone can "hear" voices or "see" things in your head, as if they were truly real. We can recreate any experience in our minds because that's where experiences exist. But most people can tell the difference.

I have no problem with a single payer system for health care but everyone treats it as some magic silver bullet that will fix everything. It won't fix anything and if implemented like today's Medicare it will guarantee healthcare will be more expensive because of all of the illegitimate activity that current bilks 10-15% (latest estimates) through improper payments. That's far more than the profit margins of nearly every single insurance company. What most people don't realize is that insurance business is more tightly regulated than nearly any other industry, their premium and losses are scrutinized to be disallowed from making too much money (even though insurance companies try their damned best to get around it).

The US health care system needs to be addressed, point by point, from the bottom up - not the top down. Everyone loves to blame insurance companies because they're the ones holding the bag, but imho while certainly *not* innocent they're a small villain in the very long complicated list of bad guys.

Disclosure: I work for an insurance company

If it's so good for consumers, then why don't they want it? There's logic behind why they have to lobby for it... to force something down consumer's throats which would by rejected unanimously, if it were actually out in the wild.