Please provide relevant examples or citations of cities that *require* you to pay for a utility if you don't need it. It would be really interesting to see...

Actually, *many* utilities currently have net metering without significant minimum charges (like $5), usually decided by state utility commissions. Honestly who knows right now how well that covers their overhead. I'm sure utility companies claim is doesn't and customers claim it does.

But it's clear that charge is only going to go up as reliable non-renewable power gets more expensive to produce. Hopefully it's offset by the reduced hourly rates due to increased renewable use...

Bullshit.

"Night time" is not when you sleep, it's when it's dark. Which in the winter is still 14+ hours for the majority of the population and more for many.

Actually, many homeowners putting up solar panels these days are just allowing solar power companies to put them up and then leasing back the power from them. That model is becoming more and more popular. Imagine if a traditional power company bought one of those solar lease companies - they'd now own the solar panels on your roof...

I don't see how you can possibly be "certain" about it based on the tiny amount of information and unknown future of the industry. Not saying it *has to*, but when you have a HUGE amount of capital tied up in many, many, billions of dollars of power plants that could either become idle or highly underused, it can get pretty hard to turn a profit.

Not that I really care about the profit of a power company for it's own sake - but the problem is renewables just aren't going to meet 100% of the needs any time soon, and providing random amounts ultra-reliable power generation to make up for somewhat unreliable distributed sources is a more expensive, less rewarding, and very different business than what they are built to do...

I mostly agree, though unfortunately that almost by definition means they may need to be nationalized... ie. the one thing that could be done to make them lose even *more* money...

An *occasional* supplemental protein source for families who already get enough calories, I agree. But not a significant cure for *starvation*! If you are staving are you going to grow your own alfalfa, etc, then spend time breeding, raising, etc rabbits for meat? Or just hope whatever vegetable matter you grew was enough to keep your kids from dying before your rabbits?

And not that hard to research, and kind of interesting (again, because I would like to see more rabbit in the US, but it's WAY more expensive and risky (in terms of yield, weight, mortality, etc) than *chicken* to mass produce.

http://modernfarmer.com/2013/0...

Cooler, yes, Faster, no. Clock speed compared to process size has NOTHING to do with "fast" vs "slow".

Process may allow higher clock speed, as well as many other advantages (fitting multiple cores, larger caches, etc on one die) - but without any other innovation the SAME architecture at the SAME clock speed with ANY process size will give you the same performance....

Wait, when did the F-14 maneuver without a pilot?

Except in this case, there really isn't a real discussion beyond lawyers wanting to make money but who can't actually find a case...

"Lawyer for the plaintiffs, Bonny Sweeny, suggested that while one or both of her plaintiffs' iPods might not be covered by the case, there are plenty of others to be tapped."

Clearly a case of a lawyer representing the interests of her clients and not just fishing for cash!

I agree that there could be some human-inedible plant material some animals like rabbit could be fed. But that is SO FAR from being an agricultural industry capable of feeding the masses that it's totally irrelevant to any large (25M+) underfed population like North Korea. It's a simple fact (not my opinion - I love meat - I smoked a rabbit just last month and it was great) if you are looking to adequately feed a large population, animal agriculture is just not efficient.

"A" rabbit, sure. 25 million rabbits (or whatever it would take to be meaningful to that population - probably more), doubtful.

This alone shows how you completely do not get the concept of discrimination. I suppose you also think blacks in the south were less than 50 years ago incapable of sitting in the front of buses (it's tough sitting down!), attending universities, marrying outside of their race, or basically walking down the street in many towns without being harassed?

And those are just the blatantly obvious cases, of course, that you are welcome to deny but would be moronic. And given that, you can't conceive that there would be more subtle forms of discrimination that are harder to prove? That could also be applied to women, who 100 years ago could not even vote, and less than 30 years ago were OPENLY discriminated against in business (with innumerable indisputable examples)?

Yes. That just perfectly describes the gender, race, nationality, and other equality gaps. Holy fuck you are a moron.

So, because most garbage man are male (and note, this is a great and stable career if you want to do it) that means men are oppressed?

Well, the professions of house cleaner, dishwasher, nanny, and prostitute are mostly women. What does that prove? Like you examples, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

While I admit it takes a certain narcissistic personality (as well as some actually good personality traits), I don't think sanity actually enters into it. I know a lot of sane and smart people who wouldn't mind a million dollar salary and tens of millions in stock options a year to lead a company.

Were your only other options being a mover, fireman, security guard, or soldier? If not, what's your point? The OP was moronic, why are you defending it?

Wait, you seriously just claimed you wanted to be a CEO but have a 99.9999% chance of not being one, when claiming more women aren't CEOs because "most women don't want to be CEOs")? Yes, we can assume you are not in the same class as literally thousands of extremely well qualified and intelligent female executives (probably millions but, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt). But you are basically implying that there aren't more then a few dozen women on the planet who are both interested in being a top CEO and capable of it. It's only trivial because you trivialized it.