There is a difference between a "brownfield" (environmentally contaminated area) and a large grassy field with long grass dried brown from the summer sun.

If you want a list of Erie county brownfields, you can look HERE for a list from the EPA. You will notice that most are isolated small areas such as former Gas Stations and old industrial sites. You can output the locations to .KML and check them on Google Earth. I haven't yet confirmed it myself, but I don't think any of them correspond to wind farm locations.

And of course you see them turning. They wouldn't have built them there if it wasn't at least a LITTLE viable. But that doesn't mean that it's a good spot, or that wind power is a reliable energy source. I've been by them plenty of times when they are idle. Perhaps you simply didn't notice.

I wasn't aware there was Vodka made around here. Is it really that bad? Great wine and beer though. My favorite is Southern Tier brewery. They make an awesome IPA.

So, your solution to the major problems of using inadequate power generation systems is to force people (using the power of government, which inevitably involves guns and killing) to do with less and to spend more money?

Glad you aren't running things.

Your argument is absurd on the face of it.

Asking coal fired (or natgas or Hydrocarbon) plants ot NOT have emissions is akin to asking solar farms to produce power without killing all the plant life under them or wind farms not to hurt thousands of birds with spinning blades.

There is a basic environmental price to pay for ANY power generation. You can't ignore it for one type of power generation just because you prefer it.

Also, the vast majority of the costs of Nuclear power generation are legal (fighting eco-NIMBY lawsuits) and regulatory (dealing with the mountains of paperwork before you can even break ground.

You want cheap nuclear power? Pass real Tort reform to prevent Eco-NIMBY lawsuits, defang the EPA (who often are the ones bringing or financially supporting the lawsuits) and lower regulations.

The real reason we haven't had any new Nuke plants in the US in YEARS is simply the onerous costs of dealing with lawsuits and regulation. It's simply not profitable. And that's sad because we could be using really up to date reactors with awesome technology. instead we are dealing with aging reactors and a power infrastructure that is slowly being overwhelmed.

living along one of the Great lakes, in the Buffalo NY area, and having a large windfarm in the Southern tier, I can tell you that your assumption is false.

Yes, we often have "wind" coming of of the great lakes. the problem is that it is often little more than a light breeze. I have personally been out near the wind farm on what I considered a breezy day and saw the windmills sitting idle. (it was not a scheduled maintenance day either.) They need sustained winds higher than 15 mph to turn, and the average in most great lakes areas is a bit below that.

Also, most of the shores of the Great Lakes are verdant and healthy. NY and PA have strong vineyard growing centers along the southern Lake Erie shores, and many people make their homes there. The brownfields are only in small and isolated areas,and most have been cleaned up by now. Please don't perpetuate false stereotypes about the area I live in.

Thank you for so clearly illustrating my point.

Look at the SIZE of that solar farm. Its well over 4 times the surface area of the Apple building itself! Yet this is what it takes to power ONE BUILDING. JUST ONE. Can you imagine the sheer size of the solar plant required to power a mid-sized city? What about a BIG city like NY or LA? What about the entire country? It boggles the mind!

of course, let's not forget that those panels are opaque, so nothing can grow underneath them. The environment loss to solar farms large enough to meet our needs would be STAGGERING. Not to mention the reflectivity of the panels. I can't imagine what it would be like having a giant reflector on the Earth bouncing light back into space and heating the atmosphere on the way back out.

As I stated before. Solar is nice for small applications, but doesn't scale well. It's an eco-vanity project. Not terribly surprising that Cupertino, center of vanity in the tech universe, would have one.

I'm fine with not propping up ANY energy supplier. I'd also like to reduce (not eliminate, just reduce) the onerous amount of regulation surrounding power generation. That's half the problem right there.

And please don't bring out the "if we reduce regulation even an iota, rivers will be toxic and full of three eyed fish" strawman. The US has ABSURD regulations in all areas on power generation.

It's not as though we are at the "just enough to stop polluters" level. We passed that DECADES ago and are now well into the "regulation is so onerous and on so many trivial and unnecessary things that our power infrastructure is becoming overwhelmed" area. If we would lighten them up a bit we would see more and cheaper power, and then we might be able to seriously talk about the viability of things like massive amounts of electric cars nationwide, which our current infrastructure cannot support.

Even then, solar isn't really that useful as a power source. nice for limited applications such as charging batteries, but not really useful for large scale use. It simply doesn't scale well, and likely never will.

Ultimately, these "renewable" resources are really nothing more than flashy showpieces for environmental groups. They don't seem to be able to compete in the open market, even with billions of government dollars poured into them to prop them up.

We need to stop wasting our time with these silly eco-vanity projects and pull all government funding. If they can survive in the open market with no more support than traditional power suppliers, and then great! If not, then scrap them and use the materials to help build more Nuke plants.

We simply don't have the money to waste on vanity projects anymore.

No, it really is. People have different preferences in what they like, and indeed there are differences in the ways in which people can perceive taste, just as there are differences in color perception. Now, just like color perception, taste usually varies within a range, but there are differences.

Additionally, culture and background plays into preference as well. Case in point: Vegemite. A vegetable based preservative spread that is popular in Australia. You may have heard of it before. I have personally tasted it and would liken it's flavor to that of charred vulcanized rubber. Yet millions of Australians absolutely LOVE the stuff.

There are plenty of other examples, but I won't waste your time with them. Suffice to say that taste, both in perception and in preference is indeed a highly subjective thing.

Shop vac.

'Nuff said.

So do it using a holding company, wire transfers from multiple small accounts and computer algorithms. You could run the damn thing from a one room office.

As long as the money is your own and everyone gets paid properly it is perfectly legal to buy something while pretending to be someone else.

Pretty sure he was referring to the Gnome changes, not Mac. And Lameness filter or not, I have to agree with him. I feel the same way about Win8.

That is a remarkably short-sighted opinion. You need only take a look back at our own history to see that the premise of your argument, that Capitalism and Technology cause poverty, is false just on the face of it.

Capitalism and technology together have ALWAYS created a better standard of living and improved conditions for all. From an agrarian society, Capitalism and Technology took us into the Industrial Revolution, which brought mechanized farming. Mechanized farming removed the need to have a large "plantation" with hundreds of hired hands. (no slaves anymore by that time) The hired hands were fired. Oh no! Thousands lost their jobs! Capitalism and technology are HORRIBLE!

But wait! Those fired farm workers moved to the city, and got jobs in factories and all the new industries that the Industrial revolution created. Their standard of living improved. Many single men that couldn't afford to get married could now not only get married but get an nice apartment to live in. More children were born, who grew up, got educated and added to the labor force. Families moved out to the suburbs. Many started their own companies which grew and hired people, thus adding to the overall wealth of the country. And on and on and on..

I could go on, but you should be able to see the point by now. Capitalism and Technology gave us PROGRESS. They gave us the standard of living we now enjoy.

It was not until we got AWAY from Capitalism and started growing government to ridiculous levels, thus making it more difficult and expensive to do business here in America, that companies started moving overseas in earnest. We need to get back to our Capitalistic roots and use Capitalism to harness Technology to give us the bright future we all want.

Hmmm....

Google: Might sell my personal data to annoying advertisers or cancel an account if I upset them.

FSB: Polonium poisoning.

Seems obvious to me.

As a parent of a child with L4 Spina Bifida I have to agree with you.

I would MUCH rather see these guys working on neuro-spinal implants that would allow my baby girl's frayed spinal cord to be properly connected to all it's end points. Or on bio-engineering cellular lattices that would do the same thing. They should be focused on FIXING the problems, not going around them with silly solutions that cause more problems in the long run.

I want my baby to walk on her own two feet. Not be shuttled around on some contraption. They already have those, they are called Wheelchairs. DBC is absolutely right. These kids need therapy and medical intervention. Not a silly toy to ride around on.

Lower the bumpers? Did you really just type that?

Please explain how a device that is directly connected to the truck frame can be lowered below that frame and still maintain the function of said device?

Just to be clear, if one "lowers" the bumpers, even with a triangular frame brace, one is basically removing them as far as safety goes. Bumpers are designed to absorb force, but need a firm backing on the truck frame or they will simply tear off in an accident, creating a wedge under the truck nose that would drive it up even HIGHER over a vehicle it was striking.

Lowering the bumpers would be far MORE dangerous, not less. (Which, incidentally, is why it is illegal in many states to modify the bumpers beyond changing the covering material, or replacing them with an appropriately rated bumper.)