See also: the Comics Code Authority. Some links:
Wikipedia
TV Tropes

Gun. Head. No one.

Firstly, I gotta agree with the GGP; putting in so many amps at once is IMO not important. If you have a cheap recharge station where you park at work, and one at home, and a battery with enough storage, dumping in so much power at once is not needed.

Now about what Dan667 is saying about pollution, He's probably talking about the additional power you would need from power plants, but a) they aren't as bad as burning gasoline and b) they helps centralize power generation which makes it easier to push for greener power plants. There's some mercury, etc, in some types of batteries, but as long as there isn't much, it's not as bad as the alternatives.

The idea has been pushed back for legitimate and illegitimate reasons, but the technology will be too good to ignore pretty soon. in the meantime, he's right about 'em being expensive, because none are really mass-produced. The Volt seems fairly close to being a non-gas vehicle though, so hopefully that'll come out as 'planned'.

And yes, I do like that movie, for the most part. The same movie also says hydrogen is BS, and I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not an expert (my guess is GP threw this in to attract fanboys of the movie... well it worked!). In that movie they also say EVs cost less to maintain. I'm somewhat doubtful but if it turns out to be true, it's another thing to factor into the cost.

For anyone who is confused, the movie is "Who Killed the Electric Car?'. Like most documentaries, there's lots of opinions and bias in there, but the facts are pretty solid and I recommend you give it a watch.

One technique I thought would be effective (at least for getting people who are willing to pay for something they can get for free), would be for sites like StumbleUpon to accept donations, and then (after keeping a tiny cut for admin purposes) split your donation evenly across sites you gave a thumbs up. Or something. Just some sort of model where a big site takes a lump sum from you and splits it up. Maybe that sounds too much like PayPal? But more web 2.0ish.

Clearly the protesters are emitting some sort of electromagnetic interference, probably from some sort of terrorist super-weapon, and must be detained. Problem solved!

I'll tell you what's actually coincidental (though it was inevitable): this is the China Anniversary of the massacre.

It's nearly acceptable if you replace "by" with "with".

Oh, and you must be new here.

Also, every search engine blocked except Bing.

There's a wonderful episode of South Park that gets into this. Near the end (Cartman goes back in time) it's revealed that the founding fathers created Democracy because it let them do one thing while saying another. If you don't watch a lot of South Park, I recommend this episode.

If "get over it" isn't enough for you, here's another piece: "walk away".

And yes, defamation is more direct harm. People might believe you, stop trusting your target, or even be violent. If they do that to your target just because you were hateful to him, well, they either they were about to do it anyway, or they're very stupid.

So you have no idea what you're allowed to write and what will or will not get accepted or thrown out by any of thousands of judges that may or may not be presiding your case. Much better.

Overly snarky, yes. But you see what I mean. Some old judge might read over this post five years from now and say "too much snark. Severe. you're going away for life, son."

(Except the maximum charge is less than life, and I live in Canada)

I hate to use the "slippery slope" argument normally, but I think this is a pretty good case of it. Before, you wrote a blog, people listened. If it was overly hateful to someone, the blog would be mostly ignored, problem solved. If the blog was popular, good for them, the person they hated was probably a jackass. If not, other blogs will spring up in his favour... it all works out.

I can see why someone would say "but it's not fair, even if no one reads it, no one should be able to say such hateful things about me", but too bad, grow thicker skin. No one reads this site, no one is putting a gun to your head to read it, just chill out and ignore it.

Instead, we have another ambiguous bill out to (talking point incoming) turn everyone into a criminal.

For any well-intended (if any) politicians pushing this bill; thank you for your concern, but we don't need your help. We know how to ignore websites on our own. You want to clamp down on bullshit, start with advertising and continue from there.

Fortunately, a government inspector doesn't have to drop by to see what you're blending each time you use it.

...or whatever analogy would link this to the original article :)

I wasn't familiar with dictionary.com, but they did a great job of providing a textbook example of how not to define a word. Merriam-Webster has a better definition:
The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

And in turn, the terror definitions that fit with this are:
1: a state of intense fear
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

A /. editor let an inaccurate title through to provoke outrage at "the man". Now I've heard everything.