There are only three positions here:

You believe in global warming and therefore support nuclear power.

You don't believe in global warming and don't believe in nuclear power.

You do believe in global warming, and don't believe in nuclear power - thereby qualifying you as a brainless, back-to-the-mud-hut Luddite nitwit whose views no reasonable human being should listen to.

Of course, there is a tiny minority of a fourth position - those who don't believe in global warming and do believe in nuclear power - but no one ever listens to them. Economic growth, improved medicine, better life for all of Earth's billions, all the good things we know are tied to increased energy production...who wants that kind of crap?

...of an economic basket case already, they can't think of a thing to do but kill some more of their tax base. Good thinking, there.

Some people look at a thing and ask "Why?", others ask "Why not?" No one is claiming it's useful today, it needs work. But it shows one way we might go with virtual machine technology, and it's certainly worth a look.

> It is cool as a tech demo, and as a benchmark, but I don't really see it being useful.

How useful is a baby?

You have to take into account the reputation of the people doing the research. That is why this article's tone is an example of the very thing it is decrying. It takes global warming as a given and assumes anyone against it is influenced by ideology - yet the credibility of all climatological science has been called into question by their own people. It has been shown that sampling techniques varied across the history of the data set. It has been shown that the data was manipulated and the original data "lost" (or, worse, not released because of fear it will be "misinterpreted"). The global warming people have to make their case again and this time do it above-board - and not using gov't grants, because the all of the reasons put forth for why their conclusions are not being questioned all hinge on their desire for funding.

Yeah, we have the anti-evolution lunatics and the like, but they have no connection with the Tea Party. This is just another attempt to tar the people who believe the Founding Fathers may have been right about freedom. And, yes, that is subversive - after all, those people are remembered for starting a war against a King by Divine Right...

...is that Rep. Giffords hadn't even arrived at the hospital before one of her aids appeared on FOX and CNN blaming the Tea Party. Never mind that the whole POINT of the Tea Party is to work within the system, any excuse to vilify them, even a mass shooting of one's boss and innocent bystanders, must be used. What was that Democratic motto Beck was castigated for mentioning? Oh, yes, "Never let a good crises go to waste."

My sympathy to Rep. Giffords and the other victims of this tragedy. Now let us ALL learn the lesson, monsters are made, not born, and as a culture we continue to operate the monster factory. Can we drop the "Socialism at any cost" on one side and "Democrats are evil cockroaches" on the other? Please?

...sadly, you are incorrect. While you may view "Network Neutrality" this way (and most hackers, including me, would agree with you, by the way), the sad fact is, Democrats in general and Liberals in particular do not. Limbaugh is correct, "Network Neutrality" has become a trojan horse to try to silence conservatives by forcing "equal time" laws to apply to the web. "Net neutrality" as most technical types understand it has been, as I have stated before, entirely subverted to serve a different objective, one that is equally discriminating as network non-neutrality would be.

I'm sorry, but it's a fact: when a politician latches onto your favorite catchphrase you must understand what they really mean by it. Right now there are three different definitions of "net neutrality" - ours, the Democrats, and the Republicans. If you use the phrase you must understand not only your own meaning, but the meaning it will imply to anyone you speak to.

Guys, you really need to start parsing these kinds of statements. What a hacker means by "net neutrality", what a politician means by "net neutrality" and what corporations mean by "net neutrality" are three completely disjoint sets. And of the three, the hacker's definition is not the one anyone in this debate is using. The question is not really net "neutrality" but instead "who will control the net and to whose ends".

> You should be honoured that he called you an idiot

Priceless.

A seasteading site could be augmented by zepsats - hot air ballon "satellites" which would use solar power to maintain altitude and hover at assigned sites where they would TOR to any sites within range and relay to each other. Such units could have considerable range. Individually they'd be cheap - almost disposable - and would form the backbone of a truly free network.

...and cheaper to just set up their own micronation platform using something like http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Making_an_Island/Construction_Guides? All they'd need is a relatively shallow site not in territorial waters. A (largely) unmanned site could be left sealed tight when heavy weather is coming, and could otherwise be maintained by a couple of guys. Armed guys, copyright law being what it is. But, hey, machine guns would be legal! http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle551-20100103-03.html

...let's be honest here. Franken wants what all liberals do - they want to control everything you see and read. To them "net neutrality" means on-line and radio are to become all liberal all the time. Talk radio, the internet, and FOX are the only media outlets not controlled by liberals - and "net neutrality" is how they are going to fix that. If you want proof of this, ask Mr. Franken how he feels about net neutrality with respect to tcp/ip protocols. You will get either a blank look (he's not a bright man) or you will see a sudden and savage about-face to race to protect "intellectual property" loaded with assumptions about who should get such protection by looking at the list of contributors to his war chest.

Do remember that this is the very same political party whose president criticized SCOTUS - in public - for asserting that people, even people in corporations other than unions or political action groups, cannot be held silent by the government since the 1st amendment - whose first and only function IS to protect political discourse - forbids them to do so. Said President then promptly promising to "re-apply" the principle - censorship - once again. Hey, the 1st amendment is not that hard to figure out, they KNEW that law was unconstitutional the day they passed it, and they will know it still when they pass the replacement. Cynically they realize that all they need to do to end-run the Constitution is to pass a law abrogating part of it, and then defend it to the death, appeal, appeal, appeal, delay, delay, delay, lawyer, lawyer, lawyer and when SCOTUS finally smacks 'em down again, go ahead and pass the exact same bill over again with different wording, and let the process repeat. Who cares if it makes lawyers filthy, stinking rich? The Trial Lawyer's Association will insure that only truly liberal viewpoints will be permitted, and they get paid too. Sweet deal.

Do not believe liberals when they say "new neutrality". Please. It's just a code word for censorship. And we are too much like China all ready. We have already hit most of the marks to a dictator-driven social "democracy" - the end of privacy, the disarming of the public, the control over individual lives, regulation of speech and the media, selective reporting, the list goes on and on.

Now I expect this will be modded down troll, but I feel better having at least I've pointed out - again - that we are patching our political dike using handfuls of C4 (all of which we bought with Chinese credit...), so when it blows up I'll be in a cabin somewhere, sitting on a pile of MRE's, cleaning my guns, and watching "Tremors" episodes on my solar-powered DVD - with occasional breaks to look at all the surprised faces when it comes THEIR turn to be rounded up. And I swear to God, when they start rounding up all those liberal Jews who voted for Obama, I am going to laugh myself until I hiccup. Jews are supposed to be smart, but they never did figure out that the only Americans who support Israel are the Republicans.

Fraken as a senator - its surreal to the point of absurdity. He was never funny as a comedian but he's a laugh riot now...

Oooohh...this is a toughie. Highly toxic material, slapped onto a drinking glass. Cadmium. Oh! Cadmium charm bracelets! Could it be China? Again? Why don't we learn?

As raising the CAFE has proven time and again, every time they are raised, they have the effect of increasing the amount of time older, less-efficient cars will remain in service, instead of being replaced with newer, more fuel-efficient models, and, once again, the country's overall average mileage will shrink. Way to go. Of course, once they ram cap-and-trade through the way they did health care, no one but Donald Trump, the President, and Congress will be able to drive. So much for sticking it to those rich people.

...that the more we slow down traffic "for safety" the more incidents of "road rage" we generate by forcing people to drive longer? What good is all this safety going to do if the guy behind me snaps and tries to ram past on the shoulder?

The principle problem with gov't today is the level of frustration it creates in people. That is the real source of the anger in the country, and the real genesis of the Tea Party. People are already at the breaking point, why does anyone think that making the problem worse is going to make us safer?