http://www.sec.gov/Archives/ed...

A list of Google Inc's subsidiaries, in desperate hope of curing your ignorance.

You're talking out of your ass.

Google Ireland Holdings, Google Ireland Limited, Google Bermuda Unlimited, and Google Bermuda Limited are wholly owned subsidiaries of Google Inc. IE, the shares in those offshore corporations are held by the US incorporation Google Inc.

Their relationship as customer/licensee is utterly irrelevant to ownership of the corporation. You *have* worked for a corporate subsidiary, no?

It is a legal way to avoid taxation with the current tax code, but offshore subsidiaries in any jurisdiction have always been held to account for local jurisdictional law in the case that there is a local incorporation.

That's because I am someone who wouldn't object to destroying .04% of the fragile arizona desert for the sake of a multi-gigaton reduction in emissions in the country. I suspect we'll just have to choose a site where any local flora and fauna are ok with the other 99.96% of the desert.

I wasn't particularly talking about the name. I was talking about the physical explanation for the astronomical object. It does appear that John Michell had the basic concept down before it was physically characterized, though.

No. Europe is causing europe to burn more coal. You've taken a concept about self-responsibility and made the people who actually do have clean energy instead take up the responsibility of the entire planet. Brilliant.

Ah, so I'm to be accountable for other areas wanting cheaper energy. It's like reverse NIMBY. That clean energy is great stuff, but I don't wanna hurt this states coal industry, so we'll just import it and try to get the exporters of it to lower their energy usage to solve our problem. Seems legit.

The validity of the former does not lend itself to the latter. It's in fact patently false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
No, they really can.
Prior to the passage of that act, the IRS sued offshore banks with US incorporations for information about US customers. Again, a US jurisdiction can be compelled to give up information as required by US law, that order can be extended to include an offshore subsidiary or even parent company. The offshore incorporation can of course say no, but the US incorporation of that same entity will suffer the sanctions for it.

A superconducting network is no more necessary for one type of power than another. Losses are acceptable.

Nice. Didn't know. Thank you.

No, they most definitely delete it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw...

Several entities have popped up that try to cache it before it goes away. Why are you making shit up?

Again, no, TPB is non-relevant. Foreign entity attempting to compel a foreign entity to produce data when there is no incorporation in any jurisdiction of party A. Full Stop. You're just making shit up.

I'm sure the location is absolutely printed upon the warrant/subpoena.
If the authorities here cannot obtain it (they can't, they lack jurisdiction), and MS can (who does not lack jurisdiction, having a functioning entity in control of the data), then MS can be compelled to produce it.

So yes, it matters- in that it be printed on the order compelling the defendant/plaintiff to produce the data for discovery/otherwise.
And it was.

Ya, I know they are :/
I felt it was prudent to point out just how technically within reach practically infinite clean power was, even if the economics are still complicated.

Also- to clarify, I'm also no fan of the old designs. They suck. But I have trouble envisioning something worse than concentrating highly toxic metals and radioisotopes into ash and blowing it into the fucking air as a part of the actual accepted generation process. It'd be like if PWBRs were designed to vent off their heavy coolant into the atmosphere constantly and replace it with fresh, instead of isolating the loops. So I just mean that coal sucks *even more* than even old reactor designs.

That's the great thing about nuclear. Not only do we already have better designs, there's still tons of room for improvement and progress toward making them even safer, and it's far easier to sequester spent nuclear fuel (politics aside) than spent coal ash (if we decided it was worth the cost to sequester it, instead of blowing it into the air and holding it in massive leaking open-air containment "reservoirs")

Nuclear is not only the safest, but it's also the cleanest non-renewable. Both by ultra-long shots, and with even more room for improvement.
The real issue is people prefer to roll the dice, living with the chance of dying of a coal-caused pathology (cancer, heavy-metal poisoning, particulate inhalation) that's spread very wide amongst the general population, rather than being anywhere near a reactor that *will kill them* if it goes Chernobyl on their ass, simply by virtue of being near it. I think it's a lot akin to the risk of driving, and the risk of flying, and the bizarre fear of the safer of the two.

Thanks for the historical disaster reading material!