So let's assume the premise of these proposed observations and let's assume that we actually find a planet with a high pollution content and let's further assume that we're only able to detect the type of pollution that can never be created from some naturally occurring process e.g. don't look at Venus and assume that it was once a beautiful place until acid rain formed. Such a planet will be quite a few light years away, perhaps hundreds. So what we would be looking at is the pollution from a hundred years ago. If this civilized planet is smart enough to fix it, they are more advanced than we are. But we may never know. The EPA was created 44 years ago and many people think this planet is more polluted than ever. We might have to stare at said distant polluted planet for more than 50 years to find out if they fixed it. Then again, if the atmosphere clears up in a year or two, then they either are even more advanced than we are or they destroyed themselves and their planet healed itself. Or maybe the indigenous population actually exists because it's polluted by human standards. Or this whole thing may mean nothing.

Not exactly a valid assumption. Government users tend to use IE primarily because they have to access other government sites that were built by the lowest bidder who often only work on Windows and only works on IE. Hell, while most of the world uses Acrobat for forms, the feds contracted with IBM to build some IT stuff and they're using this goofy holdover from their acquisition of Lotus.

Serious question: What's the best way to handle video on the web given a few requirements? First, the content needs to be hosted on the same site as the website. Why? Because sites like Youtube and Vimeo have control over it. They can unilaterally decide to take something down. They will also present related video. For someone trying to market product, you shouldn't make it easy for a prospective customer to find your competitors. Second, the video has to work on both Macs and PCs. Third, the video has to work on Internet Explorer as early as v.8 because too many users don't know any better.

This ranks right up there with the dedicated chicken nuggets button on some ovens.

This is my shocked face:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

The FAA hasn't issued any "rule" only a policy guideline which is unenforceable. Most people don't know that and the FAA is counting on intimidation to do their dirty work for them.

That seems completely arbitrary.

Or maybe the entire premise that there is millions of tons of plastic in the ocean was bullsh*t fearmongering.

Show us ALL the data and ALL the methodology.

And so was George Carlin when he said "You nail two piece of wood together that have never been nailed together before and some schmuck will buy it from you."
Green energy is on a lot of people's minds in far more a religious way than a practical one. A lot of people believe in global warming...I mean global climate change...I mean global climate disruption so much that they will buy anything to satisfy their need to continue believing it in the same way that people keep buying the latest fads in diet and exercise products. I'll make a prediction: in about 4 years, solar power will fade away once the subsidies disappear and people find out that it's really not cost effective if they have to pay for the whole thing.

That's a nice write-up. I tend to question the long-term outcomes of things that have no track record to back them up. What happens if the subsidies get reduced or eliminated by future Congresses?

I wouldn't even consider leasing them because if it benefited the customer, the solar companies wouldn't do it.
So with an outright purchase, the ROI doesn't seem to be there.

I've played around with a few ROI calculators and thus far it appears that I wouldn't break even for 17 years. That's a pretty lousy return on investment particularly if the cells only have a 20 year life. And the performance degrades over time. These calculators don't seem to take that into account.