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.)

And due to the increased costs of automobiles (in part due to increased CAFE standards mandating ever more complex and expensive re-engineering of said automobiles) Renting an automobile for common and everyday "trips to the store" is ridiculously expensive and un-economical.

You are NOT going to stop people from wanting the biggest safest and most flexible vehicle they can afford. And forcing cars to be ever more expensive, thus forcing people into ever smaller and less safe cars through government interference in the market is not only stupid policy, but pretty much the definition of "evil".

I drive a Jeep Liberty myself. It gets a whole 17 MPG highway. Why do I have it? I could justify myself by saying that I regularly carry large loads with it. But I don't feel the need to justify myself. I drive it because I love having an SUV, I like the way it drives, and I really enjoy being able to do just about anything (Including forays into off-road exploring) that I want or need with it. It's not the best SUV ever or even the best Jeep ever and absolutely has some compromises that I wish it didn't have, but it's mine and I enjoy having it. I would be very upset if I wasn't able to get it or something like it because of some stupid unrealistic government standard based on Eco-Religion ideology rather than market forces.

In other words: Keep your nanny state fingers off of my SUV.

Just so you know;

  - The originator of the Thermiosol scare was a British doctor. The entire scare started there and continues, despite the complete debunking of his bogus study. There are anti-vaxxers all over Western society in part because of this one doctor.

  - Many many people in Britain and the rest of Europe don't buy the AGW bunkum. It doesn't make one "Anti-Science" to disbelieve junk science. NOTE: Not believing in AGW does not mean one rejects the idea that the Earth's climate can or does change. Change is the only constant in the Universe.

So, Is the Earth's climate changing? Youbetcha. It's part of a long period cycle. Are humans causing it? No evidence to support that, so no reason to radically restructure our society to some Communist "Utopia" right now. (Not that Communism would solve AGW anyway. Command economies are far too slow reacting to be able to adjust for even a minor climate change.)

  - You are pretty much dead on on the Economic front. Too much "Chicago" or "Frankfurt" school thinking going on right now. Lefties never learn that their policies don't work.

I have to politely disagree with your conclusion. If I may, I would like to expound upon my opinion.

Based on the information available and at least on an individual scale, the average human is roughly as smart or smarter than our ancient ancestors were. Of course, no reliable testing data exists further back than a generation or two, so any commentary on human intelligence positive or negative is somewhat subjective.

However, I think it is fair to say that the issues we are having today with the seeming increase in the number of "stupid" people is not so much an indicator of declining human intelligence, but an artifact of our modern society.

Simply put, the pace of technological and social changes in society is occurring at a faster rate than the average human can keep up with. While we can keep up with the changes in a specific discipline, (say, automobile tech or computers or the like) it is nearly impossible for our brains to process all the changes that are happening at once. We simply can't keep up.

Combine that with a massive increase in the available information (thanks to the Internet) and our ability to make rational risk-assessments becomes more and more compromised.

Now compound that with the fact that western culture, capitalism and medicine have greatly reduced the average western mortality rates, thus allowing our population to increase and the average number of less intelligent and otherwise mentally challenged people to survive and you will have a spike in "stupid behavior".

Really, there are only two ways to deal with this:

1. Government regulated breeding. Only works as well as the regulators running it, and based on the current crop of regulators, I'd not want to bet my society (or my kids) on it. Not to mention the hideous tragedies such tyrannical policies would create.

2. Increased educational focus on logic and reasoning and a "classical" education approach. IE: Logic & Reasoning, Math, Science, History and Arts & Technology as focuses in primary and secondary education.

I personally think that option 2 would be far more effective in the long run than option 1. Far better to equip all of our children of all intelligence levels to be able to handle modern society via clear reasoning and improved risk assessment skills than to attempt the impossible task of breeding perfect people.

It's not about "Metro Apps" and "Metro Hardware" it's about usability and basic ergonomics.

It is simply too much of a PITA for ANYONE, business or home users, to use the Metro interface on a desktop or laptop, even IF they have a touchscreen. (FSM help you if you don't have a touchscreen!) The UI concepts DO NOT WORK with those form factors. And while many people are enjoying tablets and smartphones, there is still a great need for the more traditional form factors if you are doing anything other than multimedia or web consumption.

The "Desktop PC" paradigm in business is not going away any time soon. It is a well known and understood style and ergonomically works very very well. Metro just doesn't work in that paradigm.

I anticipate that we will see Metro and the touchscreen UI concept for Desktops go by the wayside within two years. Win8 will get patched to remove the Metro UI (With Metro Apps running in non-fullscreen windows instead) the Start button and Start menu will return and that will be the end of this abortive experiment in "blended" UIs.

Name one "Christian" country where this is law.
Here I'll save you the trouble. There aren't any. But I can name SEVERAL "Muslim" countries where it is. (Iran, Saudia Arabia, Indonesia, Bahrain, Syria, there are more.)

There is NO moral equivalency between Christianity and Islam. Stop trying to draw a false one.

What confuses me isn't that a large part of americans still favour a private insurance based system. The confusing bit is that there is a majority that supports a single-payer system, but that it is STILL difficult politically.

Then please allow me to clear it up for you;

The truth is that a majority of Americans do not support a single-payer system. Indeed, when the Affordable Care Act was being debated in Congress poll after poll after poll showed sentiment running around 70% against it or any single payer system. There have been a few polls since then that have shown a thin margin of support, but they have all been found to be flawed in one way or another (sampling only in cities, large oversample of Democrats, faulty sample weighting, etc.) In most polls "Obamacare" is still highly unpopular.