So you're saying you have no basis for your belief that algal microbiofuel is energy efficient. Pretty much what I figured. Lots of semi-literate technobabble about the components, but you don't know shit about the efficiency, which is the entire focus of this article.

I haven't looked at any of the research since 2009, when I looked into setting up an algae system with a friend who ran his family's vehicles on biodiesel and was buying from a company 20 miles away. We figured we could take all the hipster business on the South end of San Jose. We decided not to do it because it was only cost effective with government subsidies, because the energy conversion was so awful. Which is to say; I don't have any of the materials anymore and don't really care if you want to keep being ignorant, so I'm not going to go find them for you. If you want to not be wrong, you should do the research.

[citation needed]

You first. You made the first claim; you show me your resource showing the energy efficiency of algal microbiofuel from sun to tank. Cite the page, please.

They are not saying it is impossible to convert biomass to diesel, or even that we shouldn't grow biomass. They are saying that with current technology it is better to use biomass for carbon sequestration and food, and use more technological approaches to capturing solar as energy.

The core issue is the energy cost of conversion to a useful form. Converting biomass to biodiesel, right now, costs more energy than turning solar into charged batteries through PV, wind, or solar furnaces. That may change and we should still be doing research, and batteries still have ground to cover relative to diesel for energy density and refuel speed, but right now it looks like biomass fuel is going to be the losing horse.

We should be putting a larger share of our research budget on non-biomass solar capture than on biomass. We have that flipped right now because biomass looked like it was the better path ten years ago. It hasn't panned out, which doesn't mean we should give up, but we should continuously adjust our bets in favor of the stronger contender.

You know those Godzilla movies where the monsters stomp around Tokyo causing more destruction than WWII, destroying everything around them?

I'm sure that he would allow Americans to do bad things to each other as well. I will bet you, however, that he's against TERROR and TERRORISM.

So you're saying that Rumsfeld would oppose the most common use of our terror laws, which is DEA enforcement of victimless, consensual, domestic marijuana crimes?

I have mod points, but you're going to make it to +5 anyway, so I'd rather be more explicit: Thank you for such a poignant juxtaposition of our ideals with our weakness and susceptibility to fear.

"With the discovery of an unauthorized drone on the White House lawn, the eagle has crash-landed in Washington," says Senator Charles Schumer. "There is no stronger sign that clear FAA guidelines for drones are needed."

Umm, Chuck, quick heads up: "Don't fly over the White House" is already a rule. And you can tell the operator knew, because he or she didn't ask for it back. You are a despicable opportunist.

Not at all. More that the hypothesis of the Davos escapist concept is that the super-rich will fend off change as long as possible, then flee. As a result of the extreme measures necessary to resist change to the point where torches and pitchforks become a realistic threat, when that pressure is released, it will snap like a rubber band, causing severe damage to the political and socioeconomic structure. The backlash will be directed at those who won and walked out, much as it was at the brokerages in 1929, at the S&Ls in 1987, and at the mortgage funds in 2008. The difference being that if they really are fleeing from pitchforks and torches -- as the Davos escapist scenario posits -- it would imply a much more severe situation than 1929, 1987, or 2008.

And I'm not saying I think that will happen; I think that the pressure will vent sooner. I am saying that if the Davos escapist hypothesis comes to pass, there will be no place on Earth where such a person can hide and enjoy luxury. As such, it is an intrinsically flawed notion; either the escape will be unnecessary, or it will be ineffective.

So? Fill them. Am I expected to do all the work?

Your theory, though interesting, has some holes to plug.

That is rather the point of provocative hypotheses, now isn't it?

I disagree. Firefox and chrome were both fast for the time. IE was just that bad. Now it's not and people are starting to see that perhaps FF and Chrome aren't as good as they claim they are. There certainly not doing the best they can be.

It is incredibly important as an IT person to be able to MITM your connections on a company network. And we fully employ such functionality where we are.

First and foremost, compliance is a thing. As a personal user you may not have to care, but as a business the organization has to take special care when handling certain types of information. So we need to be able to see where that information is going.

Another reason is for IPS. Many attacks, like spam, change the locations from which they come from. But a particular type of attack is almost never going to change. There are only limited ways, for example, to exploit any individual hole in a web browser. And you can flag on that to a degree that is significantly more successful than simply being able to block IP ranges, which is about all you get if you do not MITM connections.

There are real, legitimate concerns and reasons to MITM. If you don't like it, don't do non-company things on company Internet and equipment.

With growing inequality and the civil unrest from Ferguson and the Occupy protests fresh in people's mind, the world's super rich are already preparing for the consequences. At a packed session, former hedge fund director Robert Johnson revealed that worried hedge fund managers were already planning their escapes.

If I recall correctly, Mossad was formed by Israel with one of its primary missions being to go around the world hunting down and assassinating former Nazi officers who had gone into hiding.

If the world gets to the point where the underprivileged gather their pitchforks and torches, and the ultra-rich flee from mob justice, why wouldn't those who remain take over their nations' governments and form Inequality's Mossad? If the super wealthy really do check out, the people left behind will gain all the authoritarian powers that are being built up right now to suppress change for as long as possible. They'll also get all the resources and production of the biggest powerhouse nations on the planet, because that's where the rich will be fleeing from. And they will be very angry.

The 99.9% who would still be in their home nations, having just seen the banks get cleaned out, will have the muscle of the G20, the influence of the G20, and the rage of Ferguson. Yeah, super-rich guy, go hide in New Zealand. See how that works out for you.

Your car is broken. And that's a piss-poor reason to be against automated driving aids.

It came from the dealership that way. It is not a good reason to be against the theory, which I am not. It is, however, an excellent reason to be against their ubiquitous deployment as currently practiced. A point made exceedingly clear in the last paragraph of my post.

Front suspension doesn't have an anti-roll bar, which allows more body roll than the rear suspension with the anti-roll bar can handle.

Real world example: My car has traction control. It also is relatively light, has front wheel drive, and has an anti-roll bar on the rear suspension.

So here's what happens; when I go into a long left hander (like a freeway interchange), the weight transfers to the right and the body rolls. The outside (right) rear wheel suspension compresses, and the anti-roll bar lifts the left rear wheel off the ground. It is a stable driving configuration, they just overbuilt the anti-roll bar for the vehicle weight. The inside rear wheel would be unweighted and providing negligible traction even if it were touching the ground, so it is not a risk.

But here's what happens next: The inside wheel is not being driven, nor is it touching the ground. Air friction slows the wheel, and the traction control system kicks in. It sees that I have three wheels going 60 MPH and one wheel going 20 MPH, and assumes that I am in an aggressive spin. It brakes the three fast wheels; aggressively. And the vehicles bucks like a horse that just saw a rattlesnake. That does cause a very real risk of losing control.

Sensor-based driving assist is a fine option. It's great for people who want the freedom to text while driving, because it keeps them from killing me. Making it the norm may reduce accidents overall, and we may reach a day when it is superior to any human. But we have not yet reached the point where economy-priced driving assist is less dangerous than an attentive and skilled driver.