What the article fails to mention, and what most people fail to understand, is that renewable sources of energy such as wind and solar are not suitable to replace the majority of conventional power sources. Your average pro-renewable energy advocate would have you believe you can throw a bunch of turbines and solar panels onto the grid and solve all your problems: unfortunately you need to supply your base load with guaranteed sources.

It sounds simple enough when you think about it, but you can't replace a coal, nuclear (or hydro power plant in certain cases) with solar or wind because those plants supply a large amount of power all of the time. If the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining, nobody is getting electricity. This relegates these sources of power as contributors, not dominant supplies of electricity.

Maybe this article is suggesting Microsoft's intent to bypass incumbent providers, otherwise it's missing the mark, at least for Canada: if you were signed up for any content like HBO (through Telus) you can already view it using your 360.

The problem with 'scaling back' NASA is that it's not like a factory or a bunch of servers that you can just switch back on in 5 years with a bit of maintenance.

If you cut funding and they have to cut engineering jobs, you're going to lose talent: experience that may not return when you decide you're in another space race.

Are you kidding me? War is news worthy, why shouldn't a "natural extension" of a war be news worthy to the people who are interested in that particular extension, case in point: /. and a web war.

I'm not sure how you got rated as insightful.

I'm curious as to whether an array of structures as described could feasibly mitigate the waves by using destruction interference, even in the case of a continuous (re: China) coast, or at least for a certain portion of it.