First of all, devices in the private house don't suppose to be turned off and on at random. My refrigerator needs to be run 24/7, my heater needs to be run at day, my lamps need to be on by night, my computer, TV, radio, etc. needs to be on when I need it. There is no point in turning them on and off base on the price of the power. It would make sense if I could store the energy at a cheaper point in time and use it later.

Second, if everybody have that then the price will just average out and nobody will get to save any money. Or, worse, it will lead to price spikes because millions of people will turn on their electrical devices at the same time to catch the lowest power price.

The idea that a smart grid leads to lower prices is just phantasy. If you want lower prices then build nuclear power plants, invenst in new technologies, invenst in building new power plants.

The source is about 10 GB and you need a tiny super computer to compile.
Anyone who complains about monolitic monsters should take a look at so called "modern" browsers.

Maybe in 1000 years that will be the only which remains as a sign of human civilization. That, and the pyramids.

Really? Maybe I give you my 10 years old hard disk with my old pictures. Maybe you can restore them with your super brain.
Joking besides, a binary format is more terse then a text format, meaning on a corruption less data is corrupted.

And what is your point? Any file that is not written to the hard disk will be currupted on power loss. And, in case you didn't noticed, all files on a computer are binary.

This whole ads business needs to go away. Seriosly, stop trying to convince people to buy your garbage.
Create a nice web site for all your site so that people can search and compare. And for all independent publishers there are other means to get a buck.

https://www.kickstarter.com/
http://www.patriondigital.com/
https://www.indiegogo.com/
http://www.patreon.com/
etc.

What is the point in buying a Nobel medal? I can only think of somebody who want to fraud people, but a simple google search would expose them.

Sure. But the article is about granting bodily liberty rights to chimps. Meaning, IMHO, that chimps get the right to live in freedom. And we not even grant that right to some people (or we grant that right but with limitations, I'm not a lawyer).

Do mentally ill people that are in mental hospitals still have the right of bodily freedom? I don't think they can leave the hospitals if they chose to.

Of course. But you have to show first that those animals can understand what those rights are. We already have plenty of animal protection laws that should ensure that animals are not mistreated. I see no reason of how those animals understand or deserve human rights. And suffering is not a good reason, we eat plenty of animals, and in their natural habitats there are no rights anyway.

Your comment was interesting and informative. We already have animal protection laws. But I think the court ruled about bodily liberty rights for animals, and that is whole new level. It's about rights, not about animal protection laws, i.e. it's about granting rights to subjects that have no concept of rights or obligations. And as I already pointed out, we not even do that for some people, because some people also have no concept of what those rights are.

But people know that they are trading their liberty for food. And given the chance, they will fight for freedom. No animal that I ever saw would do either of those.

Citation needed. People will starve to death if you put them in a cage. The anti-slavery movement endured lots of blood shed. I think given the chimp a choice between a banana and the jungle, the chimp will happily go to the zoo.

You know what is the best tool for testing? The compiler. The compiler can test your code even before you run anything. But people throw away the best tool for testing for "unit tests? CI? Testing code snippets in a REPL" just so it looks pretty.

You mean JavaScript? Agree fully, it's idiotic, and there are many hard to spot errors in JS because of the "convenience".

Please first demonstrate to me that chimps and other animals value bodily liberty, and only then we can talk to give them the right. I never saw any animal besides people to value liberty over food, water or safety. It doesn't make any sense to give some right to some subject that does not even value it or understand it. We don't even give bodily liberty to some mentally handicapped persons, so why should we give that right to an animal?