What sort of systems are you guys involved with that you don't have to manually modify HTML structure to line up with what your CSS/JS guys need or want?

Some HTML output is automated, but you still need a thorough understanding of what the HTML tag options are, what needs to be in the HEAD section, the overall flow of the page html for ADA checking, etc..

I use php, java/jsp, coldfusion, velocity templates/Liferay portal type systems, etc.. and still need to carefully think about html structure in my projects. What sort of workflow using what sort of framework/language allows you to produce a finished and styled web application without tinkering with HTML tags?

"American political norms" have shifted tremendously over the last 30 years. I am of the opinion that the Overton Window has shifted towards the right. We can probably argue all day why/how that happened, but the bottom line is that Reagan would be pretty center... even perhaps slightly liberal on some issues (like immigration) in today's politics.

A tea party person considers Hillary Clinton liberal.
A liberal/moderate person considers Hillary Clinton center.

Mainstream news doesn't really make any fine grained distinctions other than blue/red. So yeah, Hillary is lumped into the 'blue' category, but that is just an arbitrary bucket. In terms of the history of political policies in this country, Hillary is pretty middle of the road. Just like her husband.

I'm sure that Hillary/Bill would have had more liberal policies if they thought they could, but they both seem to be pragmatists and not idealists when it comes to actual actions, not speeches.

Also https://mayday.us/

"Democrats were shellacked"...through the power of gerrymandering and record low voter turnout. I think we are going to continue to see these contradictory election results (over 50% of a State's population is liberal, but over 50% of a State's elected candidates are conservative) until the districts can be redrawn in 2020. Of course, the Democrats need to have control in 2020 to redraw the boundries.... chicken meet egg.

Given that modern humans were around for 100,000+ years with little population to show for it, until 10,000-8000 BC'ish when farming took off, says to me that we need to be careful with carbs more than anything. It is any extremely easy way to get a lot of calories fast. That was great for ballooning the population incredibly fast (in evolutionary time frames), but it makes sense to me that it is equally likely to balloon your waistline just as fast.

Once cars become cheap, automated, electric, and widespread in all parking lots, I think it is true that many people may give up owning a car.

But that is a much more likely scenario in moderate to hot climates, like California. I can't picture that happening for a long time in snowy parts of the country.

Also, some gaming would benefit from a screen like this. One that comes to find is Everquest. You use a lot of vertical space for chat windows, spell bars, both on the top and bottom of the screen typically. You want those chat boxes and spell bars to be as central to your vision as possible, not pushed way out into your peripheral vision.

That is the trouble with IT in general. There is no guaranteed level of professionalism that comes with any title. System Analyst, Business Analyst, Network Engineer, Software Engineer.... none of those guarantee any sort of particular set of knowledge or skills. Widely varied business to business.

None of your complaints have anything to do with Wind Power as a technology. It sounds like a poorly run project, with uncaring and inconsiderate project leaders. That has nothing to do with Wind as a power source.

I travel back and forth along the Columbia River all the time. There is a huge amount of wind power and ongoing construction. I've never been inconvenienced. Never had a road closed. Never seen any large amounts of dust. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_z61PskCFZU/Tf5MQLBMofI/AAAAAAAABMA/_iJDGCRxHSw/s1600/DSCF2258.JPG

Government budgets are not like household budgets.

I hear that often, and tend to believe it because I hear smart economists say that all the time. However, I really can't explain it to other people. I find articles like this:
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/federal-budget-not-household-budget-here-s-why

But after reading it, it is still unclear why, for example, debt is required/not required to make a Government budget work.

I don't know if it saved lives overall or not. I don't know if dropping it over the water, or on a military base would have shocked them enough to surrender. Who knows? It is hard to redo history as an experiment.

I do know that it most likely saved my Grandpa's life though. He was on a navy boat, days away from attempting to take a heavily fortified beach. The predicted casualties were around 60-70%.

I think that is exactly what most pro-label people wanted. A binary choice out of principle.

Among people I talk to, and I don't know many that believe GMO's are unhealthy. The main concerns I heard were stuff about patenting food being a bad idea, GMO's leading to higher use of pesticide, corporate control over non-seeding plants, mono-culture crops having increased chance of mass die off if a new disease or pest infects them, etc...

So very much an "in principle" label.

Most people that are serious about sustainable food already know that labels like 'organic' don't mean much without some extra research. GMO would just be one more label. Just a starting place. If you want the specifics about whether GMO X is good/bad, you better do some reading.

There are certain types of creative goods and services that it makes no sense to patent. Patents in certain areas hinder new ideas, especially if that good or service is one that favors evolutionary ideas...generational growth and interbreeding / crossbreeding.

Like fashion. There are no patents on any designs in fashion. People are free to 'steal', mix/match, build on others works, etc.. Yet the fashion industry is still huge. And good designers still make a ton of money.

I think agriculture should have a similar free exchange of ideas. Maybe not 100% patent free, but definitely much less locked down than it is today. If that means that companies like Monsanto spend less on researching new GMO's, so be it. If society wants it, society can put more money into Universities and other institutes of basic research. I think that is a much better situation than handing our food future over to companies that want to produce seeds that grow into seedless plants.

Saving seeds, cross breeding, etc.. are a core part of agriculture. I would hate to see a world were every farm is just a clone of the next farm over, and all 100% dependent on patented seeds, with no variety in our produce.

Someone posted above that by 2025, 50kWh batteries will be 8,000 dollars. That isn't very much per household. Heck, 25,000 dollars per household (the current cost of 50kWh battery) isn't that expensive as a ratio to the house cost where I live right now. Mandating that all new homes must have a 50kWh battery closet, for use by the owner, or the electricity provider, to store energy, would be a good step towards a complete storage system.

But it would be a lot more efficient if the energy providers would have mandates to start building out storage. Right now I don't think there are any renewable mandates that dictate anything about storage. There are a lot of companies working on large scale energy storage right now. It is going to become one of the next big booming businesses. It is basically a given assumption that grid storage is the future. The question is just how long it will take. http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/12/f5/Grid%20Energy%20Storage%20December%202013.pdf

This guy's liquid metal grid batteries have been getting a bunch of hype.
http://www.donaldsadoway.com/ds_projects/grid-level-electricity-storage/