Just put the solar panels in the grow room - boom, free power!

Except without all that silly permanence when things go wrong.

As long as the founders played the corporation game right, they have no personal liability at stake. A corporation is just like a person, except that when a corporation violates a law which would burden it for life, or financially destroy it, it magically disintegrates leaving the real people who ran it into the ground clean and unencumbered by their wrongdoing.

There are good reasons for the existence of corporations; this isn't one of them.

Losing 25% year on year in the Peso looks like kid's stuff in the devaluation game. They need a *real* currency to lock in year on year decreases of more than 50%. And that's why they've turned to Bitcoin!

4/15/2014 = $496
4/15/2015 = $223

It's not as fun as lighting cigars with $100 bills, but it's just as productive!

Even the most inefficient modern coal plants are significantly more efficient than an internal combustion engine.

The added bonus of electric cars is that, as the power generation shifts to less polluting sources (we hope), the electric car will become less polluting over time. The ICE powered car, however, will likely decrease in efficiency and increase the amount of pollutants it expels over time.

As for coal power, most of the electric cars in the US are located in CA, OR, and WA. Those states are primarily powered by natural gas, hydro, and nuclear power plants. Less then 15% of their energy comes from coal.

I would be skeptical as well, however the Tesla is very easy to check. From the top link on Google:
"[the range of the Model S] 85 kWh battery pack is 265 miles"

  86,000Wh x 3.41 BTU/Wh / 265 miles = 1107 BTU per mile

I'm going to say that their claim is "accurate" based on a very simplistic level. As you point out, there are efficiency losses in generation, transmission, and charging.

Now, if you use the EIA rates (http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667&t=3) for power generation, it's more like 10 BTU/Watt, which puts the tesla up to 3300 BTU per mile (ballpark), and still doesn't include transmission or charging losses. Of course, whether you're burning coal for that 10BTU or allowing fissile decomposition for that 10BTU makes a pretty big difference in the type of pollution you're going to have as a byproduct. (that's another argument, of course).

Oh, I hear you - my G3 is *almost* as bad with occasionally stuttering as my old iPhone 5.

As a G3 owner, I can tell you that there's very useful finger real-estate at the bottom bezel for buttons. Also, as a 16:9 device, you're not really losing any useful space to them when they're "on screen" as that's a fucked up aspect ratio for any kind of real work - way too long and narrow.

And, fwiw, there is still a fully customizable, full color notification light - it's in the upper left corner. I thought I'd really like having it, but I've turned it off. It mattered back when I only got a couple calls or emails in a day, now it's just on all the time. Besides, when I check the time on the phone (I stopped wearing a watch about 3 months ago) all the notifications are already there in the tray.

Anyone can reproduce the studies and use their own data, or even anonymize the existing data. Guarantee anonymization and/or privacy of personal or proprietary information and put funding in the bill to cover all costs associated with release of the data and there won't be a problem, along with an exemption for data more than X years old to allow for long term studies where the raw data may have already been condensed.

Or just put the burden of proof on those who disagree with study findings, requiring that they pay for the data to be cleared or reproduced. But Corporations have already paid their fees in lobbying money and don't want to have to pay more.

Of course it allows it - but does it *fund* it? That's the chloroform in the rag. Unless the original study authors spent the money up front to carefully anonymize the data, it all has to be re-hashed from scratch to ensure that no identifying data is released to the public, but that all the records are intact. That costs money, and I'm going to bet a donut that there's not a single cent allocated to pay for that data. And every single study would be required to be anonymized whether or not anyone else is going to look at it. It's a ruse to make access to the research which is out there simply unaffordable to use. And if you can't pay for it, you can't cite it.

Game. Match. Set.

Every single study which involves health records would be forbidden to be used, because the RAW data is not available to the public. It's the perfect knot - previous law prevents the release of personally identifiable medical data, and this law makes it illegal to base any regulation on any study for which the raw data (in this case, personally identifiable - as it must be able to be 100% independently verified) is not released to the public.

This is about neutering the EPA's ability to "prove" that any particular pollutant causes harm to humans. If you can't provide the raw data that asbestos has led to lung cancer - patient records going back decades - you aren't allow to regulate it. Black lung? Chromium compounds in drinking water? Sorry, unless you publically release the medical records of every single person in every study you cite, it's "secret data" and junk science.

You know that what you're looking for is the flouide ion, right - that's what strengthens teeth, not the other parts of the chemistry? And that both sodium floride and Hexafluorosiliic acid both dissociate in water to release F- ions? And that half of the free flourine in water is naturally occurring? And the pitchers and counter top/faucet filters don't remove flourine (it generally requires reverse osmosis)?

It's nuts. We don't have many private school options near us (and zero that aren't in some way religious based), so we moved to one of the best districts/strands in the public school system and we actively participate. It's not a panacea - there are still good and bad teachers - but where they are weak, we supplement. I'm always amazed at how many parents have no idea what their kids are doing in school, and more amazed at how few even care.

Yeah, not really.

High Fructose Corn Syrup (typ when used in soda) 55% fructose and 42% glucose. Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose - that's what actually hits your system once your stomach separates the disaccaride into its constituent monosaccaride parts.

The taste is slightly different - there's no doubt - but metabolically you would have to ingest way more sugar (of any type) than you should in a decent daily routine in order to have any sort of unbalancing effect from the slightly shifted mix.

Oh, and beware of most fruits/fruit juices - they can be 80% or higher in fructose/glucose ratio.

You should pay more, didn't you know. Without an and increase in copyright royalties, those dead authors will have no incentive to write any new songs.

I mean, have you heard anything new from those dead songwriters since internet streaming took off? Of course not - that's proof that the royalties aren't high enough to make it worth their while.

Terrestrial radio pays only the songwriter, not the performing artist. And the songwriter fees are exceptionally low per listener (far lower than Pandora). Worse yet, only the top n songwriters get paid at all based on total plays; if you're not in high rotation, there's no distribution to you.