You've got to be joking. To see a rise in sea levels, you have to melt land-based ice, of which the only significant volume is on Antarctica. Even the IPCC admits that to see appreciable rise would take over 10,000 years. This is a cruel joke, with us as the punchline.

It's another way to strip people of power sources that enable modern standards of living in the here and now.

Here's the problem with electrics: what do you do when you run out of charge? A gallon of 3,3,2 isooctane contains enough energy to move a 6,000-pound vehicle carrying half a ton of cargo or occupants ten miles in ten minutes, and it can be carried in a bucket. Not so much with it's electric counterpart.

Crash-tests: your Prius isn't up against a Suburban in the IIHS crash standards, it's facing off against a four-foot steel-plated, rebar-reinforced concrete cube, anchored to a poured, steel-reinforced concrete foundation. Eventually, mass wins. There's only so much you can do with fold-y bits and energy-absorbing impact zones. Sooner or later you simply have to add more metal.

Engine efficiency: Carnot-cycle heat engines have, at most, a 60% maximum conversion efficiency. In four-stroke motors, about a third of that gets eaten just operating the engine. There is an upper limit. Hope you won't miss that nine-second 0-60, because you won't have it much longer.

Electric dragsters outrace the best gasoline and diesel vehicle? Not at the track. You remind me of a talks-out-his-ass ex-coworker, who claimed that jet dragsters were getting 1.5s 1/4mi times. He doesn't have a job anymore. I'm honestly not surprised. Top fuel cars use nitromethane, and you don't even have to get into the exotic fuels before you outrun one of the turbine-powered cars. Top-fuel and funnycar classes have been ahead of the Jet-A boys for nearly two decades now.

Suffice to say, when the tech actually exists, we'll have electrics. Not that we don't want to make them, they're still really unfeasible for a large array of needs.

As I see it, this violates at least one Amendment (#4, right against search and seizure without warrant) and maybe more (I can probably make a case against #6 as a violation of the fact there's no act or cause of accusation and maybe #5 as a violation of my right to not self-incriminate). This is sick. This kid should be drummed out of Yale due to his gross misunderstanding of the fundamental tenants of criminal law in the United States.

Eh, I have a real problem with prosecuting the people for "making available." Prosecuting people that share their music for having enabled copyright infrigement is essentially like prosecuting people for leaving their doors unlocked and having enabled burglary.

Because it's not legal in the U.S., nor is there any precedent of case law to suggest Tenenbaum's actions were legal? In fact, all the case law to date only reinforces the concept that what Joel did was illegal, and essentially sets fire to any and all copyright law that's ever existed.

This "defense" cooked up by Neeson's retard students is absolute malarkey. The judge's ruling against fair use as a defense is spot-on. There's no "fair use" here, only some kid violating copyright for the hell of violating copyright. This is going to end badly for Joel, and his crybaby defense scheme is only going to set bad precedent. Someone somewhere will only extend this case's outcome to further wreck the place. The whole thing stinks to high heaven of a bunch of whiny Harvard assholes who simply didn't get what they want and would rather push a shitty agenda rather than work through rational means.

Here's a concern. Given the degree to which morons are let enter data to run-of-the-mill DBs like the one in the article, what's the level of accuracy? How many times has some nimrod phoned you up to generate harassment due to bad data? How many times have you yourself called to correct something only to be told "well, the computer says so, it must be right!"

People will make serious policy decisions based on this bad data.

Voluminous quantities of stupid and failure are certain to follow.