You may not have been paying attention, but ALL public benches in all cities, worldwide, are getting middle armrests or other dividers to prevent homeless from sleeping on them.

Somebody should mod this up. The GP's description makes no sense, but this makes it clear.

The meme "information wants to be free" is supposed to be read like "water wants to flow downhill". That statement does not mean water has a mind and actively thinks about flowing downhill. It also does not mean dams to stop the downhill movement are immoral or wrong. What it is saying is "a dam is expensive and will not magically appear without active input by a concerned party".

It does look like the chart resets at midnight, and the "Click here to view yesterday's output" leads to a different graph which has "Small Hydro, Biogas, Biomass, Geothermal" added to the bottom. I would judge that one as showing a low end even smaller than you state, less than 30% of a 1000MW tick, so perhaps 250MW. It says the highest end is 3592MW at midnight (higher than the 2600 at midnight this morning). That is a ratio of 14.4:1 actually, higher than you claim.

However the chart does show that the output is pretty predictable. Some of the contrarian posters here seem to think it varies every minute, which may be why they seem to avoid posting otherwise informative charts like this. I personally doubt land-based wind is going to ever be anything more than a trivial amount of our energy. Offshore is much higher and perhaps more consistent, but solar or nuclear is really what will work.

That's why it says *ENERGY* investment, not "investment". Moron.

What graph are you looking at?

I see a graph showing a range of 3300MW to 5400MW, about a 10:6 ratio, not your claimed 10:1. Chart is on the top/right of this page: http://content.caiso.com/green...

That's just silly. There right now is a much more efficient "lottery", which is "the one looking for a parking space that happens to be nearest the vactated space takes it". This obviously minimizes the driving and waste over any other scheme.

Also pretty unclear what should happen in your scheme if the "winner" does not show up.

If the manufactured items stay in the USA (or are shipped to any place where it may be cheaper than shipping from China) then this is just putting the factory where the product is being used and is not really "outsourcing". The term "outsourcing" should be limited to when jobs move to follow cheap or available labor but otherwise defies any business logic.

The article is not clear on where the factory output is going, or where the raw materials come from. There is one mention of a glass factory who's "site puts Fuyao within four hours' drive of auto plants in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana." All the others don't seem to say whether delivery to the USA is part of the reason for the relocation.

Saudi Arabia is blank in that table for "World Bank GINI", which is otherwise the most populated. There is the "GPI Gini" but only a few countries have that, and there seems to be little correspondence to show where Saudi Arabia may be inserted.

Sorting by "World Bank GINI", you are right that at the low end there are a number of former Soviet republics mixed in with the expected EU countries (Denmark, Sweeden, Norway, and Austria are lowest). I think the history of these countries may make them somewhat unusual. Much more relevant to your point is some unexpected ones, such as Egypt and Iraq, nearer the low end.

The other end of the table is more interesting. It is pretty clear that lower income inequality is a requirement, though, as you state, not the only requirement, for democracy.

I'm curious as to what you are referring to as non-democratic nations with "low income inequity". North Korea has a very high level of inequity when you include the government elite. It does not matter if there are huge hordes that are starving equally, since there is a non-zero number not belonging to that set.

I think the fact that Cantor and his supporters felt he had to spend so much money, even though common belief was that he would win, indicates something. And perhaps he lost because he did not spend enough.

I'm pretty certain that in cases where there was more than one democrat in the primary, one of them lost. Are you saying any number of democrats are allowed to win, but republicans are only limited to one? Quick, better notify Fox news!

I think that was a joke, right?

I don't think you understood my comment.

The first amendment cannot be read in the way you state.

The fact that the second can, somewhat, is true. You can't make them equivalent.

However I believe the reason the second amendment is so unclear is not because it was intended to say that alternate reading. It is because when it was written there were some who disagreed. Most likely gun opponents would have preferred to have no amendment, but could not get that so instead they managed to mangle the wording so it does not say anything clearly. It is also possible they managed to completely alter it to "only militia can have guns" but that wording was mangled back by the gun supporters. Perhaps it went back and forth several times, losing meaning each time. In any case the end result is a statement that is very unclear and pretty much means nothing. The best way to interpret it is that it is proof that there was enough writers who supported gun rights that something appeared in the document at all.

Sorry, the 1st amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

This is quite clearly a selection of things connected by 'or' statements. At best you could claim the 'and' at the end says that you are only free to assemble for redress of grivances.

The true story with the 2nd amendment, which I think everybody really understands and agrees on, is that people were arguing about this back then as much as they do today, and they had to come up with some wording that all agreed on, and they came up with gibberish that says nothing.