However, your miles per dollar on ethanol are being artificially increased due to blending subsidies.

And the only reason ethanol blends are cost-effective is the blending subsidies the fuel producers get.

One of the benefits of being in Kansas (even in town) is that I can readily get "real" gas (both 87 and 91 octane) at my local Cenex station (it's about 30 cents a gallon more for the 87, about an 8% premium, than the E10 they sell). With the ethanol-free fuel I typically get about 20% better tank range on the highway in my 1997 Toyota Avalon (about 70-80 miles). Cost-wise, it's pretty much a wash, but I like not having to fill up as often. I don't have any qualms using E10 in the car if real gasoline isn't available, since it has a modern engine. For gasoline-powered generators and equipment, though, I won't put ethanol in those if I can at all avoid it, as they do not have computer-controlled injection and ignition systems.

And that "Climate Change" is often met with "The climate has ALWAYS changed".

When losing an argument, change the rules and the terms so it looks like you're not losing.

For values of "new" approaching "posted 7 months ago".

Get a swing-out rack - the catch is that most wall-mount racks aren't deep enough for servers of any kind.

I'm sure they can find some small pacific atoll that nobody wants anymore. Maybe do it in conjunction with Shark Week. Maybe you can jump sharks AND hide in fridges all at once.

Is that he denied the Mythbusters a chance to go nuclear.

Slashdot's getting punk'd?

Wondering if someone is punking the internets.

Not really. The blog post on thehill.com is equally deficient in citations. I'm sorry, I'm not buying this one until I hear it from original sources There's nothing in the House proceedings about it, nor has Cantor gone on record with it.

Glad I'm not the only one that thought that.

Naming your company something that sounds like a failed Amway rebranding: FAIL #1.
Not checking to see who was using that brand name as a twitter ID: FAIL #2.

I'm guessing that the CFO recommended spinning off the DVD business ASAP before it bled the entire company dry. I give it 9-12 months.

May need to iron out the kinks a little and fine-tune the dollar amount, but conceptually, this is a workable idea (and surprisingly so, coming from the music business!). We've been screaming at the music industry to come up with ideas to allow them to adapt to and survive the new internet reality, and they're delivering on it.

It's not unlike the monthly license paid by commercial entities to Muzak and its ilk for playing background music in public locations or some of the licenses paid by churches for displaying lyrics.

The benefit to end users is the get-out-of-jail-free card for downloading all manner of content. Conceivably, on a package that includes the music/video license, QoS tagging could be implemented to improve the experience, providing the value add to the user. On the flip side, the benefit to an ISP is that they wouldn't have as much administrative headache of dealing with the copyright cops for that class of users. If ISPs have a way of identifying these sorts of users to content providers like Pandora, those content providers could provide a different tier of service, since they wouldn't have licensing to deal with either.

I think it's certainly an idea worth exploring and refining.