What's wrong with using the term "microcode?" America does lead the world in microcode. Intel and AMD are American companies.

Why do you hate job creators?

Nuh uh! There are also compressed air cars - they only explosively decompress upon tank failure! ;)

At least with batteries, flammability or explosiveness aren't a fundamental requirement of how you're trying to propel the vehicle, just an unfortunate side effect of some variants of the technology (even not all types of li-ions are flammable). There's lots of people who assume that flammability is a consequence of electrical energy density, but that's just not the case. The actual charge/discharge lithium batteries via intercalating into the anode or cathode is more an atomic-scale equivalent of compressing air into a tank, you're having little affect on the substrate flammabilities and you're not even changing their chemical bonding, you're just cramming lithium ions into the space between their atoms. The flammabilty of some types comes from side effects, such as flammable electrolytes or membrane failures leading to lithium metal plating out; these aren't a fundamental aspect of the energy storage process.

Now, li-air, that involves an actual lithium metal electrode, and that is fundamentally flammable. Of course, so is gasoline. I have no doubt that they can reduce fire risks on li-air cells and keep them properly contained to prevent failure propagations. My bigger issues with li-air are its terrible efficiency, lifespan, and cost. I'm certain the latter would come down, and I expect that they can improve the lifespan, but I'm a bit uneasy about how much they can improve its efficiency. Right now, they're as inefficient as a fuel cell. : Who wants to waste three times as much power per mile as is necessary?

It is a non-sequiteur. The energy density of a li-ion battery doesn't even approach the theoretical maximum storage for the element lithium shifting between ionization states. That's hardly the only way this article is terrible, mind you. My head hurt every time they said the word "efficiency", it's like they were using it to mean everything possible except for actual efficiency. And if I read it right - who knows, the article is such a total mess - the researcher isn't talking about reducing battery cost, but increasing longevity. But maybe that was mangled too.

But then you're arguing for inefficiency to make-work.

Everybody who said it died.

About half the cost of building a house is labor. They say in the article that aside from the guy running the printer, there are no labor costs here. I don't believe that's necessarily true, because there's still got to be somebody wiring the electrical and installing windows, but regardless, it could dramatically decrease the cost of building a home. It could also be a lot faster. Imagine that, just rolling up two trucks to a construction site: one carrying the printer, another with all the crushed rock, setting it up and letting it go. A week later, a finished home ready for a family to move into at half the cost. That brings the dream of home ownership within the reach of a lot of people who wouldn't have been able to afford it before. We live in exciting times.

That's what Elon Musk is doing with SolarCity. Combine his cheap solar panels with his cheap batteries from the gigafactory they're building and you've got your fantasy.

How do they work?

Oh, right..

You're arguing against Tokamak fusion. But what about, say, HiPER? Looks to me to be a much more comercializeable approach, yet it's still "mainstream" fusion, just a slight variant on inertial confinement ala NIF to make it much smaller / cheaper / easier to have a high repeat rate (smaller compression pulse + heating pulse rather than a NIF-style super-massive compression pulse). The only really unstudied physics aspect is how the heating pulse will interact with the highly compressed matter; NIF and pals have pretty much worked out the details of how laser compression works out. Beyond this, pretty much everything else is just engineering challenges for commercialization, such as high repeat rate lasers, high-rate hohlraum injection and targeting, etc.

I've often thought (different topic) about how one can get half or more of fusion's advantages via fission if you change the game around a bit. Fusion is promoted on being passively safe (it's very hard to keep the reaction *going*, it really wants to stop at all times), it leads to abundant fuel supplies, and there's little radioactive waste (no long-term waste). But what about subcritical fission reactors? Aka, a natural uranium or thorium fuel target being bombarded with a spallation neutron source. Without the spallation neutrons, there's just not enough neutrons for the reaction, so the second the beam gets shut off, the reactor shuts down, regardless of what else is going on. It'd be a fast reactor, aka a breeder, aka, your available fuel supplies increase by orders of magnitude. And your long-term waste would be much, much less in a well-designed reactor. Spallation neutron sources have long been proposed as a way to eliminate long-lived nuclear waste by transmuting it into shorter-lived elements.

I would still like to see a fully automated farm, that requires no labor except robot maintenance. Robots to till the soil, plant the sides, harvest the crops, process them, load them on to automated trucks and ship them off to market. That would be amazing. I think a stable society in the future is going to depend on "free" food. There simply is not enough work for everyone to do, so we have massive unemployment and underemployment. We're eventually going to have to let go of the idea that you have to have a job in order to have food and shelter, but people are so scared of "socialism." "It's not fair that some people sit around and eat for free but somebody else is working in the fields!" But if you can show that food can be produced with zero human labor...wow. That's a game changer.

Wrong, you're talking about charge 2 on the EAW, which is only a molestation charge, not rape. charge 4 on the EAW is the rape charge and concerns a different woman. All of the charges are:

1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

Please follow the case better if you wish to comment about it.

Once again, Assange fanboys go all out to dismiss the rape charge against him without even knowing enough about it to even keep the two women involved straight.

There are two women involved here: AA and SW (and no, their names haven't been scrubbed, but it's a sick testament to our society than rather than letting justice run its course, everyone wants to lead a personal witch hunt against the accusers, and I certainly won't help enable it). AA is the one who tweeted (but not what you said she tweeted) and who has been to cuba and wrote a blog (which doesn't say what you say it said). SW is a low-level museum worker who did none of the above. The rape charge only applies to SW. There are no rape charges concerning AA, only three lesser charges - 1x unlawful sexual coersion and 2x molestation.

The fact that you don't know even this most fundamental basic aspect of the case yet want to pontificate about it speaks volumes as to how much you are just willing to assume the innocence of Assange and that the women are just lying sluts trying to set up an innocent man. Which always happens with famous people and their fans. When you hear people talking about "rape culture", that's a very big part of it.

Now, let's correct your misrepresentation of the facts in detail.

1) There are no rape charges concerning AA. She described a series of unpleasant experiences, first to friends, later to police, involving the pinning of her down to try to force sex, her consent in exchange for the use of a condom which she feels he deliberately broke, and his repeated acts at later periods such as rubbing his naked genitals against him after she had told him no. She became so uncomfortable around him that she moved out of her own apartment to avoid him. The events therein form the basis of the unlawful sexual coersion and molestation charges. The tweet in question was not "Julian is FANTASTIC", it was "Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world's coolest smartest people in the world". She was at a party full of political activists, one of the people there being Julian. At the same party, according to testimony collected by the police, she warned a friend about Julian.

2) She did not file a rape complaint. All of the testimony speaks to that she went to the police to support SW in her going to the police to report a rape by bringing up what Julian had done to her. Which is only what a person would expect. SW had already at that point, according to testimony, been telling friends and family that she'd been raped by Julian. SW's goal in going, however, was not prosecution but to try to force Julian to take an STD test. AA's blog (again, NOT SW, who the rape charge is about) entry was something she copied years ago from someone else about how to break an ex boyfriend up with his new girlfriend, and the first two rules basically sum up as "don't do it". And seriously, do you honestly think if millions of fanboys combed through everything you've ever written on the net that they couldn't find something to attack your character with?

3) See my reply to the post above yours, and pay particular attention to the fact that the Svea Court of Appeals has already reviewed all evidence in a full court hearing with testimony from Assange's attorneys and ruled against him, and the Swedish Supreme Court refused Assange's appeal.

4) How does a person "convince" a person of anything while they're asleep? Is Assange capable of doing Inception?

5) Again, you're talking about AA, not SW. The attacks against AA are the most ridiculous six degrees of separation thing I've seen in ages. It's something penned by Israel Shamir, a famously misogynistic and antisemitic author, as well as being the guy who's famous as being the person who gave unreleased Wikileaks information to the dictator of Belarus which he then used in a purge of political opponents (google "Israel Shamir" and "Belarus"). The argument he posted on Counterpunch basically goes like this: AA once wrote articles in support of democracy in Cuba for a journal, and that journal was run by a group, which is connected to another group, which is connected to another guy, that a Wordpress blog says is a CIA agent; and that the group she worked with a women's rights/democracy group in cuba which is connected to a group in Miami that once held a parade that a guy who tried to blow up a plane in Cuba marched in (Maria Carey marched in the same parade). Wow, I'm sold, clearly a CIA agent! And let me guess: the CIA planted SW as a low-level museum worker afraid of unprotected ages ago because their CIA psychics forsaw the day when there would be a guy named Julian Assange who would find her attractive and sleep with her unprotected?

Nobody has backed out of anything. Both women still have legal representation pushing the case forward. They've been trying to stay out of the public eye, but one made a remark on a blog half a year ago about how she was a victim of sex crimes and the perpetrator still hasn't been brought to justice and his fans keep making excuses for him. Does that sound like having "backed out of said accusations" to you?

No, it's not "his word against hers". The Svea Court of Appeals has found probable cause for rape, and the Supreme Court upheld it, does that sound like "his word against hers"?

Just what we know from what's leaked so far, which is just a fraction of the evidence: everyone whose close to SW has testified that she's had a lifelong paranoia about unprotected sex. Her former boyfriend of 2 1/2 years testified that when they were together it was "unthinkable" to her, that not only did it never happen, but she even made him get STD tested before protected sex. As for the night in question, here's the leadup that neither Assange nor his legal team have issued any dispute to: that he and SW went home together, where they were making out and she repeatedly refused the unprotected sex that Assange sought. He reluctantly consented to protected sex at least once. Assange's attorney even described (while trying to claim that there was no rape) that his client was "pushing the boundaries of what she felt comfortable with", so there's no dispute to this, Assange's team admits to it. In the morning Assange sent her out to buy him breakfast. Here we have phone records, SMS records, and interviews with those talked to to back up SW's report, and no dispute registered from Assange's team: that she complained bitterly about how mad she was getting at Assange for repeatedly trying to F* her unprotected against her will and for bossing her around. In line she also ran into her brother, who described her as looking very upset when the conversation turned to Assange. She returned home with the food; they ate, and she fell asleep.

Now, that entire thing thusfar is not disputed by any party. What Assange's team claims happened next is that she was "half awake" and consented to unprotected sex (what she says, and told many people before going to the police station, is that she woke up to him doing it). Let's reiterate: the woman with an extreme lifelong paranoia about unprotected sex who was immediately before falling to sleep complaining to her friends about Assange trying to have unprotected sex with her and bossing her around, suddenly wakes up and says "Let's f*** without protection".

Is it any wonder the guy keeps losing legal cases?

I'm against violence in general, actual rape,

No, when you automatically believe everything you hear about a guy accused of rape because you like the guy and assume any charges against him are a giant conspiracy, and calls F*ing a person while they're a sleep in a manner they expressly prohibited "stuck his boner in a place that it shouldn't have been", an act that one can "hardly blame the person who did it" - you're nothing but an enabler.

Huh? The guy in that article was already åtalad (indicted) and awaiting an appeal when he died. How is that supposed to be arguing in any way shape or form that you can åtala someone who's not in custody? Under Swedish law, once someone is åtalad, there's a time limit until they must be tried. A person is anklagad to get them into custody, then åtalad to bring them to trial. And the British court system has at every level ruled Assange to be in a state equivalent to charged under the British legal system. But do you somehow know more about Swedish and British law than the Swedish prosecutor, the Swedish judge who issued the warrant, the Svea Court of Appeals that found Assange (after a full court hearing and all evidence reviewed) as having probable cause for rape, the Swedish Supreme Court which refused Assange's appeal, the British Lower Court, the British High Court, and the British Supreme Court? If so, my apologies, SuperLawyer - please return to the Justice League immediately!