Doesn't "business" internet cost a lot more than a "residential" connection, all other factors being equal?

People are making all sorts of comments in response to this article about what's really efficienct and what works the best. Excuse me but has anyone stopped to consider the fundamental question of what business does the government have banning light bulbs in the first place?

... Simply set your application firewall to block all IP traffic originating from Firefox.

Aliens are already here and do not recognize SETI or any human government or group organization. They deal with and judge each human being on their individual merits and faults. For more information, see http://www.alliesofhumanity.org/

You cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as though it were holy scripture. It isn't; it's a worthless political creation of the UN, which is nothing more than an international criminal syndicate which has a history of actively working against human freedom. See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-527956831065413624

Anyone who would claim copyright as a "fundamental right" as though it was something that was inherent in our nature as human beings or given by God himself is spewing their own wishful thinking. The idea has no basis in logic. Copyright is an arbitrary creation of government based on the questionable premise that it somehow contributes to the greater good of society. Just because it's something we're all familiar with and accustomed to doesn't mean it is good or right.

On the other hand, the freedom of speech and communication has long been (correctly) recognized by many societies as a fundamental right. Any laws, copyright or otherwise, which conflict with the exercise of this right should under any just system of government be forced to yield. That means the rights of individual human beings to use P2P networks trumps the alleged "right" of corporate media entities to make profits.

A proper application of this principle might result in the movie and record industries going out of business. But protecting the right of free communication is more important than the existence of these special interest groups. If they failed, music and movies would not disappear. We might not see the blockbuster wonders costing hundreds of millions of dollars, but movies would still be made. People that wanted to see expensive movies might have to pay for them in advance through clubs of some sort. Art would continue to exist. And society would be free of the weighty burden of entrenched corporate entities that use mafia tactics to perpetually harass and extort the population.

This is nothing more than the public unveiling of a technology that has existed in the classified world since at least the early 1970's. Try the following Google search for more information: http://www.google.com/search?q=utah+prison+inmate+%22synthetic+telepathy%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Facebook is nothing more than a way for intel agencies to get you to fill out your own dossier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMWz3G_gPhU

If you care about your privacy, try Startpage.com. They don't keep permanent records of your searches or record IP addresses.

Who says no actual invisibility cloak exists yet? Read "Into the Fringe," a 1992 book detailing the "alien" abduction accounts of Dr. Karla Turner and her family. Her son detailed one incident which involved what seems like just this sort of technology being used as part of an abduction event. Turner died (her closest friends and family believe she was murdered) by a suspicious fast-acting cancer in 1994. All relevant information is available free at KarlaTurner.org

The ETs who are here with us on Earth are far above humans in terms of intellectual capacity and technology. So THEY are the ones who decide how any communication with a particular human will occur. The human decides nothing. For more information visit the Dr. Karla Turner memorial website at www.KarlaTurner.org

Efforts to create cross species have been successful in the covert world for decades, including with humans. Stories of the actual application of this type of genetic engineering are only now beginning to be published, and certainly not for any cases involving humans. One recently published story involves the creation of goats with spider genes, allowing the goats to create silk: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbc.co.uk%2F1%2Fhi%2Fsci%2Ftech%2F889951.stm&ei=vQqJSaGsHpmQsQOpzY2mBg&usg=AFQjCNHvc8y53tq9HFonHsM3RDNxB1RrWg&sig2=mL3a3essg9tEAaZz85YcKw

May 19, 2008 Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?' Marc Sheppard The National Press Club in Washington will today release the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself. On Saturday, Lawrence Solomon wrote a great piece in the National Post (h/t Benny Peiser) which begged the question: "How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?" How many, indeed? Solomon, author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, reminds us that 32,000 scientists have now signed the "Oregon petition," which states that "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html

Water-Powered Car Incredible invention by Stanley Meyer (R.I.P.)
Water-Powered Car 2 Another one, just unveiled in 2008 by Japanese company Genepax.
Water-Powered Car 3 Denny Klein's car goes 100 miles on four ounces of water.
Water-Powered Car 4 Daniel Dingel runs his car on water, too.
Water-Powered Car 5 Yet another website on the subject.

This is just a distraction; I'd much prefer to drive a WATER-powered car, like one of these:

Water-Powered Car 1 Incredible invention by Stanley Meyer (R.I.P.)

Water-Powered Car 2 Another one, just unveiled in 2008 by Japanese company Genepax.

Water-Powered Car 3 Denny Klein's car goes 100 miles on four ounces of water.

Water-Powered Car 4 Daniel Dingel runs his car on water, too.

Water-Powered Car 5 Yet another website on the subject.