That because every whiny turd who installs solar is selling it back to the grid when they don't need it, but expects to have power on tap when the fucking solar is useless.

Yes, sometimes-selling/sometimes-buying is the idea, but I totally don't get the "whiny turd" part.

That means the true cost is made higher for all the people who can't afford solar panels

True cost of what? Are you talking about the energy they're buying, or pollution they're mitigating, or the transmissions lines, or what? And aren't those true costs, things that are being reduced?

I don't produce solar energy so I'm just trying to figure out how someone is sticking it to me. If you know of a victim card I could be playing, then I'd be grateful if you would learn to write without sounding like a retard, just in case you have an actual real idea in there, somewhere.

If you were alluding to the subsidies for buying the panels, then I think you'd have an excellent point, but you didn't so much as mention that. You seem to be vaguely talking about the energy or the transmission, both of which solar is a win for everyone, whether you're producing or not.

You're talking about the post-scarcity dream (but not describing it that way): the AI success story where it's completely good and benign. 98% unemployment (2% still have to work as Blade Runners), where most everybody has nothing better to do than lay back on their couch while robot slaves feed them grapes, and where the nation is more of a "maker" than ever before, but nobody has to lift a finger to bring about that productivity. It's not a "service-based" economy; it's a "leisure-based" or "so much wealth that all the old economic textbooks were made obsolete-based" economy.

He's talking about Terminators and Forbin Projects and Demon Seeds and Matrices.

It probably depends on whether or not he's ruled by his fear. I know I might get killed (or horribly injured and maimed for life) in traffic if I drive to the grocery store. That is a very real threat and you would have to be insane or stupid to think it can't happen. But it's not likely (on any given day, or even in a given decade) either, and it'd be more insane/stupid, to starve to death instead of getting food. So I go. I don't even think about it, but if I ever said "it can't happen to me" then I'd deserve your derision.

Hawking says AI is a threat? BFD. Everyone already knows that. It's not even controversial. The real question is how likely the disaster is, and Hawking hasn't to-date said a damned thing that would lead anyone to suspect he has a specially privileged point of view on the subject.

As for old/insane, it depends on his policy. Is he in favor of pointing guns at AI researchers' heads, with the message "stop working, or else?" Or is he just just saying "be careful?" The former is insane, and the latter is just good advice and goes for driving to the grocery store too. Acknowledging that life has risks, isn't old/insane. It's only when you say "we must never take risks," (or "we must always take risks") that you've crossed the line.

It states that "Congress shall make no law..." but since this was a civil case, and did not involve congress, how does the first amendment apply?

Without Congress creating the court, how can there be a civil case? The court's decisions would be unenforcible, and they wouldn't have laws by which to judge cases anyway.

What if you search for a person and the results incorrectly suggests that the person is a pedophile? Does that qualify as libel,

I can't help but spot the word "suggest," as it's so critical. Forget Google: what if a natural person incorrectly suggests someone else is a pedophile? That wouldn't normally be libel, would it? (Would that be libel even in the UK, where the libel standards are so relatively loose? Serious question.)

I can tell you as a reader, there is a huge night-and-day difference between reading a claimed fact and reading a suggestion. Suggesting things is how discussions get started, where then people either back off due to lack of evidence, or follow through with actual claims/accusations.

I didn't even know W3C did geolocation (like Maxmind). Is there any chance you're talking about a page that uses the W3C geolocation API? That is, you're talking about what result some Javascript gets when it asks your web browser "where am I?"

If I'm not mistaken and that's what you're talking about, then look up how your browser gets its location.

If I'm mistaken and W3C actually has a ip-to-geo thing, oops, never mind. No idea what you're going to do about their database being wrong.

Well, tell those people to abandon their plans to sue the US for that in a US court, because even if they win, they won't get the domains they wanted. (Whereas prior to this decision, it would have worked? ;)

I would get a VPS somewhere (e.g. linode) and install OpenVPN on it. Then VPN between there and your local machine, set up your incoming and outgoing connections to route through there, and update your DNS to point to the VPS. Net effect: you're still on Comcast, but the world sees you as being in some datacenter.

That correction would not seem to be in your interest. Wouldn't a more valuable car cost more to insure?

More mileage (per unit time) == more risk. And conversely, less mileage (per unit of time) == less risk.

If you drive your car less than 12000 miles per year, then seriously, talk to your insurance agent about a discount.

If you want good bosses, step up to the plate and make the sacrifice and do the job.

I am pretty sure this is how we will (if ever) get a good government, too. The government has to be "us" not "them" yet almost none of us are willing to let it be "me."

I can't figure out if that's stunningly brilliant (gets people to learn a shitload more, and in wider scope), or a cowardly copout to avoid the stigma of demotion ("we demote everybody"). Maybe it's both.

But really, the federal government doesn't even have the constitutional authority to ban drugs to begin with. Absurd interpretations of the commerce clause or other sections of the constitution don't count.

Why are people still talking about constitutional authority? Can't you just accept whatever authority that exists, regardless of the source of its power? I'd think this would be particularly relevant whenever you're talking about things that do, or don't, count.

The Lord Humungus (Warrior of the Wasteland, The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla) says he wants your refinery. The topic at hand is whether or not you're going to give it to him, not whose name is written on some deed title document.

At this rate, the Republicans deserve to win

No, the Democrats deserve to lose. Protesting dishonesty and corruption by voting for dishonesty and corruption, is not a protest.

Letting Republicans win, gets you nothing. If anything, that'll just tell the Democrats that they weren't dishonest enough.

If Tesla can do this, then so will Ford and GM, and then you just killed a very large job market, seeing as how many dealerships employ 50+ employees.

Wouldn't that be to everyone's advantage? Those people could be doing something. Imagine 50 people contributing to the economy rather than being dead weight. Multiply that by the number of dealerships. You just gave the American economy a shitload of "new" resources, for free.