To generate extra energy to power my devices? I could see myself enjoying that
We've already been on that merry-go-round with trying to shove corn into automobile fuel tanks. In all likelihood, powering your device this way will be dirtier and less fuel efficient than burning coal for the same amount of power.
If this is a service that is needed by people, then it should be provided by government...
Aren't all services "a service that is needed by people"?
Money spent buying coal from West Virginia stays in our economy, while oil bought abroad does not.
Well, sure, assuming the person you pay for the coal doesn't buy any clothing, electronics, or cars. The world economy just doesn't work this way any more.
The purpose of criticism is not to tell you whether you will like something or not. It may touch on this, but that is a side affect, not the main purpose. For a variety of reasons, movie reviews sometimes are about whether you will like the movie or not, and offer nothing in the way of criticism (in the traditional academic sense). Sometimes reviewers who combine both, sometimes in the same review. I can see how this can create confusion for the casual review reader, as you have to try to figure out when a review is offering criticism and when it is just a review.
Movies made purely for entertainment often don't have anything worth critical appraisal, other than technical execution, which is why those sorts of movies often have poorer receptions from the critics than from the public. (Personally, I prefer a movie that has a bit more meat on the bone, and offers something to think about critically. I recall enjoying the first Avengers movie, but I can't recall a single thing that happened in it.)
You're supposed to cross at an intersection if possible, and if not, at least where you have a clear line of sight in both directions. You're also supposed to wait until it's safe to cross. If you can't see if it's safe to cross, you're doing it wrong.
Translation: Never ever cross the street in New York City.
The money of PACs is overrated. No amount of Koch brothers commercials will change an informed mind.
Except Koch money (and others, esp. Murdoch) is being used to "inform" minds. When Fox news viewers consistently score worse on questions about current events facts than those who watch no news at all, this raises the question of what counts as an "informed mind".
Posturing histrionics.
Have gchq or other intelligence organizations ever used the data inappropriately?
Yes. Collecting it is sufficient to constitute inappropriate use.
Wow, I can't believe two AC comments for this, and both modded down. People post openly their opinions on guns, abortion, and corporate taxation, but apparently saying the Simpsons is not good crosses a line.
Too bad. I agree with them 100%. I can probably quote nearly every line of dialogue from the first 7-10 seasons of the Simpsons. Everything after that (at least, as far as I have seen) is worse than average TV sitcom.
They might. The current system does not necessarily give them incentive to _do_ what's best though. Still, modern medicine beats whatever is in second place by a long long way.
Insert lecture on the difference between technical and pointlessly pedantic here...
We hear the same thing all the time about balancing the budget and paying down the deficit ever since Reagan, but neither one has happened yet.
At least 50% false (because I have no idea what was done with the "surplus" in those years): http://www.heritage.org/multim...
I guarantee you what they paid for this one was less expensive than changing all the documentation to reflect a later version of windows.
Except, they will still have to do this eventually, and now they are paying for both.
So, you're saying the media backed Bush both times? That's so weird, I'd heard rumors they had a liberal bias.
Law abiding gun owners have never been a problem.
This phrase is a meaningless tautology. It is also arguably false, unless accidental gun deaths don't count as deaths.
There have been antitrust allegations around Apple's new streaming music service. This seems to me to be just another way to prevent the competition from actually competing.
People used to scream holy hell when MS did this kind of shit, but Apple is just as bad and in many cases much worse. I guess they saw that Microsoft got off with a little wrist slap so why not use borderline illegal (or blatantly illegal, once in a while) anticompetitive tactics.
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones
