Not magic at all. I have solar panels and electron wells. Wind energy around my environs is much tougher. The power company here burns coal. The less of their electricity that I use, the less coal that burns.

To your point, however, once a cogent third party says Yucca is safe over that term, the happier I am. The NRC is a self-serving adjudicator of this sort of information, and frankly, I have little reason to trust them.

E85 lacks basic energy, not to mention the hideous cost of manufacturing. Methane recovery is a great idea and there's an abundance of methane (just look at Congress-- they need a dome over the dome).

Ultimately, producing heat for use with transducers just isn't going to work, and doesn't scale. Passive solar scales. Active solar (wind/volcanic) lunar (yeah, waves) are all vastly underdeveloped resources where at least the energy coefficient comes free-- the transducers and business models cost.

Nevada already has its own background radiation levels problem. Part of this is to stick it to Harry Reid.

Just because the NRC says it's ok, there's no third party corroboration that ground water contamination won't be a problem soon, and then for another half-million years. Yes, something needs to be done with the waste, but I'm hoping for a future disposal method that brings the waste to the average background radiation levels tolerable by simple burying.

You admit, ipso facto, Google knows, and the advertiser knows. That they don't serve it on a silver platter is just a detail.

Don't give your permission, how? Decide what conglomeration has access and which doesn't? Geemenie, we can't get people to stop using 123456 as a freaking password. These devices, IMHO, are predatory! Yeah, we'll disable them.

Then the voice recognition and auto-recognition software in the AV system in the living room party will rat out all of the participants. We have to change this opt-out mentality, as if everyone has tacit permission to begin with. Who, when, ever does anyone ever get anything like "serious consequences for failing to comply with such requests" when law enforcement barely knows their shoes from shinola? It's grab first, and don't audit later.

You trust these people, and they are stealing you blind, and will continue to do so until it becomes very difficult for them to continue. Google didn't get rich by hiding people's data. Didn't happen that way. If you work for them, you're part of the problem, IMHO.

Yeah, tie things up in the legislature. How many other blocks do you wanna throw up before it becomes a moral issue for you?

Insurance companies, nationwide. In terms of accident-free miles, only truck drivers are better.

Statistically, cops have far fewer accidents that they caused. Should they be cited? Sure. Will they? Never, as the fraternity of enforcers exempts themselves, and given human behavior, you're not going to easily change that, even with cop-cams. I understand your fears, I doubt that you'll be able to change the behavior of public safety officers. Good luck.

It's disingenuous to assert that Google doesn't know about the data that is collects, sells it (the http_referrer coin collection), and that the advertiser whose link you clicked doesn't know you, perhaps by name (referring to the fact that the IPv4 address space has largely known destinations to the street address and user-characteristics).

Upsetting is that claims of unidentifiable use are in fact, one of the most hilarious lies in computing, as all of this information in a click-thru is so handily re-assembled. There is no privacy here, in the very tiniest. Google's business model is to know--==> you. They don't have this right.

Slashdot knows who I am. My IP is known. They can be linked. One can become somewhat anonymous on the Internet, but only by trying really, really hard to accomplish this, and it's transient at best-- as accumulated information becomes your dossier.

The implications of dossiers are for a different forum, but in this circumstance, this thread, this post, it's my criticism of the pretension within the post, viz: "And with your permission and all of that, you are interacting with the things going on in the room" means that your devices will be forced to respond to its ambient environment, and what you do, even say, maybe your sexual responses, all of these will become exposed, modesty and your intentions to hide these things, vanquished by environmental probes.

Erratic isn't a useful measure. Voluntarily removing your focus from driving, e.g. taking a call, removing your eyes from the road for more than a second every 20sec, there'll be something that could be a viable measure that puts people's eyes back on the road, and not the latest tweet or instagram pic.

I can stop your heart with 2microvolts if it's attached to a 9mm slug.

To keep the oscillator going, a nanoamp is one measure, but voltage pushes that current through the coil to make it move. Voltage, difference in potential, is unlikely to come from ambient sources, so the there's still a little bit of a kick left in the battery, not the surrounding area.

I drive about 150mi per week on highways, not freeways, and watch as dozens and dozens of people text. They're easy to spot.

Were we to apply the emphasis towards keeping your eyes on the road, rather than improving brakes-- which were probably ok as they DON'T DO FORENSICS on such accidents, better money would be spent.

How do you get people to stop fooling with their devices? Enable motion detection, which keeps the cam on in the phone. Might not work for many, but I'd like to see texting and driving fined in the same way as DUIs. Same problem: irresponsibility.

Which exonerates Google..... no.

Google of course, has NO idea that you clicked. Nope, never, nada. /sarcasm.

Google sells the ad.

You click the ad.

Google gets the click, and gets paid.

Advertiser gets the http_referrer, but in doing so, also gets the user IP address. Every IP address in IPv4 space is a known destination.

What was your question, again?

And each click gets them an IP address, and a history and an object. Who do you think you're kidding? Click-thrus are insanely read by each of the advertisers, and in turn, as no agreement exists at this phase, does WHAT THEY WANT with the data.

Advertisers see 100% of the clicks. 100%. Not nothing, 100%. Why? C'mon. You think we're stupid??

So that the car could be made in the living room.

Everyone forgot the size of the door....

There are well-known methods of avoiding browser fingerprinting, and supercookies are easily eliminated.

Hints: use multiple browsers; rename innocuous cookies to the filename of well-known supercookies, then use whatever is appropriate for your operating system to make the cookie R/O. Some of us don't use gmail (or google) at all, and many more use a separate browser for social media, sometimes several of them. It's also fun to go to the library and copy salient cookie files from their browsers (easily done) and then copy them into your favorite browser's storage to salt things up. YMMV.