I don't agree that coal doesn't pollute, look at the huge impact of its mining on water pollution alone, but the US choosing not to finance and thereby control that scrubbers and other pollution controls are installed will almost certainly result in hundreds of plants being built to the standards of the early to mid 1900's. It seems to me that this policy is highly counterproductive environmentally; typical of the short-sighted politicians of the last five decades.

What you cite is a fact, but you take it very much out of context. Wind Installations have been cheaper in the US, because they have been located where the wind blows constantly, this isn't the case for Africa and much of the developing world. You cannot take that data and generalize it to other countries, or other places in the US. In some locations wind will provide even greater benefits, and in others it will not. Also, and importantly, these costs are based on having an reliable base power generating grid. Wind can be extremely expensive when it is the base supplier since storage is required to provide power when the wind isn't blowing. Wind cannot provide more than a small fraction of the total power except in a few places on earth assuming having power 24/7 is part of the equation.

Wind Power is not cheaper than coal power. Since the wind doesn't blow all the time either storage or alternative generation is required. When the costs of these are factored in, the cost is much higher. As an adjunct to an existing power generating infrastructure, wind generation may be economical, but that is NOT the case in developing countries. As to the purpose of the policy, I think it has more to do with creating an environmental talking point for the current administration.

He said, "Internet," which predates Berners-Lee's contributions by fifteen years. And we all know Al Gore invented it! Although some maintain it was Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn.

I agree that protecting franchises is not pro consumer per se, but that was their original goal and result until the 1950's, the franchise laws of most states have gone too far in protecting the franchisees because legislatures fail to understand that the 20% of the total sales taxes they take in and 7% of the retail employment in their states are paid by consumers, not by the dealers. Disassembling the existing system by giving manufacturers the power to impose shrink-wrap terms and conditions on consumers is not a move in the right direction. Boyko either lied about the situation, or he doesn't understand it himself. Tesla spent more money in Texas trying to influence lawmakers than the car dealers association. Texas lawmakers failed to enact an exemption specifically for Tesla. I do not think a bill that cuts out an exemption (even from dubious laws) for one company is a good idea, but apparently this wannabe politician does.

So what you are saying is that this Democrat (who we all know favor strong consumer protection) wants to eliminate one of the oldest consumer protection laws on the books? If he had anything intelligent to say on the subject he would have proposed how to accomplish letting the manufacturer sell directly and provide the same protection to the consumer instead of lying by stating that the politicians acted to prevent Tesla from selling directly (as 47 other states also do, so perhaps it actually has some rational basis). Too many Democrats and Republicans alike are all about picking who wins and who loses, and not on reason, equality, or constitutionality; and this guy's true colors are showing in that regard. It sounds to me like he thinks politicians are for sale and he just wants in on the gravy train.

Find (the) one that has actually been used - properly documented, it old be worth a fortune.

I worked for a retail company that applied lie detector tests to their employees. They had a written test for aptitude and general truthfulness followed by a polygraph test. The manager said I was their only employee who was not required to take the polygraph based on the written test results. I wonder how I would do today on that same test thirty years later when the world isn't so black and white in my mind.

Giving any credit to WikiLeaks for their "offer" or laying blame on the Government is either incredibly naive or extremely partisan, for it doesn't stand up to the most cursory scrutiny. Do you really think the Government could accept such an offer? Let me paraphrase the offer so you understand. WikiLeaks: " We have this pile of information, most of it is unbearably mundane and of no interest to anyone; we have no interest in releasing it as it will put our audience to sleep; some of it is really juicy and embarrassing to you and could be used to blackmail you, some of it could be worth millions of dollars to your enemies. Would you help me categorize it so we can do with it what we please?

The problems surfaced after only five generations. With four breeding pairs initially, inbreeding would not have been a problem at that point. The real issue, and the one which modern man faces, is lack of external forces selecting against those who are not fulfilling their genetic and social roles. The name he chose for the enclosure, "Mortality-Inhibiting Environment for Mice" should be the obvious clue to the root of the problem. A couple of cats, or other form of selection, would have kept the mouse population healthy for many, many generations.

Actually it is since methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. (This presumes that releasing greenhouse gasses is bad, which is the current consensus among those representing themselves as scientists.)

And the pages with words will be burnt to light the walls of the cave on which the pages with pictures will be hung.

The law is not wrong. The actions those documents expose, and the classification of the documents in order to prevent the discovery of the abuse are wrong. Those responsible have violated their oaths to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and should be dismissed from their positions.

You do not recognize the world of hurt you have potentially exposed yourself to as a result of making a copy and putting it on your storage device? The law IS crystal clear on that one too. You must have a mechanism for dealing with claimed copyright infringement. Not every video YouTube sends is sent legally, but by agreeing to quickly remove videos that are claimed to be in violation, they are acting in good faith under the DMCA. If you're making copies, and you do not have a mechanism for determining whether something has, in fact, come legally to your device and for deleting copyrighted materials, you may get the opportunity to contribute to bottom line revenue of the RIAA or MPAA. Pointing to YouTube and saying you thought the copy was transmitted to you legally is unlikely to carry much weight.

Who said Verizon's engineers think this is a better idea? I'm sure their input was limited to,"Can we do this, instead of that?", not,"Which is the better solution?"