A wind turbine can be build from cheap materials and made big enough, today. People have built their own wind turbines that generate several KW/h.

http://www.builditsolar.com/Pr...

Would it make sense to be energy-independent, produce your own power? Of course - it's an expense, a supply headache, and a risk factor.

How can you generate your own power? Oil-dependent generators are not cost efficient. Coal is large investment. Extract your own oil and refine it? Insanely complex and costly. Nuclear is impossible, politically tough.

The reason we are dependent on oil and coal is because corporations profit from it, they can monopolize it.

If you're a nation or corporation, you can think of safe nuclear, like thorium-based nuclear power.

Otherwise, to generate power yourself, you're likely to end up looking at the wind, hydro, sun, waves, or something else you can get yourself for zero cost, simply because you can do it.

There is so much research, investment and interest in getting rid of oil and coal, its inevitable that oil and coal will not last that much longer. There are more alternatives every day.

But oil companies have some money to lobby with. It would make sense that they would spend on some PR agents to propagate their ideals and objectives into the public conscience.

Follow the money. Who stands to gain by climate-denialists crazy arguments? Oil and coal. Auto companies perhaps, but not so much. They already power cars from many other sources, even if it costs more. But oil and coal companies stand to simply die if too many people switch to other power sources.

Who is funding the climate-deniers? Oil and coal. Where are the climate deniers concentrated? Oil and coal states. Who are the politicians that go along with climate-denier positions? Politicians from oil and coal states.

And this crazy argument that there is some "lobby" who "finances" and "creates false science" to "profit from global warming"? Who, the scientists lobby? We wish scientists had political power. Everything they say basically falls on deaf ears. What, the battery makers lobby? The electric car lobby?

There is no large green corporation, or group of companies, there is no central profit center. Power can be generated in an infinity of ways, and many, many of them are more efficient, cost less, and are (gasp!) cleaner than oil and coal, in many ways. They haven't quite gotten enough traction yet to completely replace oil, coal, and gas, largely due to lobby, PR scams, and protectionism of the oil lobby. Still, it seems inevitable.

If anyone really likes oil power so much, tell them to buy a generator, and power the house with oil. See the absurd noise, maintenance and costs. Quickly come to the - quite common sense - conclusion that oil power is not so great.

Which is likely to be the interest of the population in non-oil-and-coal-power - common sense. Not some imaginary "green lobby", a fictitious invention of the oil corporate lobby.

Oil and coal is not only affecting weather. It's making air unbreathable in many cities. Its not infinite. Many nations don't have enough and are vulnerable by depending on imports too much, like China and US. Europe is also dependent on Russian gas imports.

Militaries around the world don't like being vulnerable on supply lines for energy and gas, any group generating their own power is far more autonomous. The same argument goes for industry, commerce, transportation, cities, remote locations, and pretty much anyone.

Car and truck transportation are being questioned for many reasons - global warming, air pollution, noise pollution, traffic, safety, costs, raw inefficiency, and urban planning. Each of these arguments have their own, huge, groups of supporters.

If there is an environmental lobby, it appears to be most of the population, pretty much.

The surprising part is how much the world politicians have bent over for oil, gas and coal monopolies.

Paid "news", funded by the oil+coal guys.

Coal+oil companies are on a disinformation campaign about traffic, pollution, accidents, global warming, economic costs, and a host of crazy, irrational arguments. Their common conclusion "pollution and waste is the better alternative"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil#Funding_of_global_warming_disinformation_and_denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Fossil_fuel_and_chemical_industry_lobbying

they should have used bitcoin in the stores.

If there was good content in a flash website, anyone using android or ios wouldn't see any of this content.

Flash is just one web technology out of dozens. It has no relationship to creating good content or websites. It's just one technology. An obsolete one, too.

Makes formulating rather difficult, while driving or not.

Anyone who says they love windows 8 and posts as AC is suspect of being a Microsoft shill.

You can have anything you want in it, as long it comes with open source sauce.

There are numerous advantages to science classes to take place in bars. Top argument would be the increased interest.

Smoking stuff in many instances is now legal. So lots of people are smoking stuff, including while reading /.

They should call it the "this is it" version. Make a grand video of the rehearse of its pre-release beta version. Hire a tech doctor to put it to sleep with anethesia. Have a great big media trial and debate. Then admit it's dead.

I am not sure the lack of a connection between swooshing doors and sexual attraction is clear. Can you elaborate.