The *real* answer is to find the individuals out there who want to "break the cycle" and actually offer something more beneficial than the status-quo, and vote for them regardless of party affiliation.

I know you don't get a lot of real options when you're talking about a vote for the next President. (Truth is -- I think a lot of the people best suited to do the job well have NO interest in ever running. That's why you get such poor candidates, time after time.)

Personally, I would have really loved to see Ron Paul as President when we had the opportunity to elect him. May not have agreed 100% with him on everything, but I liked a LOT of his thinking. And realistically, you can only change or do so much while in office, since you have an entire judicial system AND a senate/congress who are probably filled with people holding opposing views. So anything Ron tried to do would have been tempered and watered down significantly before becoming law.

Right now? I like Dan Bongino for Congress in my district of Maryland. Former secret service agent who knows all about the political system and wants to stamp out a lot of the corruption - giving the common man more of a voice. There are others like him out there.... but you have to search for them and support them when they come out of the woodwork.

Umm, first off? This sentence of yours makes little sense:

"The reduction in mileage isn't because you burn more gasoline, it's simply becaue the oxygenation agents don't contain as much energy as gasoline does."

The reduction in mileage because the oxygenation agents don't contain as much energy as gasoline is EXACTLY why you burn more fuel! The typical operator of a vehicle doesn't just say, "Well ... I was going to drive 18 miles in to work today, but because my fuel has less energy in it in the formulation I filled up with, I'll only go 17 miles and stop my car wherever I end up!"

As far as the ethanol fuels like E10 or E15 (or even E85, which is what you usually see here in the USA) ... I definitely recall the environmental groups getting behind them when they were a new thing. (Granted, this dates back as far as the Carter presidency.) There was a belief that anything switching our fuel usage from dinosaur remains to crops like corn HAD to be a good thing. Perhaps NOW they're not so fond of them and it's big Agra pushing them ... but it wasn't always that way.

My web site link about that meadow jumping mouse was just a result of a 15 second Google search, so no -- that's not a site I frequent. The intent of that post was really just to find a quick example of the MANY times environmental groups scream about a species about to go extinct, and negatively affect a lot of people in the process -- even when that species is of questionable value in the big picture. (If it's so close to extinction already and we're getting by fine without much of it around, there's a good chance it's not a real big deal if the last few of them disappear. Species go extinct without any human intervention all the time. When it's a clear concern, people notice and step in to correct it -- such as the honeybee population decline. I don't know anyone who is uptight about a particular type of field mouse, or some of the birds they've gotten all worked up about in the past.)

I think you're being too short-sighted and cynical myself.

Why do I say that?

Well, when you talk about this situation with the old growth forests .... yep, old growth lumber *is* a limited resource, as anyone remotely following the industry should have been able to see. So what? The industry was also correct ... that trees ARE a renewable resource. All you have to do is plant more of them and WAIT. That's really the only issue here. People in the Pacific Northwest apparently had no "plan B" for what to do when the old trees were all cut down and the new ones were going to need another 100 years or more to regrow.

Like anything? You use it up faster than it can be replenished and you run out ... at least until you give it some time to come back.

You can point fingers at big business or energy companies in particular and scream that they "screwed all of us and LIED about the situation!". But come on... We're all the consumers who DEMAND that energy to survive in our daily lives. They're just supplying the demand. And we DO have no shortage of trees growing in the USA. I see people fighting to save up enough money to get dozens of 'em cut down simply because they're creating endless hassles in people's yards, damaging sewer lines and foundations, creating big cleanup messes each Fall, etc. It's all about the TYPE of wood you're trying to gather up and having the sense to realize that you can only gather up so much at one time, in one area ... and then you're done for a while.

Climate change debate? Not quite the same issue as lumber, but another case where "big energy" will take the brunt of the blame. I think "alternate/clean energy" solutions are coming along nicely -- but you can't rush changes like this, or else you get the sub-standard and uneconomical results we're seeing. (I'm talking about solar panels that cost more to install than they ever recoup in savings for users ..... windmills that can't generate enough wind power to cost-justify themselves without big govt. subsidies, etc. etc.)

It's one thing to look at a grand piece of "mother nature" like the Grand Canyon or some of the Redwood forests on the west coast and say, "Hey.... this is really something scenic, unique and amazing. Probably would be a good move to try to preserve this for future generations to enjoy."

It's entirely another to let the environmentalists tell you what to do when so often, they don't even have solid answers themselves. Remember the oxygenated gasoline thing, where they were SURE it would lead to less air pollution if gas was reformulated that way? So it happened, and cars and trucks started getting WORSE gas mileage than before - since the new formulation had less energy in it per gallon than before. That means more fuel was burned to drive the same number of miles, so likely no net improvement in pollution. But THEN, they find out the oxygenated stuff was more likely to seep into ground water and do damage. So a doubly-bad "improvement" that cost people money.

Or hey... instead of talking American Buffalo, let's talk about a more recent incident, with the "meadow jumping mouse:

http://lastresistance.com/6395...

I actually never knew that about Myst before.

I knew it was a Mac title originally, but I only owned the Windows version on CD. Pretty sure that one was no longer using HyperCard technology (though I remember it did use the Quicktime for Windows player and the QT videos).

Honestly, I'm glad to hear the guy is proud to be gay. He should be. We should ALL be proud of who we are, instead of regretting it or wasting time wishing we were different.

The world would be a really boring place if all of us were "wired" exactly the same, with the exact same interests, habits and tendencies.

But his sexual orientation was published years ago, and came up again some time earlier this year in news articles. So I'm not sure exactly how THIS time around is supposed to mean anything special?

I hate to say it, but I do think all of this is at least partially motivated by a marketing angle for Apple. The company has long been known to be relatively "gay friendly" in hiring practices and in loyal user-base. (Perhaps some of that simply stems from a tendency for the gay community to care more than others about product attributes like style, design or elegance .... all areas not so often associated with computer technology but embraced by Apple since early on?) Perhaps it's just that Tim Cook feels it's a good "climate" to promote Apple as a very equal-opportunity company to work for? I don't know ... but it doesn't seem relevant to bother mentioning it (especially if he's serious about valuing his privacy like he claims), otherwise?

No arguments about this from me. But that doesn't change the fact that the whole thing runs counter to reassuring the public that they're at relatively low risk of catching the stuff if they wind up around someone who has the virus while on mass transit.

I get it.... If they're not at the stage where the vomiting and diarrhea begin, it's different. But those people are still a ticking time bomb in that regard. Do YOU want to be the guy sitting next to one of them on a plane, betting they won't START in with the vomiting and coughing and so forth, until after you're safely away from them at the end of the flight?

I have to say that IMO, this is a pretty good idea.

The whole idea of doing crash tests and designing vehicles around one standard dummy size means you have no way to know if the safety systems work well with anyone outside that narrow parameter.

Not everyone heavier than the 167lbs. or so of the current crash dummy is unhealthy, for starters. Should America's vehicles be higher safety risks for all of our professional athletes with more muscle-mass than average? (Chevrolet just sponsored the World Series .... Maybe they better rethink their strategy if they don't design cars to be as safe for some of those guys?)

Even the "ideal weight charts" say a 6'4" person is still in the "normal" weight range at 197lbs. - so what about tall people like that? (Are the crash test dummies tall enough to see what happens when someone's head is that much higher up in the vehicle? They probably should check into that.)

But even putting all of that aside for a moment? The people bringing up those comparisons of average body types in other countries to ours don't really convince me that we're so bad off as a nation. Honestly, I used to be as skinny as the depicted "average sized 30 year old Japanese male" in that Huffington Post article -- and you know what? I hated it. As a general rule, women found me too skinny to be physically attractive to them (with many preferring the larger-framed guys who were clearly in the "overweight" category). The only praise I ever received was from the "gym rat" types who cared more about achieving the numbers the charts or stats said you should achieve as "ideal". And even then? I was never really very strong. They always assumed I would be a "quick runner" though.

If our President initially came out, armed with scientific facts and results of studies like this one as the rationale for not imposing a travel ban, it would have gone over much better with the American people.

Instead, we've witnessed nothing but a "FUD campaign" - with a strong sense that nobody in charge really knows what the h*ll they're doing with this stuff. First, the hospital in Texas got blamed for screwing up and not following procedures. Then it was revealed they never received any official procedure in the first place for dealing with ebola.

There's conflicting information about how contagious the ebola virus is ... with claims that you can't get it without direct contact with the infected person's bodily fluids, but medical workers wearing hazmat suits while going near the people. (If people are supposed to believe their chances of getting the virus while on an airplane with an infected person are "pretty unlikely" -- then how is it we have concerns about hospital workers catching it, even after wearing protective suits and everything else? I don't think people are convinced you can have this BOTH ways at the same time.)

And sure ... people also recall the H1N1 "swine flu" situation and how that panned out in reality.

IMO, the travel ban would just be good common sense to impose -- while setting up some exceptions for medical staff legitimately traveling to/from the high risk areas for the purpose of aid. I *love* how the government makes it out to be an "all or nothing" proposition -- where we simply can't impose the ban without risking inability to provide medical assistance over there. Seriously?! You can't come up with scenarios allowing SELECTIVE travel for appropriate people and some extra steps they're required to go through upon re-entering the US?

There's nothing wrong with trying to be more independent, should you so choose. But honestly, people are fairly free to live that "pre Industrial Revolution" lifestyle right now. Join an Amish community!

In reality though, most people I know don't WANT that lifestyle, because we've traded a lot of self-sufficiency off in exchange for having an easier life, and one where we're able to focus on specialties of interest. That's done by embracing INTERdependence.

For example, my primary skill and interest is with computers and I.T. If I wanted to be a lot more independent, I'd get stuck spending many hours on tasks like farming and food preparation, that I'm not at all interested in doing. Sure, if I *had* to do it, I probably could... but I think our society is pretty well established in such a way where I'm not forced to do so. To me, that's progress... not some inherently bad thing.

Now, if we're talking about people who can't seem to find or keep a job that pays enough for them to survive? Then sure.... we're now talking about folks who might really benefit from investing time and energy in such things as planting their own vegetable gardens. (It beats being stuck unemployed and having nothing constructive to do.)

As far as the whole "going off-grid" thing is concerned though? Right now, I don't know that it makes sense in many cases. I say that as someone who just invested in a solar panel installation for my home, too. The fact is ... this "investment" is only financially sensible if you take a very long term view. Up front, I'm forking out upwards of $30,000 for a system that will only produce 65% or so of our energy needs -- and the math REALLY starts making it look like an unwise expenditure if you don't factor in the $10,000 tax credit I get back for it, plus another state credit of a couple thousand bucks.

The people who do those solar leases with low or no money down are in even worse situations, because they're #1, not recouping the tax credits and #2, are locked into contracts they can't get out of if they decide to move and resell their homes. (They have to convince the new home buyer to assume the lease, which they can't even do unless their credit score is high enough to allow it ... and may not WANT to do, vs. just signing up for a brand new contract and getting the latest and greatest panel tech. installed as part of the new deal.)

Ultimately, I'm betting on electricity prices going up enough that when I project things out 15 or 20 years from today, the power my panels generate for me will theoretically be worth a lot more than it is right now. But who can say if the power companies will continue buying back excess power you generate over what you use? If they stop doing that, or start paying only pennies on the dollar for it -- this could quickly turn into a real loser of a deal too. (Don't forget, your panels generate NOTHING when the sun goes down ... so you want to get repaid for extra power made during the middle of the day, to offset what you use at night.)

I was just talking about this earlier today with a friend of mine. I think what will really make 3D printing take off is the availability of commercial printers that are room-sized devices, capable of printing off large pieces.

With the 3D printers confined to, essentially, the same dimensions as typical all-in-one fax/printer/scanners or desktop lasers, they're only capable of printing very small objects. That's a great place to start, as this is a new technology ... and people need to learn the basics of how to design things to be printed, how to use them, and how to improve their reliability and reduce costs of operation. Why not do that by printing off small objects vs. big ones?

But the ability to print off an entire car hood or rear spoiler, or replacement body panel? Or how about printing those big, outdoor decorative fountains and other garden objects? Certainly, you need something this size if you're seriously considering printing 3D parts for home construction. (Imagine ordering walls that are pre-printed with your choice of custom colors or designs instead of having to paint.)

For starters? If CurrentC was so good, why wasn't it implemented YEARS ago? The technology has been around for it. Heck, they're talking about it working by scanning a QR code with a camera --- something pretty much standard on smartphones for many years now.

It took Apple coming up with a workable solution and releasing it to wake them up, apparently. (Look how long places like CVS and Rite Aid accepted Google Wallet without a care ... but Apple Pay came along, and the whole NFC payment thing was shut down in a matter of 24 hours!)

But the bottom line is just as others commented here already; CurrentC opens up a whole new set of security issues, since paying with it is more like paying with a paper check than anything else. Plus, it lacks in simplicity compared to, "Just wave your phone near the reader for a second, even if the phone is still in sleep mode. Done." It's just popular with the merchants who want to eliminate transaction fees, while disregarding what consumers want (and NEED in the way of better security).

I doubt there has ever been an advance in technology that didn't temporarily displace some workers or cause hardship for specific groups?

You can't just hold back progress out of concern for this minority, vs. forcing them to adapt to change for their own good in the long run.

Anyone who can lose their min. wage job to automation was doing menial labor in the first place. They were getting paid to BE the machine, essentially. I see nothing great about promoting the idea that we're better off letting people act as unthinking machines for low wages than to actually mechanize those tasks and challenge the people a little bit more.

Fake copies of hardware are a growing problem all over the electronics industry. Historically, the problem tended to resolve itself when the poor copies prematurely failed on enough people that a conscious effort was made to avoid them.

It seems to me the problem that's happening now is, the counterfeits are getting good enough that they're actually becoming a good value for consumers. As just one example of this? I was just shopping for an off-road LED light bar to put on my Jeep. The traditional name brand light bars tend to sell in the $800 - $1000 price range, but a flood of Asian knock-offs have arrived which sell on eBay or Amazon for as little as $99 or so each. Big name vendors and some of the heavy users have decried them as "junk" compared to the others because of such things as less quality control ensuring each LED outputs the same intensity and color of light, and complaints about water leaking into the enclosures of the cheap ones and leaving condensation on the inside lens. A few people express concerns that cheaper circuit boards inside will cause the knock-offs to fail prematurely too -- pointing out that it could be REAL bad for you if your light fails you in the middle of the night, out on some trail, and you can't see to get back out of the woods again.

All fine and good, EXCEPT people can fix the water/condensation problems with a tube of silicone caulk and 5 minutes of time, sealing up the plastic lens after taking a light bar apart. The other issues simply mean you could buy a spare (or three!) to keep with you -- and heck, probably even toss out one if you feel the LED lights on it are inconsistent enough to annoy you, and STILL pay far less than one of the original name brands!

I don't know much about FTDI's chip ... but it sounds like they designed something that was relatively easy to clone, and now they're stuck trying to sell something that many manufacturers don't see as differentiated enough from the copy-cats to try too hard to buy the original part? Trying to actively destroy the competition is NOT the solution. Perhaps more R&D to offer a superior update to the original chip would be?

I currently live in an old railroad town in the Northeastern U.S. Our rail system is still alive and well out in this part of the U.S. -- despite the appearance of being a dinosaur in many other parts of the country. (I even take commuter rail in to work each day ... and yes, it's a full size locomotive with multiple passenger cars, including a couple of double-decker cars.)

I don't see how employee turnover has a lot to do with trains OR trucks winning the battle of who gets used to haul freight around? The real bottom line is going to be economics and efficiency. The big advantage I see trains having right now is better efficiency, in the sense that today's locomotives are pretty energy efficient. Many of the new ones have solar panels on top of them to augment power generation, and they move a MUCH larger volume of product around than a truck can. (In the case of passenger rail alone? Look how many hundreds of vehicles are taken off the roadways each weekday just from all of us who use it to commute instead of driving ... and that's just ONE of several rail lines out here that run each day.)

They also have an advantage in the fact that they don't have to deal with traffic congestion. The established railways are generally about the fastest way from point to point, so they can generally predict down the minute how long it will take to arrive at a particular stop.

IMO, there's a lot of mismanagement with the rail system, which allowed the trucking industry to eat their lunch in many cases. But it didn't HAVE to be that way.

EG. I used to work for a steel fabrication place that had a railway running right outside their back door. Up through some time in the 1970's, they always used the rail system to ship steel beams to customers. But they started running into logistics problems where customers were only willing to buy from them if they could meet deadlines for "rush" deliveries (and would pay big premiums for this as well!). The railroads couldn't adapt to accommodate this, especially when they'd often have their own logistics battles to fight, trying to get certain cars unloaded on a train before others. (They said they'd often see the train they were waiting on to pick up a load chug right on by, once or even twice, during the day, before finally stopping for them -- all because the railroad wanted to unload something else first and potentially juggle the train cars around in a yard, before coming back for the pickup.) All of that convinced them to invest in a small fleet of trucks and do their own deliveries.

But in any case? I think autonomous trucks probably will arrive before autonomous passenger cars owned by individuals. (Commercial vehicles could absorb the initially higher cost to purchase them, for one thing.) But you'll probably see them limited to driving in a designated lane, at least initially. Doing this would make their operation a little more like what the railroads do now .... follow designated paths from place to place. I'm not sure how well that will work for them, if they STILL have to have a "short haul" truck pick up their loads at some point and take them to the loading docks at their destinations, using the regular road system?