So obviously the all those solar arrays that power much of the economies of Germany and Denmark, not exactly known for their sunny climes, must work by magic.

If that were true, how do you account for countries like Germany and Denmark getting nearly 100% of their power during summer months from solar and still not managing to be among the world's strongest economies relative to their population size.

Think of it as the price per electron, since without electrons moving from one place to another there is no electricity.

The more you use, the more you pay. Rates should be set by law on a per electron basis, with those receiving paying those who are producing. There is no reason to permit some users to forced to pay more per electron than others. Why should users be forced to pay to make some other user's per electron cost cheaper at their expense, simply because some producers can provide fatter campaign contributions than others?

"It makes sense that in case of solar, you pay transport cost both ways."

Why does this makes sense? If the role of the consumer/producer is reversed, then so should be the charges. After Citizen-United, corporations are people, so the reverse must also apply. Why should I as a corporation have any less rights than another corporation? Why should industry sponsored politicians make it illegal for me to benefit from my energy production and at the same time make it a requirement that I should doubly subsidize another corporation for theirs?

"They pay for maintenance on the lines, which is where the cost of delivery comes from."

No, actually their customers pay for that, they just act as a middle man for a profit. The real question, with regard to public utilities is what is a reasonable fee and who should be allowed to set it.

" Hydro makes everything easier. "

Not for fish and other aquatic organisms.

"You know, we would have a healthier society, if I actually did have veto power over what my money got used for."

Sounds like a candidate for elective office. Now all you have to do is be convincing.

No they should leave that to the Chinese, so that all future technological developments and economic progress take place overseas. We need to use our government to protect corporate monopolies and the 1%. The last thing we need to do is invest in the future.

The reality is that those governments that fail to invest, will eventually be out competed. Solar is getting cheaper and cheaper, in large measure because the Chinese have finally figured out that it is in their best interest to be number one in solar technology and to leave the US dependent on progressively less sustainable fossil fuels and consequently, bottled up in the politics of the Middle East.

With the largest number of college graduates in science and technology, they will at the current pace overtake the US in less than 15 years, in terms of high tech. Keep in mind that already those iPhones and next gen devices aren't built here and that the cutting edge is rapidly shifting to Asia. If the Chinese invest more heavily in solar, as well as English-based university education, the US will find itself with an even more capable competitor.

The only real question now is whether or not the Chinese will be able to rapidly enough reverse the environmental destructiveness of their approach to development. Certainly, solar will provide them many benefits in this direction.

"Churn the *uckers."

The problem with this argument is more or less the same as the problem that the US now has with ISIS, they can't get rid of them fast enough.

Churning our elected leaders only makes it easier for the wealthy and corporations to install the folks of their own choosing, since only they have the money to run two, three, four candidates, if necessary in a single contest, as well as paying to preen their bench.

The fundamental problem is that the electorate itself is too poorly educated to be able to tell which candidates are providing honest, fair, intelligent, and sustainable policies that will work in the long term. Depending on how you look it is, this may not be a problem for all that much longer, because the more the US electorate diddles, the sooner the Chinese will surpass us and tell us how we will do it. One can hardly expect the rest of the world to be patient, while US politicians get a clue.

One of the reasons they are poor is high electricity bills.

This effort on the part of utilities will only hasten the day, when solar power becomes so cheap that it won't matter if solar homes are connected to the grid. They will be able to be entirely independent of the grid by being a local area grid in their own home.

"So at least in this case, "the fossil fuel industry" is acting in the interests of the little guy."

LOL. Yeah, by making planet Earth unihabitable for their children and their children's children, assuming they will be able to afford having any.

The Internet Is a force for hope and change, consequently conservatives have to be against it.

Saying bioinformatics has "standardized" on open source tools is a bit of a stretch, but there is no doubt that the tools you mention are very widely used. That said, bioinformatics is a very small fraction of the activity going on in the biological sciences.

In may ways this is a bit of a shame, as Mathematica's computational capabilities are exceed those that the other open source languages you mention can do, without tremendous programming effort. Indeed, its precisely why I pose the question, since it is an area that Mathematica should be far more visible and more widely utilized than it is.

That said, does anyone have an idea of where answers to these questions will be posted?