High energy densities and high currents are emitted when shorted and you end up with maybe a spark. Quite a safe spark though given the pathetically small voltages they can store.

Voltage is irrelevant. If a short releases the stored energy, all of it is converted into heat, since it has nowhere else to go. If stored energy is significant, and is released in a short enough time, this results in an explosion.

So, the safety-relevant questions are: how much energy can a capacitor store, and how much currency can it supply?

If you build a datacenter with its own solar, wind and hydroelectric power supplies, why would the price raise?

Because hydroelectric sites are taken, and your customers might take issues with their clouds disappearing when eclipsed by real ones.

Mother nature has already shown us that dog-eat-dog is the best way to adapt, survive, and even thrive.

Except that dogs adapt, survive and thrive by cooperating. In fact I'm pretty sure that a dog that resorts to cannibalism will be put down pretty fast, by humans or other dogs.

The business world is the same way.

Yes: cooperation is the best way to succeed there too. That's why we have anti-trust laws: peaceful cooperation is such a winning strategy that companies will always resort to it unless prevented by force.

I have work to do so my company can kick your company's ass and put them out of business.

I work for a paycheck, and entrepreneurs work for profit, but I guess some men just want to see the world burn.

Criminals are flat-out evil. By definition.

No, that's not the definition of criminal.

It's no more sadistic to hate criminals than it is to hate homophobes, conservatives or Christians.

What if the homophobe lives in Iran? There, homosexuality is a crime, so according to you homosexuals must be evil, thus the homophobe is hating evil people which, again according to you, is okay.

For that matter, what about a state that has anti-sodomy laws in books but then removes them? Are all the homosexuals instantly de-evilized when the law is struck down? And what if an Iranian homosexual and an Iranian homophobe leave Iran and enter USA? The homosexual is no longer a criminal, thus not necessarily evil, thus the homophobes justifications fall flat.

My, it is a weird world authoritarians live in.

This guy appeared who said that we would all be better off without millions of useless eaters. There were only 2.3 billion humans on the planet then. Today there are 7.1 billion.

Feel free to stop eating anytime.

The thing is, we can feed the "useless eaters". Most industrial countries struggle with agricultural overproduction, not famine. What actually ends up killing lots of people - and what ultimately causes famine in developing countries nowadays, too - are the socipaths. The kind of people talk about "useless eaters". You - the Hitlers, Stalins and Maos - of this world are the real threat, not the "welfare queens" who are perfectly happy if you give them food and a tv.

Now that we have 7.1 billion, and climbing, and the jobs for them are falling, what should we do exactly?

Learn to ignore monsters like you, so we can start actually solving our problems rather than blaming them on jews, the bourgeois, the educated, the welfare queens, or whatever.

People became more productive due to technology. Now you are able to produce enough for you and your family in 40 hours / week. Before this technology advancement, you needed to work 60-80 hours / week in order to produce enough.

People didn't need to work 80 hours a week to produce enough for themselves, they needed to work 80 hours a week since the means of production were controlled by greedy assholes who only gave bare subsistence wages to the people who actually used them. And they still are, even if the labour unions and the threat of communist revolution helped curb the worst abuses of the robber barons of the Industrial Revolution.

What will happen if we are super productive as that professor claims? Have you seen the Jetsons? that is pretty much what will happen: you would work 2 days a week for 5 hours / day.

That'll only happen if you're your own boss. If you work for someone else, why would they have you work for 10 hours per week when they can keep you working 40-80 hours and pocket the increased profits?

Your job would not be canning tuna, but making sure that the machine that does it gets maintenance.

Nope, that's automated. It already should be.

We would spend our time, doing art, music, entertainment, or any other leisure related activity/job.

This would be the best outcome, and it'll eventually come to that; the question is, how painful will the transition from our current model to that be?

Consider this: we don't have to work to get air.

Nitpick: you are, in fact, doing work right now (or at least I sincerely hope you are) to get air. It's why you have muscles for it.

Jobs are not a scarce resource, labor is. There is always enough jobs for everyone that wants one and then some, even if it means being self employed. The only reason there is unemployment at all, is because of bad laws.

Unfortunately, this is not true. Being self employed means that you have to find a demand you have a skill to fulfil. Such demands might exist in quantities sufficient to employ everyone, either in actuality or in potential, but that does not mean that all unemployed people will find one.

is it a prank? rebranded furries? an ironic hipster meme collapsed under its own weight and is now self aware? inquiring minds want to know!

True Art Is Angsty, so anything lighthearted and well-written is likely to sell like ice water in Sahara and for the same reason.

While I do like computers, I don't spend inordinate amounts of time with one; I recognize that doing so is a problem, is unhealthy, and *gasp* do other things with my time, and don't self identify as a "computer nerd".

I openly acknowledge my abnormality.

Others here? Not so much.

Does it bother you, that these others spend their time doing what they want, rather than abstaining for the sake of and in fact basing their whole identity around appearing more pleasing to random strangers or the abstract concept of normalcy?

Internet vigilantism has only started to make an impact but will get tragically big real quick, it needs to get nipped in the bud asap.

Internet vigilantism can't be nipped as long as "tough on crime" remains popular, since it's the same thing in different guise: people like letting their sadistic impulses out every now and then, and if they can pretend they're doing it for the sake of justice it's all the more enjoyable.

So why exactly is anyone buying one of these?

For Bitcoin mining. NASA needs to fund itself somehow.

Welfare is a way of life, not a safety net.

True. Welfare means that public resources are used to build the social and physical infrastructure to support a good life for the citizens, with safety nets just a part of said infrastructure. In a welfare state no one lacks education or healthcare for lack of money, which leads to great social mobility. The result - healthy, educated and motivated workforce - combined with good infrastructure leads to great economic competitiviness, but it also means that even hobos don't starve, which greatly irritates some people who apparently think the purpose of life is to prove your evolutionary fitness or something.

Wild animals that receive handouts become lazy and dependent on those handouts, and humans are no different.

That's a great point, actually. Now ask yourself: which would you rather have as a neighbour, a lazy dog or a hungry wolf?

What is the government going to spend that $0.50 on that would be better than a company investing a $1 of profit back into growing their business?

Roads, electric grid, water, sanitation, education, healthcare, public order, enviromental protection, basic research, national defense, social security...

When you're at the North Pole, which way is East?

Well, you're facing south, so east is to your left.

Reverse engineering is legal in the US.

That something is legal won't stop a company from suing and using court costs - both money and time - as a de facto punishment.

That limit would have to be either very low, so that pretty much anyone could be a candidate, or the state would have to pay. Neither of these seems feasible.

So... What's infeasible in state paying? It's a pretty small investment for fixing the political system.