This is not actually true. The Level 1 "emergency" charger (120V 8A) that came with my Mitsubishi MiEV works just fine on an extension cord. The gauge of the extension cord has to be reasonable for the length of the cord itself, though. The charger works at the end of a 100-foot extension cord if that cord is 10 gauge (these are readily available at major home improvement stores). I have used a 12 gauge extension cord that was 25 feet long with no ill effects (voltage drop, etc.) as well.

To keep from losing existing charge due to climate control of the battery pack, the Level 1 charger would have worked just fine. It certainly isn't a good choice for charging for range, though. (The MiEV only has a nominal 62 mile range, and the Level 1 charger needs 22.5 hours to charge it to that range from empty.)

Actually, no, this should not be a violation of copyright as it seems very much like a parody of the original work, which is recognized as a form of Fair Use.

• 1) Navigate to "The Gear" > Settings > Filters > Create a new filter .
• 2) Put the disposable, made-up email address in the To field of the form.
• 3) Select Create filter with this search . (Check the correctness of the filter via the search results that appear.)
• 4) Select the Delete it checkbox (and maybe some others, such as Mark as read ...).
• 5) Select the Create filter button.

You will no longer see any more of the emails from that disposable made-up email address. Enjoy!

Nice ad hominem attack, accusing me of being a different species and all that. What about compassion for those who toil and labor and feel preyed upon by fraudsters, looters, and those whose sense of entitlement causes them to covet more than they are contributing to society? I am not against social safety nets, but you cannot declare things to be basic human rights that require the fruits of the effort and creativity of others to be coerced from them in order to guaranty such "rights".

Compassion is an individual trait. It is not something that can be compelled by government fiat, no matter how much some people may wish that were so. I personally have given far more to charitable causes than my peers in my tax bracket. I would be able to give even more if the (U.S.) Federal government would actually respect its constitutional bounds and not try to do all sorts of things that were meant to be state and local concerns.

A bureaucratic centralized government is simply not very good at being a respecter of persons. As a result, it is very susceptible to fraud and abuse, thus denying those who are truly in need the help they deserve. Communities should be the ones helping their own, not a bureaucrat in a distant capital deciding that only one solution is the "correct" one.

I am not asking for taxes to be lowered (at least not initially). What I would like to see is that the Federal bureaucracy be slashed and the revenue returned to the states and localities based on demographics in the form of block grants. I certainly do not advocate, for example, that local school districts suddenly face financial crises because they are abruptly weaned from the Federal government teat to which they have become addicted.

But, communities are small groups of people who form social bonds and look out for each other. Having an overbearing central government dictate solutions to what are ostensibly local problems from "on high" does not have a very good track record of success.

So, I suppose my "ideal society" is to return control of matters to the smallest locus of responsibility of the group that is affected. This doesn't advocate suffering. On the contrary, it advocates communities bonding together and forming their own solutions that are tailored to their unique problems.

Anything that requires effort, creativity, or willingness to take on risk in order to be created or provided (housing, food, health care, etc.) cannot be a basic human right. There is no way to guarantee those things without enslaving someone else:

• health care: you must enslave the doctor, who spent years of his life learning his profession, by telling him who he must treat, how much he must charge for his knowledge and labor, etc.
• food: you must enslave the farmer, who accepts weather and crop failure risks and expends his labor in the fields, by telling him what to grow, how much to plant, and to whom to sell and for how much.
• housing: you must enslave the contractor and the construction worker, telling them what to build, where to build it, and how much to charge for it.

Those "rights" boil down to either the enslavement of the persons who are the producers, or the confiscation by force of the wealth produced by the labors of others in order to pay the farmer, doctor, and construction worker without enslaving them specifically.

Basic human rights are the intangibles that do not require something to be coerced from another human being:

• life: murder should be illegal, and your government should not be able to coerce you with force.
• liberty: freedom of speech (even political speech), the right to bear arms (to protect your liberty, not just in self-defense, but even from a tyrannical government), etc.
• pursuit of happiness: being able to choose a career (but also to be responsible for the consequences of that choice by not impinging on someone else's liberty or pursuit of happiness) and gain materially from your efforts and to own personal property.

Using the government to ensure material results into basic human rights is tyranny.

I probably should have linked to the map of the proposed location in the summary.

Open Source licensed code used on the Google Search Appliance is mirrored here.

Bury conduit instead?

Just choose a diameter that will accommodate anything you might expect to pull in the future and be sure to have some intermediate weather-tight boxes every few hundred feet.

Sounds like a job for Open Social.

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Why not just sign up for a free (plus $10/year for the domain name if you don't already have one) Google Apps account? You can create up to 50 real mailboxes (and forward them), multiple aliases to a mailbox, simple "mailing lists", turn the catch-all ON or OFF, etc.

The combination of those features and an easy-to-use dashboard (plus all of the filtering that basic GMail has) make it really easy to manage use-specific and throw-away addresses without running you own mail server.

For the most part, red meat has only been really bad for you since the end of World War II. A glut of manufacturing capacity and petroleum lead to a massive increase in the mechanization of grain farming (especially corn) in North America. This led to a precipitous drop in price due to over-supply, and farmers turned to feeding it to livestock to produce a "value-add" via conversion to more-valuable animal protein.

The problem is that the digestive systems and metabolisms of grazing animals are suited to forage diets (grass), not grain. Grain has much higher ratios of Omega-6 fatty acids compared to the mostly Omega-3 fatty acids found in the non-grain parts of grasses, so feeding grains to grazing animals greatly elevates the Omega-6 fatty acids that then end up in the meat (and have other health consequences for the grazing animals). Eating the meat from animals fed this way ends up having health consequences for humans.

I would recommend meats such as pastured poultry and grass-fed, grass-finished beef (in addition to fish) to reduce the Omega-6 fatty acids compared to the typical American diet.

Actually, the general welfare clause is very much abused relative to the original intent of the authors of the U.S. Constitution (try reading the Federalist Papers some time). Programs like Medicare and Social Security are the responsibility of the individual states.

It is exactly because the Founding Fathers could not see the future that the U.S. Constitution has an amendment process. It is difficult to argue that the commerce and general welfare clauses (relative to the founders' original intent; read the Federalist Papers) have been utterly abused to expand the Federal government at the expense of the states and the people.

We have the Supreme Court to thank for this state of affairs, with the real damage starting during the New Deal era, when they could not stand up to Roosevelt's threats to expand and stack the Court. (On a somewhat related note regarding expansion of the Federal government, modern economists seem to be equally split on whether the New Deal turned a bad recession into the Great Depression or not.)

So, if health care is supposed to be "right", then why not add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution making it so. Ditto Social Security. Otherwise, give this responsibility back to the states where it (currently, without changing the Constitution) belongs.

My biggest complaint with the Federal government is that much of it is simply unconstitutional. Also, a Federal bureaucracy seems to add a lot of wasteful "friction" to the tax dollars collected. Wouldn't they be better (more efficiently) spent if collected at the state level and spent in that state?