This is a spot on account of my experiences with Google Search in the last two years.

I think you are under the impression that it takes more than 1 bullet to kill something.

How can you possibly think a bow and arrows will supply you with more shots for the equivalent volume. Even if you never restocked, 15 pounds of ammo would last you a long, long time. You can probably carry a maximum of 50 arrows on you, and that sounds like a massive pain in the ass! Good luck crafting your own arrows and actually hitting something with them! Or getting close enough to hit something with your crappy arrows. I'll stick to 20th century technology.

Good luck hunting birds without bird shot.

A bow and arrows is what you turn to when your 500 rounds of ammo has finally run out 3 years later.

You strongly need a citation there. The crux of the argument about energy storage is cost. Many energy storage systems have long term replacement requirements. In the case of batteries, they will on average need replacing every 7 years. Batteries are expensive. The battery buffer system just doesn't make economic sense in the long run. Hydro-turbines could potentially be cheap to maintain for 20 or more years, so I think you should clarify the type of energy storage system you are talking about.

Electric vehicles have much more torque. You would see enhanced performance on mountains/hills with an electric vehicle.

The well casing is ruptured below the sea floor. If they cap it, oil will begin leaking below the surface. This will cause extensive erosion leading to the collapse of the blow out preventor. This erosion will continue and leakage rates will continue to increase until the whole oil field depressurizes. In other words: The very best anybody will ever do is to leave this pipe wide open. It will only get worse from here, and substantially faster if they do cap it. Our only hope is with other means to depressurize this (relief wells).

I don't see any thing wrong with waiting and learning from your competitor's mistakes. I double don't see anything wrong with that if it produces a better product.

The thing you don't understand that the chip is the failure point. The more chips you have, the more points of failure. Reduce the number of chips (and the hardware used to support them), and you can reduce possible failures considerably. In the case of getting rid of the GPU, it would probably bring close to a 20% reduction in the number of components. Are you really saying that a computer with 20% less components (and thus points of failure) is going to be less reliable than it's big brother of yesteryear?

If Baloo is representative of the OpenWRT community, I don't want to use that software. Good job fella.

Don't create new websites using Joomla.

What a modest proposal.

Yeah, good idea in this economy.

Do you suggest that everybody writes in raw xlib? I do not think the distinction you are trying to make is relevant. Abstraction of some kind will always be necessary. Nobody wants to write in raw xlib.

We should most likely consume our children too (at least once they're plump enough to make something substantial). Through their life, I can't imagine the environmental footprint that they'll leave behind.