Tilt them near-vertical for the winter, to the point that snow doesn't stay on them. Lost generation from the non-optimal angle should be less than that from snow buildup. Antarctic bases use solar extensively for PV and water heating so it's clearly usable in the winter.

There's a difference? I don't think a subset of Americans (as in "Estadounidense") is enough to offset the average, no matter how special they think they are.

"Got it right?" Both created some temporary, unsustainable benefit but left disastrous consequences that we're still experiencing today. They're the people who cooked the goose that laid the golden eggs, and you're saying "Mmm mmm that goose sure was tasty! Cooking it was the right thing to do!"

No, Thatcher and Reagan got it the most wrong of all. Not as wrong as Mao, but incredibly wrong by Western standards.

Put them on building rooves. If dirt builds up on the anti-stick coatings they all come with that work so well that they're practically maintenance-free, spray them with a garden hose a couple times a year. Snow naturally falls off of tilted surfaces once it builds up to a certain level. Bam, problems solved.

LOLWUT?

No, I've researched this. Coal is used heavily in the US midwest and some areas in China. Everywhere else, it makes up a small to nonexistent fraction of the electrical supply. And outside of those very coal-heavy areas in the US and China, driving an electric car is far cleaner.

Riding a technologically backwards bicycle *and* not going anywhere? Oh that's even more ironic! They'll love it!

The kind of disaster that happens when you change the weather patterns over a highly populated planet with established, fixed human settlements that don't handle change well. Wars and unrest over land and resources.

If we were nomadic and there were far less of us you might have a point, but did you consider that there could be some other differences between a planet inhabited by dinosaurs that were mostly dumber than our housepets and never learned to use a single tool, and one inhabited by modern forest-clearing humans?

As a south american, I've always been confused about the US policy against us. I really don't understand why the US has, since the end of WWII, crushed Latin America again and again and again, and they keep doing is to this day.

The US had at least two good options with LATAM:

1. Let LATAM develop, have healthy capitalist economies, get us to be in the NATO Thug Club, and sell us their flashy iPhones and cars.
2. Let LATAM develop, under their rules, and make us become their own China, much nearer and in the same timezones.

As it is now, Latin America is basically useless to US interests. We don't have a developed industry. Pretty much the only thing US buys is oil from Venezuela and copper and lithium from Chile. Other than that, latin america is still poor. We have slow internet (so netflix can't grow), we have really high prices vs. salary (so the flashy iphones are reserved to a tiny fraction of the population), and other things are considered "luxuries" (like an XBOX360 which is 4-5X the US price, since: if only the rich can afford it, they might as well charge what the rich can pay).

US has been in bed with China for too long. China is now heavily investing in LATAM. I think the US really needs to take a strategical leap, unify LATAM, and make the "American Bloc" to compete against the Eurozone and Russia/Asia. But this is not going to happen. If it hasn't happened in 60 years, it's not going to happen now. Which is a shame. The potential of Latin America is simply unbelievable:

• Almost 1 billion people
• Infrastructure already in place (Argentina alone had over 30.000km of railways)
• Natural resources to spare thanks to the unexploited Andes and the VAST reserves of all sorts of minerals
• Endless coastlines to place strategic ports
• Political stability(*) and a peaceful, tame population
• US Military presence already in place, and underdeveloped local armies

(*): The political instabilities in Latin America have been caused by CIA and friends over 40 years. LATAM naturally steers left because the (many) poor that feel "left out" of the system. Piñera in Chile was right-wing and his party lost to the same left-wing candidate (Bachelet) who was the president before him, because the breach between the "rich" and "poor" is rather high there. Middle class people can barely afford to go to college.

The best course of action would be for the US to let us "naturally develop". It will be a slow process, taking at least 50 years for LATAM to reach higher status (and leave behind the "south american shithole country" stigma), enough time for the US to figure out a new course of action. Development will allow US companies to move production here, and decrease chinese dependency.

But the "paradigm shift" needs to be real. The US only wants Latin America to sign free trade agreements with countries that WILL NOT benefit from them. For example: US wanted a FTA with Argentina. Our main export was, at the time, beef (exports of interests to US, not counting,for example,soybean). The problem is that while the FTA was "free", later "regulations" weren't. Argentina can't export beef to the US (because the US wants to protect its own market). Our industry doesn't produce anything that the US wants so that's another problem. But, the US had a *LOT* to sell to us. If we signed the FTA, it means 0 tariffs for US products, and eventually, destroying our own local economy.
Chile is more flexible in this regard. Chile does not have factories or farms. Their economy is solely based in raw mining exports, no value add. The US now gave them the Visa Waiver program. So the US buys copper from them, and chileans fly to the US for vacations and "return" the USD. Chile benefits in no way, but they are OK with that since their president is a right-wing billionarie.

As it is now, the US unstoppable monetary emission will eventually cause a crash and take 3/4 of the world's economy with it, leading us to a "New World Order" with China on command, and the final victory of "Communism".

Right, it's the sort of schmaltzy emotion-based argument I expect from some politician or tabloid rag. Timothy, I am disappoint.

Yes

A lot of 1%ers have begun to notice this in the past few years - even Eric Schmidt now, although he still has his head far up his ass about any possible solutions.

Professor Bob Nagele (from the med school I'm attending now) has had a blood-based Alzheimer's test since 2011: http://www.plosone.org/article...

Good answer. "Settled" isn't a good word because it implies the end of a process that results in the end of all motion or change. "Well-established" or "well-proven" are more accurate terms but sound like severe understatements in some cases...

It's nothing compared to the comic strip in TFA 8-(

Came here to post this (although I don't see anything wrong with a new game of the same style).

The visuals in this video remind me of the visualizations in the GiTS series.

Anyone who likes this might also like Retrovirus, a Descent-like game in a Tron-like world...it has LAN co-op and is sold DRM-free BTW.