Renewable energy and "sustainable transportation" were largely tried in the 19th century and abandoned because they were too limiting.

Wind power is considerably older than that. It's actually considered to be the first form of non muscle based power used by himans.
Also "renewable" and "sustainable" have reached the point of being politcial "weasel words" more often that sensible descriptions.

OK, one more time. Can you state your position clearly? Because the best I can read is something like this:

Congress wanted to stimulate green technology growth so it approved a bunch of loans and had the DOE administer them. The DOE did so, losing money on some ventures (but far less than Congress allocated for expected losses on a program that wasn't supposed to be profitable) and ending up with something like 3% of their portfolio in failed ventures. Therefore, we should defund the science work that the DOE does.

There's a jump in there somewhere that I'm not fully following. I mean, I missed the part where the American way of life was destroyed, industries collapsed, and cats and dogs began to live together. But even if that was the case, why are we gutting the science funding again?

No, I'm saying you used a scientific organization as a puppet for a political program that hurt a lot of people and is in the process of destroying industries, communities, and ways of life.

How, specifically? Fundamentally, is the DOE doing bad research? Are the results wrong? Or is good research simply being used to support political ends that you disagree with?

If I ask an expert if X is true and then use his answer to support my position, does that make him a "puppet" that my enemies should attack?

Sounds like my case. Increasing couldn't get wear contacts any more without problems, hated all of the problems of glasses, was scared of the surgery... and it was just nothing. Seriously, how can instantly improved vision not be at the top of your to-do list?

The DoE should be focused on shit that works.

The thing about shit that works is that you don't really have to do any science or engineering to it. Because it already works.

Scientists and engineers focus on the shit that doesn't yet work for a reason.

I'm not clear on the claim here. It seems to be, "You guys are using facts to support a position the other guys disagree with, so don't be surprised when they start directly attacking facts and the gathering of facts." I agree that this is typically what happens. I'm not so sure that it's fair to say that both sides are doing equally bad things when it happens, though.

Citation needed. I am aware that some Chromebooks come without data, but I actually read the article and I don't see anywhere where they differentiate between Chromebooks with mobile data (and wifi) and Chromebooks without data (but only wifi).

My first Chromebook came with 2 years of free 3G Verizon service at 100MB per month (if you want to buy more than the free level of service, you can prepay for more, but there is no danger of getting charged when you go over that amount, once above that quota and if you're away from a wifi hotspot, the internet just stops, not only that but the indicator for how much data is left is very good, you can always tell how much you have left). Granted, 100 MB per month is a tiny amount of data, but I have it turned off by default, and I only use it for emergency email/lookups.

On my second Chromebook, it came with 3 years of free 4G/LTE data on Verizon. Again, that amount is 100 MB per month, which again is really tiny, but it's great to have in case of emergency.

The best thing with Chromebooks is that they're cheap, they're easy to replace if damaged, and they have a lousy game selection. Personally, I hope that it stays that way. I actually don't like the recent development of placing touch interfaces on some of the Chromebooks. It increases the battery consumption and increases the likelihood that kids will play more with it.

Hand me the circle you say "exists". :-)

You explore that shit.

I dig girls.

Define a circle.

Do circles exist in reality, or only in mathematical models?

What do engineering artifacts, as approximations of circles, bear in relation to "real" circles?

Are infinities actual, or are they mathematical descriptions for mental extrapolations based in observed phenomena?

Do mathematical models display consistency with real, observable phenomena or with any mental extrapolation? Which one is more "real"? Why?

Mathematics can only describe the set of perceptions, IMHO. When they describe unperceived "realities" they enter the realm of fictions or metaphysics.

Double kudos for writing it on touch screen devices. I do some Play-by-email roleplaying and at times I do posts on my Nexus 7, and man oh man it's difficult. I wouldn't even dream of doing long prose writing on a tablet.

Bravo. Seeing things differently. Challenge your cognitive assumptions, and investigate as potentially useful, those things you might find obnoxious or untenable.

Interstellar Analingus

You must be a visitor from Colonslash. That's another site, with a different posting culture. This is Slashdot, where anything is deemed "funny" by making comments that are equal parts clever and obtuse, in reference to a parent posting.

There are plusses awarded in "funny" for meta-references to the topic of posting, and the specific modes of posting, when used in the cited context.

You will have to forgive me, I began as a USENET chatbot, skipped IRC and was ported directly to slashcode.

So that your laterals may become infinitely dense...