It is called *espionage*.

Many countries frown upon spying on government officials, even to the extent of imposing life imprisonment or execution.

Given corporations' statuses as people, it would seem logical to try them based on the laws of the country in which they operate.

I'm not a proponent of the death penalty, so would instead ask that News Corp, if/when found guilty, simply be locked up for life, just as any other "person" would be.

I defy anyone to challenge that logical conclusion.

EnviroMission has apparently been at this a while, including a similar project in Australia that was going to be online by 2005, er, 2008, but which may be so much hot air...

Technically interesting and probably feasible, but a non-trivial project to take on.

Is there a form of viable power production that doesn't require a mechanical generator of some sort?

Yes. It's called photovoltaic. No moving parts, plus it can be installed close to end users in appropriate amounts for affordable costs and last 30+ years in production environments with negligible transmission losses, while producing power that coincides remarkably well with the demand cycle, and can provide individual energy self-sufficiency. This tower sounds cool as well. It's nice to have passive processes that continue to produce power for decades with few nasty externalities.

Instant Quantum Communication Is Near...

...and far

...and everywhere in between.

And that, son, is all you need to know about quantum communication.

Yes, eventually, we will have a president who understands that we need as much oil as we can get, at any price we have to pay. Heck, if fracking for natural gas has been so good for our aquifers, why not jump in with both feet and grab that oil? No thank you. I prefer my water unflavored and non-flammable.

The point somehow is sadly missed that extraction of every last drop of oil may not be a goal for which we should be striving. Yes, we need a transition plan, and fossil fuels will be a part of that plan. In these decisions we make today, will we consider only our immediate easiest path, or what we're leaving for the next generations, e.g., polluted aquifers, dead rivers and seas, and disrupted climates around the world? Burning all the fossil fuels we can find for our immediate needs, and leaving future generations screwed is completely immoral.

Buckminster Fuller likened our foundational use of oil instead of renewable energy as equivalent letting our abundant (solar) paychecks fall on the ground while we live high on our savings. We should instead be using that savings to switch foundations and begin living on our abundant daily paychecks.

My prediction is that we will not figure it out in time because we'll be unwilling to get out of our comfort zones. We will instead follow a classic overshoot and collapse systems pattern that is enabled by delayed feedback loops, and reinforced by masking the true cost of using fossil fuels. We needed to get serious about renewables decades ago. When dropping supply curves and rising demand curves cross, prices won't be changing incrementally, a few cents at a time. It will mean sudden, dramatic, and far greater oil price increases than most people would every dare to imagine. The economic carnage of delaying will make the cost of doing it now seem like the missed opportunity of the millennium.

I'm sorry, but I find this statement completely absurd. The bill of rights is precisely about rights for the people.

Corporations do not breathe. They do not require clean water and clean air to survive. They cannot be put in prison. Are corporations people? No. Their "personhood" is based on figurative legal fictions.

To say that the 1st amendment doesn't grant people specific rights seems disingenuous to me.

PEOPLE have First Amendment rights. Corporations are not people. Corporations do not and should not have the rights of people, just a license to do business as a legal entity, an arrangement granted BY the grace of the people, presumably for the collective good. We err when we speak loosely of "rights" of artificial entities.

When corporations can go to jail, be put to death, die a natural death of old age after a reasonable and productive life, when they can die from pollution in their environment, when corporations cannot shield owners' wealth from malfeasance,THEN tell me about their "constitutional rights." Corporate personhood? THAT is why we have 1 dollar-1 vote politics in our country and politicians who cannot effectively govern. THAT is why we have more corporate welfare than humanity paid for from our tax dollars.

Yeah, externalities, essentially, dumping your dog's crap in your neighbor's yard hoping they won't notice.

Cradle-to-cradle describes the process of designing for full lifecyle. McDonough distinguishes "re-cycling" from "down-cycling" the process we generally use today that recycles plastics such at PET into playground equipment and fleece.

Designing for re-use, disassembly, and re-use gives companies such as Interface a competitive advantage while reducing externalities.

Free markets can be good at this, but externalities must be internalize, or it is simply not a free market. This is a valid role for governments, working to ensure a level playing field that doesn't give anyone an unfair right to abuse the commons. Once that level playing field is established, eliminating perverse subsidies, smart companies *will* go to more cradle-to-cradle designs because it makes great sense on so many levels.