I immediately did the same calculation. It's not that much relative to the footprint of a house, but it's probably quite huge compared to the footprint for an equivalent capacity natural gas or nuclear plant.

Whether it makes sense depends on the potentil revenue generation value of the land -- the opportunity cost. It wouldn't make economic sense in the Santa Clara Valley in CA, where land is fabulously expensive, but it might make sense in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert where land is cheap -- e.g. on the outskirts of the Phoenix area. This discounts any environmental costs, of course, but these also would vary from site to site.

It's pretty clear this is not a technology for solving *all* our energy needs (as nuclear was intended to be in the 50's and 60's). But the nifty thing about electricity is that it doesn't matter where it comes from. You don't have to put all your eggs in one technology basket, you can use a mix of sources. Which means you can stop building these things when the marginal *environmental* cost starts to go up. You just have to build enough to reach economies of scale that allow you to make a decent profit.

I hope so

If you're looking for confusion in the blog post, this sentence seems to capture all of it:

The users don't have anything to bargain with except their eyes, and the W3C is made up from browser vendors, so if he understands why browser vendors want to incorporate DRM, that answers the whole question.

Maybe the therapists ARE abiding by the agreement, but SOMEBODY else is illegally breaching that confidentiality? Toss some lawyers at the problem, they always sort it out. Heh, I can see it now - a massive hack to purge HIPAA sensitive data, while keeping all the other stuff.

Next up, if only nutcases have privacy, then terrorists will all become nutcases... oh, wait.

First, nice snark. But, it's worth mentioning that tinfoil only blocks EMR and beta radiation. Nuclear fusion emits more than those; You'd be wrapping yourself up in tin foil only to find it has been used for its intended purpose.

It must be great to live close enough to rivers to get 89% of your electricity from hydro.

For the rest of the world, electricity generation is still a problem.

The breakthrough I'm hoping for is cheap free fusion energy, generated in my backyard, from trash, branded "Mr Fusion."

What is everyone else hoping for?

No Flash; Didn't Watch

What? Does this table have no cell or networking capability?

Well, it doesn't matter to me how you set up your own personal build.

However, if you publicly distribute a build, and it isn't easy to figure out how things are getting built, I will jab extra needles in your voodoo doll.

Actually, you can't. A standard tactic is to serve regular, unmodified ads, to IP address blocks known to have businesses that to this. For example, the google crawler -- many websites will show different pages if you simply sub the user agent string in as Google; Bypassing compulsory registration, not displaying navigation ... adding piles of SEO words to the bottom of the page, and the list goes on.

Microsoft can't be expected to protect against stuff like this; Every website that allows javascript to be injected from a 3rd party website is equally vulnerable. And that's most of them; Including Slashdot; It has script links to rpxnow.com and fsdn.com. Hundreds of websites link into Google's ajax and analytics pages. A great many websites simply break if you disable 3rd party javascript.

So blame Microsoft if you want, but really, the people you want work at ORACLE.

I honestly don't even understand why you want to see "Compiling File1.c"

I also have no idea why you find the output obnoxious. Do you sit there reading the output from you makefiles? Why don't you just minimize the terminal and go work on something else?

Stop putting together these multipart stories and then having a new thread to discuss it in. We hashed most of these points in the last thread. Now you're barfing it up onto the main page again... so we can have the same arguments a second time? Either wait until all the parts are there and post it as a whole, or join the threads together so we don't wind up rehashing things. It's wasteful and obnoxious.

I happen to disagree. About the only way they could be more biased is if they had a love van in the back lot and were handing out fliers on Marxism. But let's be objective about this; Do you consider them to be more, less, or about as biased, as the New York Times?

If you answered the same or more, I have some bad news for you.

You simply cannot see your own biases. It's what I said originally. They're called cognitive blind spots for a reason. And this is one of yours. I'm sorry, but they're biased. They're about as biased as Fox News. You just think Fox News seems more biased because your own bias puts you left of center, which makes Fox News seem comparatively farther away than the NYT or the Guardian.

You sir, are awarded the Internet for today. That was a concise and utterly brilliant response. Alas, all I have to offer you are my congratulations.