I'm happy to let readers decide on their own who is being whiny here. I agree Germany will be convincing, but they haven't deployed their farms yet. It's a future deployment. Obviously a future deployment is no good for the purposes of establishing a present-day track record. There is no goalpost being moved here. I said all along that wind lacks a track record. If you come back and five years and tell me that Germany has done it, then I will agree you have a valid point. But right now, you don't have a valid point.

Under no reasonable goalpost is even 100% of a small country's power a large quantity. You don't get to pick the country. I mean, there are very small countries. This is simple logic.

What fear mongering? Did you read? I said point-blank that I am willing to give wind a test. I am not willing to claim that wind has passed its test. It's not there yet. You can't point to tiny countries and claim victory. There are some countries and regions that simply have no wind.

Do you have an actual technical comment or an actual source? Or are you just arguing for the hell of it?

1. The paper is behind a paywall, do you care to provide a usable source?

2. Renewable energy does not equal wind energy. It also includes solar and hydro energy. I do not believe wind alone can answer our power needs.

18% of the world is more than 43% of Denmark.

That's negligible. Nuclear power supplies one sixth of the WORLD'S electricity supply. It's over an order of magnitude difference.

Citing a study funded by a biased source is not very convincing. When Microsoft or a political party does it, they get chewed out by the crowd here, and rightfully so.

That said, I'm fully willing to believe that wind power is cheaper than nuclear on a per-megawatt basis. What I don't believe is that wind power can reliably provide baseload power. All the studies in the world don't change one simple and indisputable fact: present-day production of wind power is miniscule compared to present-day electricity usage. Wind power has not yet proved that it can supply large quantities of power. Nobody except the most blind zealot would deny this plain fact.

Nuclear power supplies one sixth of present-day electricity usage worldwide. This is a very large amount of power compared to any other carbon-free technology. Nuclear power is not directly subject to vagaries of the weather. Even including Fukishima and Chernobyl, nuclear power is by far the safest energy source (wind power comes in a very respectable second). Available supplies of nuclear fuel will outlast the lifetime of the sun. Nuclear power is proven and it works. Wind may work, and I'm happy to give it the benefit of the doubt, but it is without question an unproven technology at large scale.

I answered my own question "as far as I know." I am asking specifically whether or not my knowledge is incomplete. That's what the question "Is there a death I haven't heard of?" means.

Is there a death I haven't heard of? As far as I know, only one person has died of Ebola on US soil (Duncan), and he wasn't American by nationality; he's Liberian. Only one American (Sawyer) has ever died of Ebola, but not on US soil; he died in Nigeria.

Developer mode is often a pain to invoke. Oftentimes there's no way to boot developer mode by default -- you have to press a key combination to override the default, and you have to do it every single time you boot into developer mode. On the Chromebook Pixel it imposes a 30-second delay on you every time you boot into developer mode without pressing the key combination.

A quantum computer can brute force a password quadratically faster than a classical computer. This speedup is much slower than the exponential speedup that a quantum computer enjoys against RSA. Long passphrases are still very secure against quantum attacks.

You heard wrong. There's enough nuclear material on Earth to outlast the 5-billion-year lifetime of the sun. Seriously. http://www-formal.stanford.edu...

To clarify, the goal is to be rich enough that I won't need to borrow money. I'm not implying that I insist on some sort of draconian no-debt stance. If I fail in my goal then sure, I'll borrow what's sensible. But I'm not starting out with debt as a goal. I can't see how car loans make sense under any circumstances. The basic purpose of a car is to get me from point A to point B safely and reliably. Such a car, used, costs well under $5000 in almost all localities. This is not a useful or interesting enough amount of money to be worth taking on debt.

That's kind of my entire point. The market rate is the correct rate for economic optimality. A rate below market rate attracts far too many borrowers who would normally not merit a loan.