It is only someone's job, if the public hires someone to do it. That means "government" and "taxes." If you have an allergy to those words, then no, no one is going to save your ass.

This is why some rather simple fixes to the mortgage system, which could have been done as part of fixing the financial crisis, would allow people to borrow money for reducing energy retrofit. Instead Obama was busy being a Republicans and the Republicans were busy being crazy. Then we get to the libertarians, who were, and statistically speaking are, still in denial about climate change. It isn't that price signals could not be used to fix the problem, it is that the people who were, and are, profiting from the problem on a death bet risk adjusted basis, did not want the price signals in place.

Now market dynamics being what they are, some one will pay for this behavior, namely the people who were not alive (why "perfect intergenerational altruism" is an assumption of infinite horizon models, and the "future discount" is an explicit part of growth theory) to do anything about it. See Externalization of costs. Consider Katrina and Sandy as small down payments on the disutility. There is another group of people suffering, namely people who work, because by delaying conversion of the economy and protecting a capital base whose marginal utility is less than zero, it artificially depresses demand for labor.

That's why nerds are working on web pages rather than a smart grid.

Legacy retrofit is done all the time in NYC, since pre-war walk ups are highly desirable.

We are working on harnessing the stupid on the internet, which would be an inexhaustible supply of cheap energy.

Because the people who are paying the operating costs aren't the ones building the buildings. Banks wouldn't have to slash their mortgage profits, instead interest rates for non-green buildings would be higher, thus shifting the burden back on to the people who made. This is Pigou "taxing bads."

That argument isn't actually very sound. Darwin did not know of DNA, and his genetic theory is actually fairly week. Theories in science are disproven all the time, and it doesn't destroy the rest of science. General Relativity, Chemistry, QCD all work just fine without Darwin. Yes it is oft repeated, but that does not make it a sound scientific argument. After all, theists regularly make the same argument: anything you can't explain is proof of God's or the gods' miraculous nature, as it is all interconnected. It is, but not in this way. A better argument is to challenge the methods of ID in the rest of the physical world, the result is a mess: unlikely events occur all the time, above its supposed "specified complexity" limit, it would have to be a very busy God.

Term limits serving their purpose. It is what people wanted, to install a urinal in the voting booth, and this is the result, and endless churn of legislators there to God's work, rather than the people's business.

Because there are intelligent design processes at work: breeding and GMO, we are the intelligent designers. However the ID apparatus has zero to do with this, nothing they have done could pick out a GMO, or artificially selected organism from the a population, or discover whether a previous extinction event was natural, or the result of human hunting, destroying habitat, or other human driven process.

And how would they get a green card if they can't work here?

Corporate profits as a share of the economy are at all time lows, and we need to constrain rapacious labor to improve the economy. Sadly, the numbers do not bear this out. Stop giving out indentured servitude, let people stay here on work visas which allow them to change employers, and charge the same price with the same rights as USC/GC. And by the way, the evidence indicates that people are leaving because the American economy is growing sluggishly, and many countries are more attractive to return to because the are democratizing. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18780 But why listen to data when making policy if it gets in the way of lowering wages, throwing people out of jobs, and creating a non-voting class of workers, who cannot protect their rights with political power, against Citizen United empowered super-people?

Anyone who thinks ground breaking has been done has simply not understood the problem: many current paradigms are loaded with cruft. One important aspect of round breaking is de-crufting how we formulate knowledge. Newton, for example.

More correctly "The chance it is not prime depends on two separate computer clusters running two different versions of the same algorithm both failed."

Also they have the property of having a corresponding perfect number. (sum of all its divisors except itself)

A free all expenses razzing in the slashdot comments. Don't thank us, we love our work.

You are confusing Fermat's conjecture, which is different (and wrong), with M-primes.

Insert Euclid coin joke.

Actually there is a variety of encryption that uses these numbers.