Except you can't fill up with hydrogen at home. All this garbage about needing electric charging stations everywhere is moot when you account for everyone with an electric car charging it at night in their garage. We should only need public charging stations for road trips and forgetfulness/emergencies.

Hydrogen is far less convenient than electric and has gotten a slow start. Therefore my bet right now is heavily on electric, especially when you account for battery swap tech that already has been demonstrated. Moving away from battery ownership towards battery-as-a-service is probably the next logical innovation.

I don't see anything hydrogen offers other than appealing to existing consumer habits.

This is the elephant in the room. Not only is charging up at home more convenient than finding a fueling station, but I have zero confidence that compressed hydrogen fuel will be cost competitive with electricity.
Will it be worth thousands of dollars per year to reduce your fueling time by 25 minutes, given the average person will only need such a fueling station a handful of times per year?
Keep in mind, being able to fuel up at home in an electric car means you'll save significant time not driving out of your way to get to fueling stations.

Actually no. As a repeat backer (~20 projects), I'd really like to know when a project comes along that there is a high likelihood I would back. I've been posting a request for years now that Kickstarter put together an opt-in option that would email me when "backers similar to you are backing a new project". As long as such an email was reasonably accurate about when I'm likely to back, and didn't spam me incessantly with art projects, it would be great. It certainly would be heaps better than the weekly email that Kickstarter sends out right now, which is loaded with stuff that I have no interest in. At this point I just shunt it to trash folder without reading it.

I occasionally miss on good/interesting projects simply because they don't manage to reach me through social media or any other means. Kickstarter at this point has a pretty severe discoverability problem, and I feel anything that helps cut through that issue would be a positive development.

I'm sure it's economically impractical, but it strikes me that filling some of the worlds emptying water basins by towing large antarctic icebergs to a nearby port and then breaking them up for shipment is a win-win scenario.

Obvious downside: fossil fuel use to get water where it is most useful may exacerbate the problem over time.

You make the same assertion that Mill was correcting against in his statement. Probably you meant to do so, but I got a chuckle out of the idea that you might have missed his point entirely despite how clearly he elucidated it.

Whether any of this is true I have no idea, I would suppose it depends mostly upon whether the stance on issues by the UK conservative party or parties appeals to those who are less educated.

I am in the last year of an MDiv program and moving towards Ordained Ministry in the United Methodist Church. My undergrad was in Comptuer Science and I was a software engeenier and project manager for almost a decade. For me I just couldn't stand being locked in the office all day and started to explore what I found really interesting and rewarding. I was volunteering at my church at the time and decided that I was feeling called to make it my profession.

I would say find that thing that holds your interest, that you'd get great satisfaction out of, and find a way to make it your job. Careers should be about a lot more than money. They should stir something in you which has its own rewards. Yes, you'll not be able to buy as much. Though, ask yourself, do all the things you buy really make your life better or are they just a means to distract yourself from the job you dislike.

We did have to sell our home and move into a small apartment while at school and their won't be any new cars for a long while, but it was well worth it. I've been busier the last three years than I have ever been, yet at the same time happier and more excited about life.

"Awful science"? How so? Care to point out the flaws in the study?

Hmmmmmm?

How about the sample size of 43?

I'm not at all impressed with the ability of study that has a statistically insignificant sample size and which also assumes people can accurately label themselves liberal or conservative to impart wide reaching conclusions about people of different political beliefs such as the submitter of the slashdot article suggests.

The PDF, if you please:
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/Amodio%20et%20al.%20(2007)%20Nature%20Neuro.pdf/

To me, a test studying whether people tend to press W when M comes up 4 times as often simply tells us that some people tend to press W when it comes up 4 times more often and others do not.

Final Score:
Study - Shaky, but ok. Sample size too small, sample is not listed as random, sample depends on self classification.
Conclusions - Just plain shaky.

Ok, so hers the scenario Bill's talking about taken to extreme. I have a great idea for software product X. I then invest a year of my life and some of my friends time to code it. I then sell great idea X for $100. I sell one copy to on individual. That individual likes it so much he starts giving it away. Now 1 million people are using great idea X, but I've only made $100.

Bill argument is that this is wrong. The argument here seems to be the opposite, that this is ok. Someone please tell me how this is ok? And while your at it why I should ever waste my time on great idea Y and Z?