I'm trying to think of why extending Facebook privacy to audio and visual feeds, right in my living room, wouldn't sell well and I am just stumped.

I don't see any citation for the $50 billion figure - which seems to be implied to be PER state. The proposed bill spends $200 billion total for all infrastructure, spread out over 10 years - so, $20 Billion a year for all 50 states - or $400 million a year per state. The articles seems to imply %80 of $50 Billion per state.

"Where were you when Obama was running up the debt the tune of a trillion a year, hotshot"

Do you have a citation for this?

Yeah, if you want to be all hard-assed, scorched-earth libertarian about it. But, if you want to be human, you would look at health care as something we all need and something that is cruel to withhold from people. That doesn't mean abandon capitalism. But, it does mean, in my opinion, that the government has the purview to set up a system that ensures universal access to reasonable-priced and available medical care. We don't have to be savages.

I feel for the business owners, but maybe these businesses are not viable if they can't pay people a living wage.

That article says he has a beef against her, but doesn't say anything about Clinton interfering with a Russian election.

However, this article discusses Clinton, as secretary of state, protesting AFTER Their elections that the elections weren't fair. Which, is a legitimate criticism of human rights:
http://www.politico.com/story/...

I would say that most liberals know damn well that America influences elections and has basically installed leaders in many countries - from Chile to Iran. We don't like that.

But we also don't want a country with a worse human rights record than ours trying to get a demagogue elected who they know they can treat like a puppet - because the guy obviously has a slavic fetish and is weak-minded. But conservatives are eatin' in up. If that right there doesn't sum up both the amazing delusion of conservatives and the cognitive dissonance they constantly live in, I don't know what does.

they are skating to where the puck IS?

Personally, I put my money in an elaborate system of pneumatic tubes. Bring on the tube technology!

It is an obvious evolution, I believe. Once mobile processors are as powerful as most desktop processors ( and how far off can that really be? ) it won't make sense to have a computer and a phone. The phone will be your computer. It will automatically pair up with your large screen monitor and keyboard when you are at home - and you can move the experience from screen to screen throughout your home or business. In the not too distant future, we will have flexible screens, so I can unfurl a 20" screen anywhere I need it. Also, Apple has been making more moves towards appliance computing than just adopting things like Launchpad. Starting with Lion, they are changing the way users think about documents - where they live, how they are saved. Apple's long term view is definitely about making computing easier and challenging existing paradigms. The danger is making something that doesn't appeal to power users. I for one think Apple can pull it off though.

Of course, you have to add in the billion and billions in decommissioning fees and nuclear waste storage and uranium mining and transportation and security and....

No no no. This isn't about spending levels, this is about the Affordable Care Act. Besides, we are already at sequester levels. This is already a compromise. But, again, they aren't debating spending levels, they are specifically talking about defunding or delaying Obamacare. Let's not be disingenuous.

I find ten inches perfect for one handed use in bed

That's what she said.

The increase in crop yields has to do with the introduction of petrochemical fertilizers. You can't lump "crop yields" in with "plant growth".

How about Nanotechnology and personal manufacturing with 3d printing?

You should probably read the article. Krugman is not saying these things, Gordon is. Krugman disagrees with him.

What Gordon then does is suggest that IR #3 has already mostly run its course, that all our mobile devices and all that are new and fun but not that fundamental. Itâ(TM)s good to have someone questioning the tech euphoria; but Iâ(TM)ve been looking into technology issues a lot lately, and Iâ(TM)m pretty sure heâ(TM)s wrong, that the IT revolution has only begun to have its impact.

Perhaps someone who has more knowledge can elucidate me, but when they say "diluted by the Pacific ocean", I think the implication is that it is like dumping a million gallons of Kool-Aid in the ocean - it would disperse so much that the things that identify it as Kool-Aid - color and sweetness - would essentially disappear into the soup.

However, as I understand it, we are talking about irradiated particles. The radiation does not "dilute", right? It is like adding 2-3 deadly ping pong balls to a sports arena full of ping pong balls. The chances of encountering one are slim, but, if you do, you could die or be seriously hurt. ( I am talking about ingestion ).

And, it's not like the risk of ingestion is a function of the volume of the ocean necessarily, as there are specific vectors of distribution - mainly things like seaweed, krill, tuna, etc. that are small compared to the mass of the ocean, but significant in likeliness of human contact due to the over fishing and reliance on the ocean for food.

So, am I looking at a greater risk of ingesting a particle of cesium when I eat my canned tuna and having it give me cancer - or are we really saying that the properties of radiation are somehow lessened by contact with so much sea water?