Are you referring to the president who humiliated himself and the US at Helsinki? The president who had a negotiation regarding the Ukraine war without including Ukraine? The president who admires Putin? That president?

Norway isn't only reducing domestic use, they're also exporting renewable technologies:

I'm guessing you're not a big fan of data caps from your ISP/cell provider ;)

So Obamacare is bad because we should just trust the free market, but if/when going off grid becomes a financially savvy thing to do, then we should no longer trust the free market and should be forced to buy energy from our designated provider?

Yeah, yeah, "but solar isn't free market because subsidies" -- well sorry, but everything is subsidized. Fossil fuels are subsidized. Bad health habits are (arguably) subsidized.

Linked in TFA, and then there's a trivial web search:

Or a little more googling and you'll find plenty of peer-reviewed articles saying they have a small beneficial effect (*for certain diseases/ailments*), with some studies recommending caution for various groups.

No, they don't appear to be as medically useful as their "anti" counterparts, and they don't appear to cure cancer (though they can be good -- and bad! -- for cancer patients), but they are hardly in the same category as a beauty product.

And

Seriously? a) That's why we have a peer review process in the first place, and b) do you honestly think we don't care one way or the other which way a study turns out? Obviously, it's our job to report the facts, but do you really think a scientist starts an experiment without, at some level, hoping for a remarkable result? There's no problem with personal bias, so long as it's just that -- *personal*, not professional.

Tangentially related, Windows 3.1 was supported until *after* the 9/11 attacks.

For some reason that sort of freaks me out (semi-relevant XKCD).

I'm a vegetarian, but *certainly not* because meat tastes bad. There are many people who share a similar view.

Since this is /., an analogy might be an open source enthusiast who uses OpenOffice/Abiword/GNOME Office/KDE's Words/etc. -- why not just use Microsoft Word, given that (to some extent) the open source solutions are just clones? If the only reason you don't use Word is because you don't like Word, then...well, yeah, you should probably stick to vim or emacs. But if the reason you don't use Word is something else (doesn't run on your platform, has some [perceived moral or financial] cost associated with it, etc.), then a clone is a pretty good choice.

Well for an entire class of cars you generally are required to remove one hand from time to time...

I've found it pretty useful to download wikipedia dumps when I'm on vacation without internet access. Last time I downloaded the text-only, it weighed in at about 14GB I think, but including images it gets north of 60GB. A 64GB phone ain't gonna fit that, and a 64GB microSD card is probably way cheaper than the cost to upgrade to 128GB.

I recently installed this for getting files off of my phone. I ssh'd into my phone and rsync'd back to my computer, worked like a charm. Nexus 6P, not rooted.

Exactly -- and then the car came along.

We have a similar situation now: it's looking like the whole world will be six feet deep in proverbial horse shit (AGW/climate change/whatever phrase you like) if we don't adopt the proverbial car (new power generation techniques).

Extrapolations 80 years into the future often look ridiculous because of some fundamental shift (in technology, policy, etc.). Visions of the future before the transistor (or active matrix/LCD-based screens, or CCDs, or...) was invented are often pretty laughable, but that's because these devices had a *huge* role to play in shaping technology. These sorts of climate predictions will more than likely look laughably silly in hindsight, but I suspect that's because we'll violate the assumptions of the extrapolations -- we'll be doing something differently by then (and of course, these models are probably very sensitive to initial conditions).

a) Citation? From the linked article

b) 99.9% is, AFAIK, the loss you would get with ~100 km of fiber, not the 100s/1000s/etc. of km for satellite (99.9% loss = 1/1000 = -30dB = 100km*-0.3dB/km). They seem to lose quite a bit (north of 60dB) but this seems mostly due to apertureing.

Seems that, once you have the infrastructure and clients, you might as well try to compete with the big ISPs. Of course this would have huge net neutrality implications (clearly Dropbox would like to prioritize their service over everyone else).

...I think most people here on /. agree that fast internet access *is* vital infrastructure. We may disagree on how best to pay for this, of course, but it's essential.