riddle-me-this
The Riddler
riddle-me-this

Something like this is FAR more plausible than batteries suddenly, magically being able to jump from holding 0.74 megajules per kilogram to holding the 5+ megajules they need to be truly competitive with gasoline. Good for them.

A 10K solar system that includes all the panels, brackets, batteries, inverters, converters, and labor? This hypothetical 10K system does not exist on planet Earth where human beings have to deal with real-world costs.

Easy to say. Not realistic to do. The maximum theoretically possible level of efficiency for solar to electric conversion is between 75 and 80 percent. Current silica based panels are only 18%. The most exotic and expensive materials on the planet in the best labs mankind can boast have achieved a whopping 25%

This. Modern mass-market solar panels are already operating at only about 18% efficiency. Transparent ones can only be LESS efficient. Even being generous, we have to assume they will only be maybe 12% efficient or something. Opaque cells are not worth it yet. How could these possibly be economical? And of course

When it comes to 'subduing' people let's be honest. You mean that you have to dogpile the target, force them to the ground, and then slap on a pair of handcuffs. OR you beat them over the head with a night-stick until they collapse. OR you pull a gun on them and order them to surrender. OR you spray them in the

I may be mistaken - but at 1:14 is that guy with the pet Kiwi TOM BOMBADIL?

"Pink slime" is a misleading name as well. So are hyperbolic blogs that scream about things being 'soaked in ammonia' and other complete untruths.

1. It isn't soaked. 2. It isn't ammonia. 3. It is approved by the FDA as GRAS (generally recognized as safe). 4. Because Upton Sinclair wrote "The Jungle" and now food has to be processed in a way that is safe, clean, and healthy. This article is a typical drive-by media piece of garbage. Mr. Biddle should be

I see nothing wrong with any of these phones. Don't like brown? Fine - buy the black, red, or grey one. This article is about as unprofessional as could be. People have all kinds of styles, tastes, likes, and dislikes. Just because one guy doesn't like the color brown does not mean that it isn't a color that a

Why no mention of the huge albatross they hung around their necks by focusing so much on the over-priced piece of junk called the Volt? They put a lot of eggs in that basket - and it is Typhoid Mary to buyers. Couple that with handing over effective control to the union, and how could they possibly show a profit?

As a professional statistician and CRA, this article contains nothing about their models. There is no information that can be used to determine if they are 'scientific' or absolute junk. All we have to go on is their own statement that the models are biased, the data is incomplete, and that the conclusions are

Read the article, and you'll see that the use of 'statistics' is this particular study is the equivalent of a juicy fart. They themselves admit, "the models we use are subject to bias", and "data records are too short to quantify absolute probabilities empirically" and "we cannot say that the 2011 Texas drought and

Repair what damage, specifically? What evidence is there that there is any need - immediate or long term - to relocate "millions of people"? What farmland has become unusable? What proof is there that reducing CO2 emissions - even to zero - would either prevent or substantively alter such events as you are

Please define "too late". I hear this kind of apocalyptic language in the climate debate, and I am not yet satisfied in regards to what it means. Planet earth has survived periods of time where it had far higher temperatures, and far greater amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Too late for what? I'm all for

I know for a lot of people, the environmental 'cause' is more a matter of faith than anything else, and that what science is hung on it does not need to be particularly ethical or compelling to be used as support. But this kind of research is just sloppy. For science to be "science", the research must be random,

Nothing new here. Being underweight (in the true sense) has always been far more dangerous and threatening to the human system than being overweight. It means you are generally malnourished, have lowered immune function, lower muscle mass, disrupted hormone regulation, inhibited nutrient absorbtion, and a host of

Sigh. "Significant energy" to make potable water? The normal, common, everyday, UNSTOPPABLE natural process makes billions of gallons of potable water every day. Evaporation & condensation = potable water. I'm all for smart use of resources, but to imply that the manufacturing process is somehow a "waste" of

Exactly. Get over it, furturist. The entire so-called "controversy" was over Embryonic stem cells, which are absolutely useless. All of the valid, important, and USEFUL research being done with stem cells are with ADULT stem cells... Not embryonic. But a bunch of morons in the debate screamed and whined and

Should say, "Fugly glasses look like they are made out of coat hangers and old office supplies." Seriously these things are about the ugliest pieces of crap I've ever seen anyone propose that you put on your face - and I lived through the 1970s and 1980s when eyewear looked like the optometrist was trying to make you

I think this "article" (snort) is the very definition of an ad-absurdum argument. It ignores all the positives of modern meat processing, and exaggerates every negative to such a ridiculous degree that it belongs on the same level of propoganda-based pontification as Global Warming and any political ad you've ever