As many others have pointed out, photovoltaics (what Pablo means by "solar panels") is just one technology in the group of technologies that's generally referred to by the catch-all "solar panels".

But apart from that Pablo is generally correct about the size of the resources and land-use problems that super-sized photovoltaic arrays would pose...

...except that he discounts the fact that photovoltaics (PV) is a maturing technology. Even efficiency figures from as recent as 2005 are obsolete, as a very large amount of funding is going into reducing the materials cost, and increasing the efficiency of PV.

And he also discounts that any move from "on demand" energy generation (nuclear, gas, coal) to "stored" energy generation (wind, solar, etc.) would require massive changes in how we use energy (lighting, domestic recapture of mechanical energy, glazing technologies, etc. etc. etc.)

So, a good article as far as it goes, but it raises FAR more questions than it answers.

These ideas are simple, and better yet they are just simple enforcement of already existing rules or already known unwritten protocols.

Change: carry-on management. When getting your boarding pass, a simple "Please check and see if your carry-on can fit into that handy sizing device to your left. No? Then you'll have to check it. Thanks!"

Result: More overhead room for everyone -- except the "I'm rolling my entire wardrobe aboard and screw everyone else" wankers.

Change: no recline until after food service. You already have to adjust your seat upright so the person behind you can eat!

Result: No more wasted time signaling to the flight attendant to "remind" the person in front of you that you can't get to your food if they're all the way back = faster food service for everyone, and faster to get to the free booze!

Change: ordered planing/deplaning. People at the back, find a seat / line up in this area. People in the middle, find a seat / line up in this area. Etc....

Result: Faster, stress-free boarding for everyone. Planes have a better chance of taking off on time. Organizing the departure area seating to reflect the boarding plan is the secret key here.

Three simple changes that would improve the entire economy experience for everyone in the cabin (except those damn overhead-bin hogs...)

You, sir, are what's wrong with the internet.

You start your blizzard of letters here with an incoherent "criticism" of video games, when exactly the same tone and style can be used to mock anything that people enjoy. I'll provide an example of the style:

Sports? Just a simulation of war. Violent. Pointless. Elitist. I mean, if you win a hockey game, what have you _really_ achieved, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

In your final letter, you head down the pseudo-intellectual route. Here's another example of the style:

If you read d'Holbach's critique of childhood's "innocent state" and you'll see what I mean about video games, etc. etc. blah blah blah.

But, of course, you only travel that false road as a sort of fake redemption after spewing utterly baseless ad hom for a couple of letters, eg. (and this is an actual quote from you) "...your level of intellectualism is probably seriously deranged by your video-game obsession..."

I'll say it again, so you don't miss it:

You, sir, are what's wrong with the internet.

It's so strong, isn't it? We hear or read a story about someone in "danger". Someone, perhaps, whose poor decisions mean that she's "out of control" and the urge to step in, take decisive action, is very powerful.

LW is feeling it. So is Cary.

But in allowing the rescue instinct to drive his response (Rescue the boyfriend! Rescue the risk-taker!) Cary has missed, almost entirely, how this needs to go.

LW wrote her letter, in fact, asking how to deal with her rescue instinct. The answer is almost certainly not "run to the rescue of everyone involved".

The answer is to immediately reaffirm to yourself, LW, that you can never (ever, ever) rescue anyone. You know this. People must make the first move themselves. You've got one lifebelt, and you can't throw it to everyone who's waving at the shore just in case they are in trouble. You've gotta save it for the person who is yelling "Please help me I'm drowning -- and I can't swim to shore myself!"

Your friend seems a long way from making that first move.

So you must immediately distance yourself from your current enabling behavior (ie. the "rescue lite" you perform every time she drunk-dials).

You could do that many ways. The way that seems to me to offer the most is to take your friend aside and say the following (or words to the same effect):

"I have personal standards. Those standards involve a sense of personal responsibility, and a sense of fairness. You are not taking personal responsibility, and the way that you are keeping your boyfriend in the dark completely crosses my fairness line. I want to be friends with people who share my values. And right now, your behavior tells me that you don't. Now, you can either change that behavior, or unfortunately we can no longer be friends. 'Being there' for people doesn't include constantly 'fixing' their mistakes. It does, however, include helping someone who has decided to confront their issues, and I remain willing to help with that."

Yes, that's a confrontation. But it clearly identifies that the first move, correctly, is hers. I wish you the very best, and I commend your values -- and I share them.