http://rraj.rsj-web.org/en_atcl/2088
There's a link to the original patent on this page above, it indeed works via pneumatic pressure in small air chambers within the rubber appendage.

The inference being that I have a choice..? =) We don't in Aus.

But you're missing the point, X >= 1 feed in tariffs are being subsidised by other users on the grid. You upload your power regardless of demand peaks (so you could be sending power when it really isn't required). Electricity companies are not going to massively drop production of regular power as it takes a considerable amount of time to spool up/down baseload production, and they are still going to switch on high cost gas turbines during peak load just in case a big old cloud blocks out the sun for an hour or so and solar production falls in a heap...

And peak usage times are usually ~8-9am (schools and business start up, switch computers and air con on etc) before solar production really kicks in, and later in the afternoon when it get's hotter, people are getting ready for dinner. If you have significant daylight savings time shifts, then you can certainly get better production when peak demand in the early evening is occurring. If the panels are facing west rather than east or north (because that's where you maximise production and make the most money... =)

As for "the idea that it might take more energy to produce a panel than it will produce itself is ridiculous", I didn't say that it did, just that it's return on that energy invested is comparatively poor. You coal analogy is patently wrong though. Depending on which source you go to, coal is anywhere from 30:1 to 50:1 for EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). It's cheap to obtain, burn and dispose of the waste, despite being toxic/radioactive.

eg. http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

When you talk about solar PV and the energy required to make it, you're not just talking about the production line, you're talking mining the silicon, purifying, the wasted wafers which aren't up to snuff, the cost of the workers and the power that goes in to building, transporting etc, lifetime maintenance, loss of production over time and disposal. The above link puts PV at the low 1.5-3:1 which is well beneath the roughly 7:1 required to sustain our modern society (and does not cover the massive increases in energy demand and consumption from developing countries). And as the author of the article notes, these are unbuffered values. If you add buffering to load shift, the sums get even worse.

"Put simply, if solar PV is such a bad deal, how are they saving me so much money even without any rebates?"

I didn't say solar was a bad deal, I said it's a poor way to reduce carbon pollution. If the electricity company you are connected to is willing to pay high feed in tariffs to you and you save cash, that's great, but that doesn't automagically (intentional typo mean that solar PV is making any sort of serious inroads in to reducing carbon pollution.

If we're going to fix man made climate change, we need to be prepared to pay a far higher cost and worry less about our hip pockets. Nuke might not be economically viable without causing jumps in bills, but in terms of the energy output it provides over it's life time, it is one of the highest returns in energy for the energy invested in building it, paired with very low carbon emissions.

Obviously, the figures on EROEI depend on which article you read, as it's a very complex number to work out (and will always be an approximation), but it's fairly commonly acknowledged by people who do not have a vested interest in solar PV (vs low carbon power sources in general) that PV is a feel good technology that doesn't actually do a hell of a lot in terms of carbon reduction.

False dichotomy. There are without doubt exceptionally ethically dubious practices within the pharmaceutical industry (look up "patent evergreening" for a start).

However that doesn't mean their products don't work.

Oil companies are working hard to protect their profits by actively lying about climate change, but no-one claims that cars could run on a "natural alternative".

Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft are all spying on us to one degree or another, but we can still search the web, post stupid photos and ignore each other with our phones.

TL;DR big pharma are dicks, but at least they use science.

Patent Law has completely stifled innovation and development. We're being held back technologically, so a few can profit off us.

Like I said in my first post above my little brother is a professional magician who designs a lot of these tricks and devices for TV shows. All I can say is you'd be amazed the lengths a magician will go to just to make a simple looking trick work. I think you'd be fascinated by it all.

The Magic Circle is a good organisation to join if you have an interest in magic. You need to be able to perform magic and be interested in learning how to do more, but that's all part of the fun.

An interesting aside about magical devices, they are never patented, as patent applications have to be made public. This means the devices themselves tend to be pretty expensive as the inventor may have only a short period of time in which to sell his idea before others start joining in. Simple magical effects (just the method for a trick printed on a piece of paper) can sometimes sell for hundreds of pounds. Everything about the magical world is strange and different. If you've got a keen mind and the technical know-how there may be gold in them thar hills for you

Maybe it never happened but I'm going to pretend that a patent examiner actually reviewed and approved a technical and dryly-worded explanation of this product.

No, he raises a point that always should be taken into account. Not that the point is always valid mind you, nor am I saying it is valid here. But to jump on the "police apologist" bandwagon like the billion others for someone simply making that statement shows your bias.

If a description of the video is in the video description then it must be proven to be true, as a description of the content that is patently false (by omission or otherwise) is unacceptable on the Sift. Can't tag this with "cancer" can we? I mean T might have cancer, but nothing indicates such by the video.

If nothing, a link suffices that proves such, whether through eyewitnesses or such. Trust me, I tried to be funny once with the description...description denied...tried to be funny with tag...tag denied...

Damnit, I had written a long response addressing your points, but it got lost somehow and I can't be bothered typing it all out again.

Basically, your arguments are all either irrelevant or wrong.
Definition of monogamy? Widely accepted as one partner at a time, not one partner for life.
Romans / Greeks? Irrelevant, paranoid, and wrong. (They had good and bad stuff).
Circumcision? Irrelevant.
Polygamy is learned? I never said that.
Monogamy is inconvenient for "damn near everyone"? Patently false. Also irrelevant... what does the convenience or otherwise of monogamy have to do with anything?

That's patently false. It's not racist to depict true personality traits that are popular or common in a culture.

I've witnessed many American couples on many occasions discuss and demonstrate their disapproval about sharing their food. The best example that my wife and I often laugh about was an older couple where the wife was reaching over to pick at something small (maybe a french fry) and the husband with a scowl completely seriously and angrily slapped the back of her hand to stop her.

No, not all westerners or Americans would do such a thing, nor do all have a problem with their partner picking at their food, but that's because there isn't ANYTHING that EVERYONE of ANY race does, except breathe and poop, but it is a common thing in this culture.

Hopefully no one will put a patent on this...?

Well to answer why he is not kickstarting it, he stands to make a lot more money in the short term by patenting it and then selling the patent to a tool manufacturer. Just like big oil and other companies, they buy up patents like this to prevent them from being made. This would cut down on the blades and tools you currently use to make corners and they want to sell more stuff overall, not less stuff that does more.

This is very smart, but also disappointed that he wants to patent it.