Of course, the Model-T had no plastics to contend with. I sincerely doubt the veracity of some of the assertions of this article. The 10% ethanol that's currently in gasoline has no appreciable impact on fuel economy, and the alcohol content dries the fuel, which is helpful in damp/cool climates to offset condensation. I think we all know ethanol from corn is a money loser. The "net energy loss" argument is spurious, however. Charging a battery is a net energy loser, but is anyone suggesting batteries are a bad idea? We need a portable form of energy for the internal combustion engine, and we have to pay a "tax" in order to change the state of that energy from something we have to something we need. Brazil runs all of their cars (a lot of old vehicles, I might add) on 100% ethanol. The problem here is finite-life engineering; Parts, like plastic fuel pumps, that are designed to fail after the warranty runs out (5-8 years). Detroit used to rely on rust to make people buy new cars (remember the 70s?), but people quickly realized that a paint + patch was cheaper than replacing the car, as long as it was mechanically sound, and no-one pays a dealer to do that. Now they charge you 900$ for 6$ worth of plastic...

So, will this result in the elimination of pattern baldness, or just "natural male enhancement"?

Why don't we get illegal immigrants to do it?

The only thing that shocks me is that one vinyl fetishist keeps posting articles about how his particular freakazoid defect is making
a comeback, but nobody is tagging these stories as duplicates of his previous rants.

Okay, kdawson, we get it, you like records. Give it a rest and go play with your betamax VCR.