But cell phone using drivers don't drive like this. They drive slower, if anything. They don't speed, if anything. They don't weave, if anything. They don't run traffic lights or stop signs, if anything.

What they do is not pay attention. They don't realize the light has changed. They don't realize they are going slow in the fast lane. And they suddenly change lanes -- typically from the extreme left to the extreme right lane -- when their cell phone GPS tells them that they need to turn right now.

Cell phone using drivers are 50% "just" annoying other drivers, and 50% the deadliest thing on the road.

This is in part because we can sense that future, even worse, shocks are coming.

Now that they have all the money AND have devalued the currency by a factor of 100 AND have all the power and control over every aspect of our lives, there is only one way for things to get better for THEM.

And that is to find ways to get rid of most of us.

People randomly pulling us over and stealing from us is designed to provoke a backlash. There will be more of it, and worse. It is time to stop using the "Welcome to the..." phrases. It is all about goodbyes now.

How about this...Faraday cage the car, then provide a cell phone antenna. To use it, you have to jack-in. And each jack has a separate IP address, so that all subsequent communication on that address can be tied to an individual. Maybe you have to dock your phone in your door, so that you can't steal someone else's jack. Ok, this is getting complicated. How about you take a hammer, and smash everyone's phone before they climb in your car?

It can't violate...a theory, and QM (i.e. another theory)? How do you figure? Theories get violated all the time.

You are confusing shelf space with successful products. It is like Microsoft with their Windows product. It is their Coke. You don't carry their Coke, you don't succeed in the computer market.

You don't do everything Coca-Cola wants, you don't get to carry Coke.

You are also missing the time element to this comparison. Coca-Cola is a trifle older than Mojang. Did Coca-Cola have 500 products when it was 5 years old?

beverages bearing the trademark "Coca-Cola" or "Coke" accounted for approximately 78% of the company's total gallon sales.

Like Coca-Cola?

I think we are saying the same thing, or at least aware of the same effects.

Both caffeine and alcohol have one or more positive effects at low dose, then undesirable symptoms at "medium" doses, and then fatal effects.

Regarding the 1000mg of caffeine level, this roughly corresponds to the recommended "no more than 6 cups of coffee in a day". I think the only thing I disagree with you on is the use of the word "toxic" to describe someone consuming 1000 mg of caffeine.

Two words: Spring Break.

Does the fact that people suffer from side effects before dying surprise you?

Not really, mainly because the two things we are talking about are consumed for their effect. Maybe I am not understanding your question?

This is the first hit I get on Google for "dsm iv caffeine intoxication". Immediately under the title text it says "These criteria are obsolete"

Toxic levels of caffeine: 12,000 mg (for an 176 pound person).

But I find I can only take a single drink of beer in general and it's good but the second drink is hard to get down and I need to hold my breath to get the rest down or just not drink it

You realize that alcohol is a toxin, right? And that more than the average -- i.e. 4 drinks a week -- is not healthy? Then just say "no" to that second drink.

On the contrary...fastest wake-ups in town!

Lee Smolin is one of the tiny minority of physicists who are genuinely thinking about the major problems of the field. I would also recommend Three Roads To Quantum Gravity.

Another I quite respect is Frank Close. I found Nothing: A Very Short Introduction to be quite thought provoking. And that is the point, by the way. Good physics, and in general good science writing, should be above all thought provoking.