I figured you were just getting shocked for forgetting.

You can't collect mushrooms? I'm really trying to be sensitive here, but on my quality of life scale, mushroom collecting ranks really, really low. If I have to choose between mushroom collecting and CO2 free electricity, I'm pretty sure the mushrooms are never going to win. Of course, renewables would be even better. Lets hope for that in the long term. In the short term, I just don't think mushroom arguments is what is going to sway me... or anyone.

I think the original poster meant 400 km square. As in 400 km x 400 km. Or 400,000 x 400,000 meters. That is 160,000,000,000 square meters, I'm sure you can see where that factor of 1000 is hiding now. 400 km x 400 km is a lot of space, but once again, not exactly the the entire world. For example, not one would miss 400 x 400 kilometers of Kansas.

This crisis, bad as it is, is still just a drop in the bucket compared to what we may be doing to our atmosphere with coal. I'd take a world powered by nuclear any day. At least the problems with nuclear are local-ish.

It seems weird to me that there are 400+ people in America alone that have a net worth in the same range as these 15 fictional characters. And the richest have around as much as all 15 of these fictional characters combined. Apparently we can't even imagine the type of wealth the richest of the rich have. It is hard imagining enough money to make $5-10 million a day on interest alone, let alone what to spend it on.

I backup my files every time this poll shows up on slashdot. Keeps me fairly safe. I guess it is time for another round of backing up.

Obesity does have strong correlations to health problem, but your insensitive stereotypes are rude and unfounded. Making such demeaning caricatures out of heavier individuals is simply not helping the issues. Yes, many people would reap many health benefits from losing weight, but almost as many underweight people would reap similar benefits from gaining weight.

It is always important to remember that the #1 health risk to the obese is not heart problems or diabetes, it is misdiagnosis. So many people and even doctor assume that if you're heavy, all your health problems are caused by that, and so they often miss obvious symptoms of other real, life threatening conditions. It is also important to remember that an unstable weight correlates to health problems even more strongly than obesity. Many heavier individuals are pressured by peers and doctors to lose weight, and they often attempt to do so with unhealthy means, such as various eating disorders. This often leads to fluctuating weight and other problems. If you have to choose between fluctuating weight and obesity, obesity is statistically much safer.

Not to beat a dead horse, but another thing to keep in mind is that correlation is not causation. Many instances in the statistics of obesity can be shown to involve the correlation of "I am sick, and it is making me heavy". When these cases are weeded out, the correlations become much weaker, and it becomes even more obvious that the underweight or inactive are at just as much risk as the obese.

In conclusion, you can decide, if you wish, that obesity is not a responsible way to live. I would accuse you of insensitivity but nothing more. But ridiculing and stereotyping the obese as moronic imbeciles that are out of control and grossly irresponsible is crossing the line. I wouldn't call you quite as bad as a racist, but you would be quickly approaching it. The fact of the matter is that very few of the people who are obese would live up to any of those demeaning stereotypes, and probably just as many (per capita) "normal" individuals would live up to them if you simply looked. But you aren't looking, because you are singling out the obese and deciding to throw your vile at them, when they simply don't deserve it anymore than anyone else.

The (somewhat) sad thing for those of us that program is that the market price for software that isn't a custom built-to-order job is roughly $0.00. I haven't heard of any good solution to this either, though presumably some sort of "money first" or "money held in escrow" would work.

The American myth of upward mobility is nothing more than that, a myth. Pretending that you can rise into money with nothing but talent is simply not true. It is a story we tell children to help justify the rich's selfishness. The simple fact of the matter is that the number one correlation that exists for a person's wealth in America is their parent's wealth. If you want to be rich, you need a wealthy family, not hard work. But if it makes you feel better, keep believing that everyone that is poor smokes pot all day or does something else to limit themselves. It makes the bitter pill of our horrible class discrepancy go down a little easier. But it is a lie. plain and simple. America is actually ranked quite low globally in upward mobility, and as we let corporations and the rich run amok without regulation and taxes, the situation only gets worse.

National politicians make much more than just their salary. Their influence, leverage, connections and media interest insures that they can all easily be multimillionaires. When you tally up all the opportunities they have, like books and public appearances, as well as private sector opportunities, I'm sure that most national politicians make more than their equivalently ranked counterparts in movies and sports.

Well that filled up my history nice and good.

When are we going to get the hint and switch to unobtanium?

Indeed, that is a good question. What can be done? It does seem that politicians do thrive off of divisions not unity. From a political standpoint, I think voting reform would go a long way to help. Instant Runoff Voting, where voters can vote for a whole list a candidates in a preferred order, seems like it would take a lot of the partisanship bite out of politics. This way we wouldn't have to narrow down the choices between candidate A and B and watch them wrestle to the death. Instead could vote for a wide variety of candidates that aren't all trying to split the country in equal halves. Third parties could run without people worrying about leaching votes from the "big" parties that will "inevitably" win. Negative campaigning would have limited effect, because instead of having only one viable opponent, you might have dozens. Instant Runoff and Single Transferable Vote were tried in many states during the 60s and 70s, but people became nervous that so many third parties and minorities were getting elected and the attempt at voting reform was almost universally repealed out of fear. This won't solve all the problems, but at the political level, I think it is a step in the right direction. End the partisan division by giving people more options.

It is only one tiny fix, and the problem is just to big to address quickly or easily. But perhaps it can move things in the right direction. Best thing I've seen sugested, and even though it is wholly inadequate, at least it is something to work towards.

The statistics are true, the conclusions are not. You have to look into the other side of the issue. For example, a black person is twice as likely to fail a polygraph than a white person when both are telling the truth. A black person is three times more likely to get jail time than a white person when at court for the same crime, dressed in the same clothes, with the same number and type of priors. A car of white teenagers are twice as likely of having some form of illegal drugs in the car, but a car of black teenagers are six times more likely to get pulled over, and once pulled over, twice as likely to get searched. 28% of white kids binge drink, as opposed to 8% of black youth. 43% of white teenagers have used drugs, but only 37% of Black teenagers have.

When you dig into it, it becomes obvious that the over representation of blacks in prison is do to a large degree from bias prevalent in our justice system, discriminating blacks and other minorities every step of the way. Yes, in some areas there is an anti-system sentiment among some blacks, but if the above inequalities were being aimed at you, wouldn't you also be weary of the system?

If your above statements are a sample of your usual tone in arguments, then I'm sorry to say that people aren't using a "race card" when they are taking to you, nor are they being "smug assholes", you actually are a racist. The fact that you went on this tangent on an article about pi is a hint. I'm not really sure what you should do about it, perhaps you should consider actually looking into the data surrounding race relations. It might at least take some of the edge off of your vitriol.