-1 Troll?

I wish I had a mod point to spare you, my friend. Except someone taking offense at your language, you make a great point. (Ironically, Bennet is very much pro-f-word.)

Every couple of weeks, Bennet Haselton has an idea, and much like Hugo Chavez, he feels that he and we have a duty to get into a lengthy discussion about his ideas on the matter. And who is he? He's a guy that started some once controversial websites and promotes internet freedom. So do I, by the way, though I don't make it my full time job. Are his ideas brighter and more wise than mine or yours? I can't say they are when he calls T-Mobile profitable.

But, apparently, timothy thinks his ideas are so important that normal Slashdot story excerpt length needs to be set aside any time he has something to say. So why should it be "Troll" behavior to question why his ideas are heralded while the ideas of most others can only earn a dominance of Score:5 at most? I think that's very relevant discussion on this thread. I M H O.

Look out bottle industry. People have been wanting to eat those plastic things that slide down your dirty aluminum rollers and get touched by every customer.

"what compels people to open up their homes and cars to complete strangers is money, not trust."

That's interesting. Could the exact same thing be said about the banking industry? And the insurance industry? And stock brokerages? ... and ...

The fact that New York magazine smears the sharing economy with the word "desperation" just speaks of editoralizing that tries to use controversial words to grab attention. Without the prestige of slick magazine paper, we would just call that activity "trolling".

Really? You're trying to solve this "problem"?

My thought upon reading this story was, "Oh, thank God!!"

I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick. I was beginning to fear that the medical community was going to try to force any level of existence to continue without regard to quality. Death is a part of life. I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.

Try working in the healthcare field. You'll see that that is the norm. Older patients often would be fine with letting go. But the family falls apart emotionally and pushes for ANY MEANS POSSIBLE to save them. It's pathetic. And it costs our healthcare industry billions that could be spent much better.

I am going to die young and go out in a blaze of glory ... you insensitive clods.

I think that's because of the over-use of tongue-in-cheek references to "holes".

That's what Newton said to Leibniz.

3.14159265358... or something like that. That could be wrong. But my memory is usually worth "Good Enough" engineering.

And I think it's a lot harder to remember ... What the hell do I do with this shotgun again?

Look the other way here, please. California is a key source for organ donations.

As the Chinese like to say, "Don't break your brother's rice bowl."

And doesn't the fact that no data exists where we do know there were fairly fast variations historically naturally mean that we don't have enough data to make a positive conclusion and must with humility admit that there's just some things we just don't know? Because we do know that past ice ages and climate changes happened very fast.

But, oh no, if you're a climate scientist, you damn well better conclude something...

And so they do.

That's great. You've found a range that you think matters. Now let's do this over 10,000 years. Is there something you want to call normal in that set? Or even something that is consistant over a long range of time? Oh, things change constantly in that time frame, don't they? So is change unacceptable in this one?

Anyone who lived through all of the 70's and into today knows this intrinsically. Read up: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/e...

And therefor, a well armed populace is the best final defense of freedom.

Out of 26 years only 1 is "normal"? At what point should we just conclude that your definition of normal is the issue?

The world is less polluted today than it was 30 years ago. And far far less than it was 100 years ago. So isn't that a shrinking pollution problem, not a growing one?