HAHAHAHAHAA*gasp*HAHAHAHA I love this kind of brilliant satire, so close to a Poe. Here, lemme help you:

"No, we are not. People and companies willing to pay for top-quality healthcare have access to it. The expectation that poor people should get equal access to healthcare at the same level of decent healthcare as rich folk will always keep the average service below the average service in other countries that are willing to pay what it costs. But that is not 3rd world status.

Besides, do you really think that transplants are going to be cutting edge by the end of our lifetimes? Maybe if you are old. I personally am holding out hope for cost-effective Star Trek Teleporter regeneration, where the boundary of fantasy and reality makes no difference."

HAHAHAHA Hey, if you think neutrino-based telecommunications is great, wait until they activate the Ansible! I just hope those damned Buggers don't find us. 10/10 Troll, Would laugh again

Here in Uruguay we are rolling out fiber optics for the entire country (3.5 million people approx.), with about 240,000 connections by now, and connections for all populated centers of 3500 homes and above by 2015. Price tag is about U$S 550 million. I think the plan is to replace the entire copper infrastructure in a few years. Each country is different, but in principle it's doable... (Of course we have the advantage of a state monopoly on wired telecommunications. Yes, I do mean advantage.) See http://www.elobservador.com.uy/noticia/236698/fibra-optica-un-plan-estrategico-de-us-550-millones/ use Google Translate for the Spanish-impaired.

For your parallax problems: your eyes won't pop out of your sockets from the strain anymore!

Grammar poop!

What about the big effing elephant in the room: BRIGHTNESS? One of the things Cristopher Nolan doesn't like about 3D is that the polarized filters in the projector and glasses kills about 2/3 of the original brightness, and they didn't triple the luminance (or whatever) of the projectors to compensate. Everytime I see a 3D flick I feel like I'm going friggin' blind: some scenes in Avengers where apparently made for blind people (w/ dialog only), 'cause the only 5 things I could see where Capn' 'Merica, Thor, Loki, Jack, and Shit. Remember Avatar The Last Airbender? Might as well have been a BBC Radio Show like The Hitchhiker's Guide to The Galaxy for all people cared.

What's the point of 3D when I'm seeing more details in the 2D version? We get 90% of depth information from 2D anyway, plus the 3D effects are fscking unnatural: hey is that the Avengers Airplane flying over the ocean, or a TOY AIRPLANE LEVITATING OVER A BUCKET? 'Cause I didn't know I could see stereoscopically that far, with the paralax and all...

Look Ma! "Only" 3 degrees rise! Less strong storms, some more rain over here, some less rain over there... I'm sure farmers can just move, and populations will freely follow, with our current situation of open borders worldwide and such... I guess now the IPCC is no longer the CENTER OF THE ILUMINAT--er... CLIMATE CHANGE CONSPIRACY, now it's a reputable scientific report, yeah I think we can *cough* spin *cough*, I mean clearly demonstrate the "change" in "climate change" to be nothing but a small nuisance, why, less strong storms? Maybe it's an improvement! Except, you know, the part about coastal regions... But it's not like some of the most economically important cities are located near the coast, no siree... I mean, what's a meter more in rise than previously expected? Like 3 feet, right? No biggie.

This might surprise you, but the United Nations is a big organization, and different parts of it act and think in different ways, sometimes with great disagreements. In fact, that's the whole purpose of the UN: to gather all this people together in one place and make them lob disagreements at each other instead of grenades. Just because one organization associated to the UN misbehaves doesn't mean the World Government is out to get you. Your comment about the UN's "true colours" betrays somewhat of a misconception of the way things work there. It's messy like all human things, but if you don't like the UN, just wait until the world drops any pretense of working together for a unified civilization, and the dictators participating in the Human Rights Commission leave it and drop any pretense of caring for them, then things will get really fun (at least now they admit Human Rights exist and pay lip service to them, that alone is already an ideological victory, which is more important that you might think).

A phrase often ritually quoted by people whithout thinking about it first. I believe it was here in Slashdot that I read a comment to the effect of: "YES, YES IT IS. Absence of evidence is not PROOF of absence, but it certainly is EVIDENCE of it". I can't help but to concur, although I think this can stem from the ambiguousness of the word "evidence" (evidence as proof, or evidence as something that increases the probability of truth for a prediction). Failing to detect something can mean simply that the instrument or method used were inadequate, but as "failures to detect" pile on, scientists who predict said observation can begin to get nervous, and rightly so. Sometimes a prediction is tied to a well tested theory, and it's more reasonable to wait for further studies than to dismiss the theory altogether, but eventually the observation is made (or the failure of the prediction is ratified) or the theory can't be considered to be falsifiable, and is therefore unscientific.This (in my opinion) mistake is the reverse of another often misused phrase "Correlation is not causation", that is: "The presence of evidence is not evidence of presence" (I'd say: Yes, it is, it's just not PROOF of presence).

See, I don't get that. I respect the religious, and the religious' right to having their beliefs, I just don't see why I have to respect their beliefs. I understand the line between skepticism and prejudiced denialism is hardest to see for those who have crossed it, but it's hard to trust the good faith of your criticism when you throw blanket statements like that, mischaracterizing skepticism as simply "critical examination of fringe science", labeling everyone now claiming to adhere to skepticism as a troll... Although, it's great that you are skeptic about skepticism and the people who claim to be skeptics, which along being skeptic about one's own skepticism are both important requirements for properly being a skeptic to begin with, which is more a philosophy of life than the glorified peer review you make it out to be.

I suppose it can be argued that it all hinges and the meaning of the word "believe", but aside from that, what can I get away with calling "God"? Truth, Liberty, Love, Free Speech, the Right to Property, Gravity? At some point saying that someone "believes in God" because they apply that label to something simply becomes an easy cop out. eg.: Christians who say "God is Love" don't stop at that, and at some point have to profess their specific devotion to Jesus Christ as their savior. If I can pick and choose the meaning of "believe" and "God", then "I believe in God" becomes some sort of tautology, everyone "believes in God":

10 LET BELIEVE_IN$ = "Adhere to the philosophical principles of"

20 LET GOD$ = "Skepticism/Atheism"

30 PRINT "I " + BELIEVE_IN$ + GOD$

I'm completely devastated about the current state of Wikipedia, just like you, I hate all this bureaucratic crap. That's why I take all my factually correct information from Encyclopedia Dramatica, where the asylum is running the inmates. Why have bureaucracy when you can have "bureaucrazy"?

But seriously, do you expect something as vast and ambitious as Wikipedia to exist without a somewhat intimidating rulebook? I'm not saying Wikipedians shouldn't be more welcoming or helpful, or that they're not, perhaps the problem is related to the way the site is structured. It's not easy for newcomers to find their way around the place, or around the people.

I don't know who "Log" is. I do fondly remember the one Captain who was confidant of all the others: Captain 'sLog. Pity they never showed the guy, he was like the neighbor from "Home Improvement". I wonder what species he belonged to. Sounds Klingon to me.

Huh? What does not taking obvious loser cases have to do with this? And since when does knowing you can win a case mean you are taking advantage of the plaintiffs? I mean, if it's so "clear cut", they can surely "shop around" for lawyers then... The plaintiffs are not going to win this without some good legal advice anyway, are they?

By the way, "Never take a case you know you won't win" contradicts your sig: "We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower" (I'm sure the context for the quote is different, but still...)

  And who decides what a "clear cut case" is? Setting the fees at 10-15% of the awards for all cases pretty much kills the posibility of many people succeding in cases where the legal expenses are high and they can't afford it, and if you think the problem is (not quoting you, just defining) "clear cut cases where the lawyers know they'll win and take home an easy paycheck", trying to codify into law what a "clear cut case" is involves putting the cart before the horses, I believe. It pretty much collides directly with habeas corpus, doesn't it? It involves deciding the case before there's even a trial... I'm pretty sure the defendants wouldn't consider it so "clear cut".

The plaintiffs did indeed win "a" victory, as you put it. They burned a hole in the defendant's pocket, didn't they? And they showed a succesful strategy towards hitting them again where it hurts, if the defendant again breaks the law. I don't think arguing the results are unfair without clearly explaining exactly why they're unfair, providing an alternative, and showing how the alternative doesn't result in more injustice, is constructive.

Cook: refrigeratoaster, buwahahaha
luser1: A toaster AND a refrigerator? BY JOVE THIS IS BRILLIANT
luser2: Small freezer, only makes 2 toasts at a time. Lame.
If I'm to go by Apple's past behavior, expect the iRefrigeratoaster on Q2, 2013.

I always see all this outrage about lawyers fees at Slashdot, and how the plaintiffs get just a fraction, and how this should be made illegal, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the case many times that the lawyers bare the cost of the lawsuit (sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in legal and evidence investigation, staff, expert testimony, etc.) and therefore the risk, and if they lose they get nothing? I mean it's peachy and everything if they WIN and they get 10-15% and the plaintiffs the rest, but what if they lose?
  I'm sure many lawyers abuse the system, but I sure wouldn't put so much of my own money on the line if the payoff isn't worth it or the risk I end up ruined is extremely high (spare me any "sacrifice for justice" bull****. YOU go be a martir with your own money). If I'm not mistaken, some lawyers HAVE ended up ruined after losing a case.
And even if they didn't end up ruined, what's wrong with these fees atracting top notch legal talent to the case and kicking some corporate butt? I'm not sure how a mandatory fee limit of about 10-15% to cover ALL expenses (say, about 60,000 dollars for this case) is going to help the plaintiff get good legal representation. Does a plaintiff really have to get 250,000 dollars to feel vindicated about some cookie tracking? I would think winning the case and hurting the company in its pocket would be 90% of the vindication...

<sarcasm>But anyway, the important thing is that the lawyers are getting too much money, which is preventing all these companies from getting away with their illegal activities-- er, I mean preventing the plaintiffs from getting their money... yeah, that's the ticket! It's not that I have a thing against lawyers or anything...</sarcasm>

I wasn't commenting on the intentions, I was refering to the food aid that you pointed out as the presumed culprit of African woes. I was saying that the results you see may have a lot more to do with unfair market competition than with food aid, and that removing food aid while ignoring the flooding of markets with subsidized food from the 1st World could mean starving populations, without actually solving anything.

Having to compete with cheaper is just as bad as having to compete with free, farmers can't sustain themselves, employ others, and no one can pay for food.