...says the one who didn't win...

My own specific branch of linguistics is tiny, it has a handful of experts. Several of them gave Wikipedia a try and then gave up on it pretty fast, as they felt that effecting any real beneficial change was impossible when you have cabals of non-expert editors.

Unfortunately, what you say is true. Wikipedia should only be trusted for things known by enough people. (What's "enough"? That's the question, isn't it...) I've heard the same information from every person I know that has truly expert knowledge on a long-tail subject. If the valuable knowledge you happen to possess isn't already known by enough people, it will almost certainly get reverted.

This is the nature of truly democratic knowledge sharing. This is the one area Britannica has it all over Wikipedia. For almost all practical purposes, though, only experts need that level of information, so Britannica for the masses doesn't make a lot of sense.

But what does the Hobbit give to Humanity long term. What does the billion buy us.

Basic economics--it buys us an easier life. Anytime you buy something, it's presumably because you're trading that money for something worth more than the cash itself (and by extension, something worth more than anything else you can do with that money in that moment).

The kind of simplistic view of expenditure that this statement promotes would lead down the path of doing away with anything that's not "essential" because it costs too much. And a bunch of people would be out of work, eveyone in the nonessential industries, and then they wouldn't be able to buy things to fill their spare time. It would be like a hundred years ago, when most people worked ridiculous hours and spent the few spare hours they had drinking a pail of warm beer on their porch because there was nothing else to do.

Yes, you're right. The fact that this actually is a valid First Amendment argument doesn't matter because money is involved. The Founding Fathers clearly felt that most if not all of our inherent rights as free individuals are in direct conflict with making a living.

I'll post links to the various parts of the US's founding documents, primary texts, and the Founders' correspondence as soon as I dig it up. Hold your breath, I'm be right back...

Wait...this is theoretical physics, right? Why are they trying to do experiments???

OH snap. :-)

Awesome! Now there's enough research in this field to get funding for that baby shaking study I've been wanting to do...

Personally, I looked at it as C64 making assumptions about the kind and quality of experiences that specifically the US government was giving to the victim.

I looked at it basically the same way. Except, in my statement, I recognized the fact that these assumptions enjoy no support whatsoever from the text.

...it's not like the US government has never performed racial profiling...

...which is all well and good if we're speaking about how the USG generally treats certain races of people. But we are not. We are speaking about a specific incident where generalizations don't apply.

You know who else makes broad generalizations without compelling evidence? :->

(Actually, even I acknowledge that I've now gone one step too far...especially with that snarky little smiley.)

Another problem is that the guy with the scanner is cherry-picking the more desirable items, and leaving the chaff.

That's true. I hadn't thought about it that way, but you're right; unlike this guy, when I shop I always buy the most worthless piece of garbage I can get my hands on. So: good point.

Dealing stuff for money IS shameful...

I couldn't agree more...doing stuff for money is humiliating. That's why I take the principled and ethical path and let others provide for all my needs. It just gets me when they can't provide the right kind of things in the amounts I require; apparently, a lot of people think it's easy to be the kind of upright that I am.