But one of the problems is more conventional means of protest are equally liable to garner negative publicity.

Either you are carted off to freespeech zones which are equivalent to no protest at all, or some instigator turns the whole event into a riot, garnering the derision of the public.

Even commenting to your congressman is pointless if the one topic that drew the largest public disapproval is passed anyway (bailouts).

So what options do you have left?

I'm just pleased that there are enough folks paying attention to do something like this rather than the apathy that marks most of the public. I am frightened to death that most of them aren’t old enough to vote.

So the Sabbath reunion is underway?

Kewl.

Evolution of the Volt as seen by me.

Promised: Oh wow! That's a pretty shape. I'd buy that.
Actual: Uhh, that's nearly as sexy, but if they keep the drive train idea...

Promised: Oh, hey, I drive more than 70 freeway miles a day. This fits my needs better than an all-electric.
Actual: How is this better than a diesel VW? But at least they are developing something interesting like the Jaguar C-X75 drive train...

Promised: You know, if it is a series hybrid, I bet you tinker with the car. Simple drive train.
Actual: How is this different than a Prius again? If I wanted a Prius...

Promised: a car that actually made me consider a hybrid as suitable to my needs.
Actual: I wonder what Honda is doing...

Gosh, if we only had the same consideration for corporations who skip out on taxes. Would you support cutting them off from government services? Answer truthfully now.

No kids, this is an example of the tragedy of the commons looks like. You know, everyone pays in to get fire service, except some folks decide they can free ride something as basic as fire service and got burned.

So don't be putting a decision by a government entity in same class as private fire service. This is not a libertarian paradise, this is the dystopia libertarians complain about.

I have long advocated sortition (choosing positions in government through lottery).

It appears now there is some research to justify this.

Here is the thing though- Given were are at an age where war is waged under false pretenses, where we now find out ERT is crock but no one decided to verify until recently, where damn near every event and study has a multitude of spins and talking points: shouldn't we scrutinize everything we read?

And I don't mean in that contrary to be contrary sort of way (but even that sometimes yields useful results), but seriously consider what is being stated, why is it being stated, and who is stating it?

Many years ago, in my physics textbook, it stated that a tire's friction was the same regardless of contact patch. Now being somewhat of a gearhead, this struck me as contrary to everything I've seen. So I questioned my instructor about it with my rationales as to why this is probably incorrect. He hand waves it, and I'm left stumped as to why dragsters have such large rear tires, and a low resistance tire on a bicycle have such a small contact patch.

And you know where this is going, but that is exactly point: mistakes happen, something gets lost in translation, and some people don't give a damn enough to question an idea.

Personally, I blame poor science reporting to the poor knowledge of science by the general public, and the inevitable simplifying that is going to happen to explain what is a foreign country to most people.

Dear sir,

I appreciate in these divisive times rhetoric is at an all-time high, but let's look at some facts, shall we?

First, these practices took place with government regulation in place. Two: the current actions of the government coddling... errr, negotiating with the companies may adversely affect the ideal libertarian solution: workers suing the companies directly. Three: if the end result is companies not admitting wrongdoing and a government who failed to stop the practice in the first place now promising that not pursuing legal action will halt such practices in the future, I'd rather take my chances on the free market solution.

Back before I knew such things existed in nature, I had the idea of hopefully causing a fuel/air explosion with a regular tornado.

The idea was to pump a bunch of fuel into a regular tornado and ignite it, theoretically causing the tornado to dissipate.

Unfortunately a lack of funds and people brave enough to man the trebuchets kept me from my plan.

But it just seems more _eventful_ than a lazy susan and lighter fluid.

Yes, my house insurance has extra coverage.

Indeed, the court system does seem to favor the wealthy (unless you are the deep pockets being sued), but even loser pay rules struck me as unfair.

It would seem that at the beginning of the trial, if both the plaintiff and defendant would throw the sum total of funds to be spent into a common pot (to be split equally among them for their court cost), then the amount paid would be the cost at arriving at a _judgement_ instead of paying more to win the case.

Tell me: is this becoming mentally unstable and unable to cope interacting with society or not? I mean becoming unstable in one's solitude is one thing; becoming unstable when society intrudes on your solitude is quite another.

Further, are you differentiating between chosen solitude and enforced solitude, because those would have very different effects.

Finally, his is social within the confines of his family. Social has many different dimensions. To pick and choose which aspects you want to interact with seems damn near idealized to me.

It sounds more like you are advocating for social convention hiding behind psychology. Epicurus would like to have a word with you.

Every decision you make has the net effect of limiting some options and expanding others... I see no reason why drugs should be a special case.

I do however see grave danger in people deciding for you that some substances are too dangerous for you to make a decision about (which, I might add, is antithetical to the very concept of freedom).

I'd also point out the Rat Park Experiments and Guide to Licit and Illicit Drugs and suggest that current policies of prohibition do much to exacerbate the drug problem.