Well, in that case, perhaps you should have read the whole conversation, since I had already responded to the arguments you made.

You're insufferable in your willingness to mis-characterize my commentary. Once again, I wasn't making arguments. I was helping another poster with a misunderstanding by sharing a few scientific facts with him. You don't own the entire discussion thread just because you made an elderly post, so in that case you should mind your own business or at least pay closer attention to the contextual basis of mine.

I also think the distinction between "consumer-level products" and other products is invalid.

This is very true, but it's a straw man. I didn't draw that distinction. My post included a qualifier constraining my commentary to products whose existence amount to "basic littering" because they are intended for our wastewater systems. I can't believe you wasted 3 paragraphs of text explaining something so painfully obvious. The only thing missing is a citation about how pornography drives advanced technology development and adoption.

For example, water treatment plants could be changed to be more efficient.

Ahh, finally, something relevant... Is it realistic, though? Getting there is probably gonna require federal regulations and a lot of government spending. We'll see a lot of litter before we get anywhere close to that ideal. Maybe a tax on these companies to raise funding for these efficiency upgrades, eh? No, that's more ridiculous than a ban. Tough one, I guess... I'm sure you'll come up with something.

Why are you beating around the bush? Why are you not stating clearly what your definition actually is?

I joined this conversation specifically to address the broad accusation that folks participating in this conversation "can't articulate a single problem with them." I'm really not interested in the semantic distinction or argument for/against banning that you're focused on, but since you've asked; I think the way you're calling it a theoretical possibility is overtly dismissive and stifles rational discourse. You asked the same question twice, so I'll ask you to re-read everything up to this point. Fair's fair.

California votes to ban microbeads. I ask for evidence of harm. People get abusive and hostile.

Don't take it out on me. I'm not fear-mongering, and I'm not being evasive. I just didn't join this conversation with the intention of addressing your argument. I'll wait here while you go back to take another look at my original post in this thread.

Since you've asked, even though I don't really give a shit that they've enacted a ban, it's fair to say the ban is definitely not supported by the environmental science we've discussed.

All of that environmental science aside, it seems to me that selling plastics intended to enter our wastewater systems and likely unable to be captured by many such systems amounts to basic littering. I can't think of a good reason to allow that in consumer-level products other than to avoid inflicting economic harm on the industries that sell those products. Maybe you can help me out there...

I guess the take-home lesson from all the non-responses is that there is next to no evidence of actual harm

What we've got is evidence of a mechanism that can cause harm by concentrating compounds into our food chain that shouldn't be there. That is to say, we know compounds bind to the surface of these plastics. We know animals are consuming the plastics. We know these harmful compounds are absorbed into the animal when the plastics are consumed. If that's what you call, "next to no evidence of actual harm", then I a guess we agree.

...and no plausible way in which the ban will significantly improve the marine environment

First, you shouldn't mistake my simple recognition of the facts as tacit support for the ban. I'm happy to acknowledge more research is needed before taking a drastic step like banning the microbeads, but I don't think this perspective should impede a rational discussion about the potential impact of these beads on our enviornment and food supply.

Second, it's most definitely plausible that banning the beads could ultimately result in less of the compounds we've been discussing entering our food chain. Maybe that doesn't fit your definition of significantly improving the marine environment? Fine, I'll also agree with you on this one.

Finally, I don't agree that 'significant improvement of the marine environment' should be the singular criteria for enacting bans on pollutants.

First, they "concentrate" toxins by passing them up the food chain into continually larger organisms after the toxins were ingested by smaller ones. By the time the toxins have moved a ways up the food chain, they've been concentrated into the larger organisms. Second, it's not FUD because "the majority of animal life on this planet" resides in the ocean, by far. Also, higher concentrations of toxins inflict demonstrable harm.

Congratulations. You've misinterpreted the "the only complaint" that you saw. It's more than just man-made "pollution". It's more accurate to say they concentrate other toxins.

First of all, a number of natural toxins exist and are produced every day by organisms (e.g. cyanide) and natural phenomena like volcanic activity. Just like man-made pollutants, those natural toxins are being passed up the food chain via microbeads when they should be resting harmlessly outside the reach of our food chain.

Second, pollution exists and cannot be "undone". It's ludicrous to bring up the fantasy of "if there was no other pollution" because we've been making very large and very permanent deposits ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Currently, the only real solution to this problem is time and patience, and microbeads interfere with our ability to bide that time without inflicting harm upon the majority of animal life on this planet.

I wonder what this patent will mean for the widely renowned social robitics pioneer who started the JIBO project on indiegogo.

http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/jibo-the-world-s-first-social-robot-for-the-home

Maybe you missed the Supreme Court ruling earlier this week? http://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/...

Paper from trees is produced by a well-established economy of scale.

What the heck is "reminisces" supposed to mean in this context? Of all the words you could have chosen, it most certainly does exactly that. I don't care how much code you rip out and replace over time. Everything after GoldSrc was built on top of it, so how does it magically become something different? It's still built on the same basic set of ideas, and to this day, some parts of environments created in the engine are plagued by the same type of geometric limitations as every other Q1-based engine.

I wholeheartedly agree. Source is heavily modded Q1. I think it's pretty shady that they gave it their own name after replacing enough code that they felt justified to call it a completely new engine. It's Q1.

They've been through dozens of incidents which would certainly have killed them all - fantasy story or not - yet they come through completely unscathed every time. Because Hollywood.

That's exactly what it felt like when I read the book as a kid. It's not "because hollywood." That's the way the story is written in the book as well.

My news reading habits are exactly the same as they used to be, but the recent feedly improvements have smoothed out the experience for me. While it wasn't as good as google reader when I first made the switch, there were a ton of improvements that have made it better than google reader was for my purposes.

Don't forget... The Shulgin Index Vol 1: Psychedelic Phenethylamines and Related Compounds

I hope that someone is continuing to work on Volume 2...

I realize it was tongue in cheek, but you really shouldn't reduce Shulgin down to "the inventor of ecstasy" and draw cute comparisons with other famous chemists. Shugin "invented" countless other phenethylamines and tryptamines, and he documented the synthesis and experience reports thoroughly in a few different volumes that you can find on amazon.com. He was also a pioneering inventor of a massively popular pesticide which preceded other pesticides that are foundational components of modern agriculture.

As does my pen name. It honors the history, but the concept, again, was like hula hoops and ma jong: a meaningless fad.

Well, in terms of my originally intended context, I guess we're on the same page. Outside of that context, the issue of its status as a meaningless fad... I don't know... I'll just say there are plenty of folks still communicating across mediums and spending time in interfaces where the the habit is still reinforced regularly. I'd probably do it more habitually if it wasn't for corporate email and places like slashdot. I'll also say that, for those who've spent more time communicating on IRC and in various games than we should have, the concept lends itself to a certain voice of familiarity. Like a biker's colors, perhaps? Maybe it's a little bit trivial to those outside of that realm, but I don't think it's meaningless.

I'm anything but average. As to a review, I'd love to see a negative critique.

I'll grant you that. ;-)