It's not as simple as that.

Obscenity not protected by the first amendment if it passes the miller test, from wikipedia:

Perhaps we shouldn't be dealing with absolutes, is intelligence hereditary or isn't it? Perhaps it isn't a Boolean value at all. I'll suggest that intelligence has more to do with parenting and nutrition than with genes but discounting genes entirely is foolish.

In such a complex organism as the Human being, wouldn't it be some great combination of factors that align to form genius?

Right? Welfare totally pays enough to afford cosmetic surgery and the wealthy are never self centered.

If you read the article here, it feels like yellow journalism, things only said to bring hits to a site or draw comments. Watch the video, you'll see that Woz is a level headed geek, he says the sorts of things that everyone here can agree with and the points given in this article are just a few tiny pieces of what he mentions in the video.

Hey, this is an alarmist article. You're supposed to be scared, not use rational thought.

What are you, Canadian?

I could argue that but then, there's probably some scientific study somewhere.

There is another reason to drink coffee in the mornings, however; once the caffeine wears off, I become tremendously relaxed and have an easy time falling asleep. Coffee helps with insomnia in it's delightful little way.

And it looks better too! I wish I could mod you up.

I also loved my Naga, until owning it for just over a year when the buttons wore out and stopped reliably clicking. Mind you, the cord's braiding was faulty from day one and my regular optical mouse has better tracking on most surfaces. Still, great shape and idea. I just wish Logitech would make a gaming mouse with a bajillion buttons so I wouldn't have to put up with Razer's poor quality.

Sorry, friend. Alcohol wrecks both. You can see it in long time alcoholics, they're slower, make worse decisions and are generally more aggressive. Long time potheads are sometimes lazier but generally more pleasant to be around.

But don't take my word for it. http://phys.org/news157280425.html

I guess we can expect episode 3 to be nothing but soothing colorful patterns and Shpongle music.

I believe you're mistaken, at least partially. It's a common misconception that Obama contributed more than Bush to the financial collapse but the vast majority of statistics I've seen have suggested otherwise.

If we look at unemployment for instance, there was a sharp rise that began in 2008, which can hardly be blamed on Obama. Obama came into office as things were already going poorly and while he may not have done enough to fix it, the mess was clearly not his doing.

Since he's been in office, we've seen a slow but steady improvement in the economy and a decrease in unemployment rates. Though his handling of fiscal policies has been poor, he's still above Bush in my eyes, who cut taxes and began two unfunded wars.

Sources too, since everyone here loves data: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Note that Obama became president in the middle of that big uphill slope.

Perhaps you should be building your own computer, eh? It takes time from you in the form of research and construction but you get to decide on the parts, the hardware and how much it costs. Really, this is Slashdot, building your own should be the logical conclusion for every electronics dilemma.

This is indeed troubling, It shows that we need stronger control over our election system. Elections that are won or lost by a fraction of a percentage deserve a fraction of a fraction of a percentage error margin and clearly we don't have that. I would be hesitant to believe the outcome of any election until these sorts of messes stop happening. Excellent link.

These are some pretty wild accusations to make without proof. I'd love to see some sources.

One could argue that corporate weather satellites would create a monopoly. We know how well those work out,