I haven't had T.V. in almost 12 years--during which time I've spent my free time on reading, hobbies, and playing with my kids.

Think about how much TV you watch each day--or better yet, use a stop watch and actually time it. I suspect you'll be surprised at how much time you actually spend: the average American watches a staggering 5 hours PER DAY of television. Now, think about the value of your time, the value of what you're watching, and then think of all the other uses you could put 35 hours a week to. You could easily read several books, learn to play a musical instrument, take up a hobby, AND spend time interacting with friends and family in that 35 hours.

Aside from the time you're spending watching TV that might be more pleasurably spent doing something else, think about what TV is doing to you. Some people don't think that TV influences how they think, what they buy, and who they vote for: the 500 billion dollar advertising says that they're wrong.

I find it interesting how all my oldest daughter's classmates (she's 4 and in preschool) are already programmed to be good little consumers. There's hardly one who doesn't have the obligatory Disney character backpack, clothes from the trendy place at the mall, and a "brand-name" toy to share on Wednesdays.

In the 80's when I was in the Army and stationed in Italy, I used to walk around the base at night and see the "blue glow" coming from the on-base housing. At the time I thought that it was as if everyone came home at the end of their day and sat down in front of the TV to be "programmed" for the next day.

The current state of our society and politics has done nothing to disabuse my of this idea.

Your answer (legislate) to the problem (accessibility) is amusingly contrary to your anecdote. No one forced the "nice" store to comply with some arcane requirement (which would undoubtedly require a huge bureaucracy to administer and hundreds of lawyers to sue non-compliant businesses), but they did what they thought was best.

If "the blind" are really such a wealthy group of consumers, why is it necessary for government to intrude on their behalf? Surely it's reasonable that businesses who think the benefit worth the cost should address their needs while others who do not, can go without their business. At this rate, the government will soon be telling retail web sites what order their navigation links must be in to "level the playing field"

This is what gets me about the current atmosphere in this country: why does everything always seem come down to "this is what I want, and I want the government to make things that way"? I guess when your position is illogical and you can't make any headway in the marketplace of ideas, that's the only recourse?

You think that's hard, you should try switching to Dvorak!

Well, that's what your science kit is for :-)

Hello Joshua--I suppose you're posting this via abacus?

I'm afraid that the contradiction between your stated position and your sig just made my head esplode.

If these companies stop manufacturing the kits, it doesn't mean that they're the evil suxors, it means that they don't think that they can do the testing and make a profit. The first rule of understanding capitalism is: Don't ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by economic motives.

Don't try to understand the editors. That is impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth: there are no editors.

I have a sneaking suspicion of collusion between wireless carriers and phone providers, that goes something like:

1. Have developers offer "free" ad-supported apps which helps sell phone
2. Cap bandwidth by which ads are served
3.????
4. Profit !

The issue with advertising (as I see it) is that there are actually a lot of small advertisers who are willing to pay for ad space, but only if it's relevant. For instance, I see ads for a local shop--that provides services as opposed to retail--in one app on my phone. You can bet that that shop owner would be unwilling to pay for ads that were going to be distributed nationally, because 99% of the people who see that ad aren't going to live close enough to use the service.

For someone like a car company, or an on-line retailer, or national fast food chain, location might not matter. Anyone anywhere might buy a Ford, shop at Amazon, or eat at McDonalds. But those big companies aren't going to be interested in advertising in a fart app that's been downloaded 300 times.

I suspect that this, along with the thorny issue of using now-capped bandwidth to serve ads, is going to put ad-supported apps out of business.

The natural consequence of smaller government is less government coercion of private behavior.

Right now all we have are two wings of the fascists--the "liberals" who want the State to tell people how to live: recycle or be fined, eat what we say or pay higher taxes, don't commit the "hate crime" of creating a "hostile environment" (essentially the criminalization of thought); and the "conservatives" who want the State to tell people how to live: don't view pornography, wear a flag pin, don't view Web sites about "terrorist" topics (essentially the criminalization of thought).

I wish that there were more liberals (in the classic sense) who could see their common ground with Libertarians. I think it could be a powerful counter-force to the Tea Party movement, which I thought might actually be a force for good until it was high jacked by the "conservative" wing of the two-sided coin that's our current party system.

People procrastinate (both individually and in groups) because in a lot of cases, waiting to decide is the rational thing to do. Making a snap decision can be helpful in some cases (and thus the fight/flight reaction) but a lot of times it's better to collect more information before deciding what to do. You see smoke over the next hill--run away willy-nilly and chance running into the fire's path, or wait to determine wind direction and if you're actually in danger?

Obviously you're pursuing a PhD in the New Math.

Tell it to Lindsey

You could pretty much completely wipe out Israel with a single nuke, providing it was big enough. Seriously--it's about the size of New Jersey.

And as far as I can tell, expecting rational behavior from the mullahs is... irrational.

Yes.

Unfortunately, your average inhabitant of congress doesn't have enough brain power to decipher the words "unintended consequences" (too many syllables, I guess) let alone understand the concept.

But hey, since they've already solved all of the country's big problems, it's definitely time to move on to micromanaging web development. After all, they've been so successful with most of their technology laws and what could possibly go wrong?