Because it's the same zillion-to-one chance, but as the jackpot goes up, the risk/reward ratio looks better. Or maybe it's the other risk of being the person who could have bought the winning ticket but didn't.

Maths is fun. So is game theory. Which do you choose, increasing the odds of getting more of the prize - without increasing the odds of getting the prize in the first place? or increasing the odds of getting the prize, without increasing the odds against having to share it? Two distinct issues.

Disagree - they are reduced by 100%. They go from something (however small) to nothing.

I agree. Maybe this is just part of the overall requirement to be able to live well in a given area, which is part of the drive to adapt humans to have differences in different areas. Some regional cultures live on milk and cheese, others use no dairy products and have a higher incidence of intolerance. In former times there were more typical regional appearances, beyond the obvious wide differences in color and build and facial structure, down to national "looks" (and in addition to local natural selection, there was less travel and thus less genetic mixing). If the local diet is oversupplied or deficient in some mineral or vitamin, then certain body types and chemistries will be more prevalent.

"Oh, it must have happened automatically somehow, we had nothing to do with it . . ." Of course, a real criminal would *also* love to have a way to remotely wipe a phone that had fallen into police hands. Oddly enough, the police and the criminals want the same thing here; fancy that . . .

The interviews show the true range of Stewart's abilities. He can talk to silly stars or serious people, and everyone in between, each at their own level, and give each an opportunity to shine. And clearly he's read up on each guest's work and background, even when he self-deprecatingly pleads ignorance.

Stewart is *not* delivering news; he is delivering commentary on the news, and commentary on other people's reporting of the news (particularly when people contradict themselves). To provide background for that commentary, he must mention the original news or original reporting. The fact that people don't even bother listening to the original news because they're content with whatever Stewart and his staff have edited from the day's firehose of information does not make Stewart a news source, and his insistence on that is what makes his editorial slant acceptable.

We have ice cream shops whose major marketing point is their choice of 31 flavors; we have an entire flavors & fragrances industry trying to make food taste as varied as possible. Humans don't all want the same flavor, because humans' chemistry isn't all the same. The simplest thing wrong with any single plan, be it the Food Pyramid or the Food Plate or any named diet, is that one single plan cannot possibly be right for everyone, all the time. Even the same individual's needs change depending on activity level and health and age and environment. One could define a best *process* for testing and analyzing what works best for each individual, but not a best diet.

This. It is the flip side of lawyers for anyone accused *under* 18 describing them as a "child" (even better, "just a child"), which doesn't fit well when the accusation is rape or battery, particularly when the 16- or 17-year-old "child" is on the football or wrestling team.

Repeat: I agree with you about the militarized police. I was a kid in the 1960s when the "special weapons and tactics" concept became common enough to get an acronym, and it was already scary then - even though it was happening because of some violent criminal activity. (I don't think it's corrupt; for corruption I point to the massive abuse of civil forfeiture. But it is excessive.) OTOH i think your suggestion of SWATting Congresspeople would be perpetrating a dual evil of misusing the militarized police we both object to, and recklessly endangering people just like the original character in this story. While I appreciate the goal of poetic justice, I would not lower myself to a level I despise in order to do it, because then I'd become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. (PS - I don't think your reply was a troll. A bit more extreme than my original call for execution, but at worst a devil's advocate position.)

"Help, I need police, there's an intruder in the house and I already heard him shoot the dog! so I'm sure he's got a gun! Please come quickly!" Preferably in a young voice. Maybe a few details about hearing Mom screaming and then crying . . . How many TV shows and movies start with those scenes?

I agree with you about the militarized police; but what you're suggesting is like dropping a loaded gun on the floor just to demonstrate how dangerous it might be. Someone could get killed by accident.

I wish, with all my heart, that we could always rely on reasonable people to take reasonable positions and make reasonable use of power. All it takes is for an unreasonable person to attain a position of power, or even for a reasonable person to be misled by unreasonable people controlling the flow of information, for power to be abused. Put this power in the hands of a reasonable person, and his successor (or two or three) could be a religious zealot or some other kind of fanatic. I categorically find the idea of "kiddie porn" vile and disgusting; and at the same time I'm willing to bet that many families have photos of naked babies, or children in the bathtub, or teens changing in a towel on the beach, that are purely childish mementos - except that by some technical literal criteria, the nudity and age could be counted as kiddie porn. Not to mention differing cultural standards: in the US a national magazine cover can show a girl in a teeny bikini but the slightest glimpse of nipple is forbidden, while in some countries a girl needn't bother with a top at all.

My 3-book Ballantine Books edition of LOTR sits on the shelf to my left. When I purchased it in 1970 or so and read that note on the back, there were barely computers as we know them today, let alone BBSes or the Net, or any kind of index. A few years later, the college science fiction club I co-founded circulated MIMEOGRAPHED COPIES of our sporadically-published newsletter with other clubs. (For those who never heard of mimeograph . . . use Google. For those who remember the intoxicating smell of mimeograph fluid, well, no explanation necessary.) Yes, children, there *was* a world before the Internet. And you.

The linked article uses the words "prank" and "prankster" multiple times. This is not ordering someone else a pizza; this is ordering someone else a large group of hair-trigger people carrying deadly weapons and expecting violence. People like this should be restrained or executed, not so much for what they have done, as for being the sort of people who would do it.