I like Python. I like C++. I sort-of like C.

If Python were only 4 times slower than C++, it wouldn't be such a big deal. On things where speed really matters, Python seems to be a lot slower than that. Just to give an example off the top of my head, the other day I wrote a brute force decryption routine; the C++ version ran in seconds, the Python version took between 5-10 minutes on every run. Python is hella fun to code in, but it doesn't seem to be a language for heavy lifting. It makes a great scripting language, or a fun language to design and kick ideas around in.

I've heard that pypy can help with the speed issue, though. I'll have to look into that.

Theatres are social? Interesting. I actually find myself going to the theatre alone more often than not, while I almost never wind up watching a movie alone at home. My living room is a way better place to socially enjoy a movie than a theatre.

If it helps visualize where I'm coming from with this, I'm married with 4 children, and I'm the sort of person who strikes up conversations with random people at the grocery store checkout line.

Nah, he isn't a redneck. He is pronouncing it "fah-jay", obviously. I guess that would be the gay way to say faggot ;)

For the funniest take on "Sex and Violence" I have seen, try this old skit by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIqq-TYeKgw&list=UUAbZYhWQXjKmgJEWyMniZWg&index=3&feature=plcp
The video quality is poor, but it's worth watching for the punchline.

It has one thing that could be much better than a touch screen: gesture input without greasy fingerprints on my screen.

This is why, although my newest Sony e-reader has a touch screen, I still use the buttons to flip the pages 99% of the time.

I am actually interested in this technology. I've gotten used to browsing the web on touch screen devices, so much so that I find myself annoyed when I'm browsing a website on my PC and can't "pinch-to-zoom" the tiny text on a page.

Yeah, I bet they are designing/calibrating these ones for closer use.

Like I said, I believe in climate change. Did you actually read what I wrote? I'm sure their arguments are invalid; the point is, the rebuttal letter did not actually rebut any of the arguments, it just ignored them. No wonder the WSJ didn't bother printing it; I wonder why Science did. We would all have been better served by a letter that actually deigned to debate the issues, one that proved the point. Right?

^^ this
For proof, I submit my oldest daughter, who I have seen on multiple occasions engaged in discussions with friends simultaneously on: twitter/facebook/SMS/Skype/ and not one but *two* phones, both held in front of her so the people on each phone could hear each other, her, and the Skype session on her netbook...

She seems very popular, gets along with just about everyone no matter what the age, does very well in school. She is also dating a very handsome young man atm, who is capable of carrying on communications with her on at least 3 channels at a time =.=

Um, I don't know what you are reading into his message, but I didn't see anywhere that he was still dwelling on high school. Remembering != dwelling, and remembering that many other people's idea of normal social tendencies in HS was adolescent cliques and follow-the-leader posturing does not comment on *his* social tendencies, then or now.

I read the rebuttal letter, it was printed in Science magazine. It wasn't a "comparable" letter, it probably was scientifically accurate, but it only stated claims, no actual arguments. The letter in the WSJ actually gave arguments. All the letter in Science did was rely on the weight of the names behind it. What they should have done was stated some facts and then drawn conclusions. I am a little confused as to why the letter was such a poor rebuttal (I believe in climate change, personally). Maybe next time they could show a little science. At least the original letter gave the reasons *why* they thought climate change was overblown, the rebuttal letter should have done the same, told *why* they believed in climate change. Instead, they basically just said "there's 255 of us and you better believe us or bad things will happen!"