Why get married if you aren't planning to combine anything?

I agree with Johnny Chung Lee, who pointed out in his blog, http://procrastineering.blogspot.com/2011/11/technology-as-story.html that everything is a story. In the case of movies, you consume the stories but in other cases you are actually a part of the story. I believe this applies to business software, games of all types, hardware and software.

The trick is understanding the story and what to do with it. The games I enjoy are escapist first person action where I am the center of the story. As such, I don't really care about cut scenes or any of what I consider fluff.

Two "professional" drivers were very responsible for the deaths in this situation. Any driver, and especially a professional one, should be able to respond to things that happen in front of them in a way that avoids contact, and if that is impossible, in a way that minimizes damages to people or property. It is even possible the 19-year-old that caused the initial crash would still be alive if not crushed by a school bus driven by a professional driver.

Butterfly++? Butterfly#? or straight Butterfly?

I don't understand why they keep sticking those damn intermediate layers in there. Real programmers write write in assembly language. If you want real performance that is what you need to be doing instead of using foofy object-oriented programming tools and junk like that. In my experience those other things just add more bugs and no real value. If you want information an old-fashioned text-only display can provide it. Remove all the layers please.

I don't see how Dick's estate can claim anything here. The word "android" was created in the 1700s. The word "nexus" was created in the 1600s. Although the referenced story creates an interesting nexus between the two words, I don't see how that connection can be significant enough to create some type of claim on the combination of the two words, even if they were used together. Perhaps LG should have to pay Patrick Skene Catling for using his intellectual property when they named their product "Chocolate Touch".

This post presumes that fact that "creation scientists" have nothing to add to the debate. This is exactly the type of thing I am talking about.

To discount an entire argument because the person have been pre-labeled as not agreeing with you is to defy the entire scientific process.

It is rare that two opposing viewpoints are actually completely opposite. A true creation scientist will be open-minded enough to debate and discuss various thoughts and viewpoints and a rational discussion/debate may lead to some enlightenment on both sides.

A close-minded creation scientist is just as dangerous as any other close-minded other scientist. "Closed-minded" and "scientist" are not words that belong together.

I am not suggesting scientists just sit around and debate all day. But they owe it to the scientific community and the populace in general to be scientific about how they approach things (duh).

My logic tells me that true science is more about questions than answers. I believe that we continually need to move forward but with enough doubt about how far we have come to be able to freely discuss "facts" that we have already established.

In the fable of the Blind Men and the Elephant ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant ), various people correctly observe things and make differing conclusions about them. While there are definitely times to apply Occam's Razor and accept certain facts and move on, that does not mean there is not more to the story that can be observed later from a different angle.

Any "scientist" who works to "shut up" the opposition, has ceased to be a scientist and has turned into a political creature. Science is not about manipulation but about free and open discussions based upon the merits of the arguments.

Pictures of Verizon Executives in compromising positions is automatically a violation of the AUP.

A bear walks into a bar and says "I would like a beer ... ", waits 30 seconds, then says "... and a wine cooler."

The bartender says, "OK. But why the big pause?"

The bear says, "I dunno. I've always had them"