Another great book by her is The Lathe of Heaven.

I'd still keep programming, though certainly not 40 hours a week since I lose focus after about 5 or 6 hours of programming. I'd probably cook massive amounts - there are so many recipes I'd love to try but simply don't have the money for the ingredients, or they're incredibly time consuming.

Programming wise, what I'd really love to contribute to is either Linux driver development or to ReactOS. (And, if I were a billionaire, I could help back them financially when they became successful and Microsoft tried to sue them out of existence. )

I think it might work if you had enough people who weren't seriously ill in the system to cover the costs of those who are. I'm not personally against having some of my money used in this way.

Yes, but there are also chronic illnesses/conditions which could prevent you from getting health insurance. How would one possibly buy coverage before being born with such a condition?

I do believe that people with pre-existing conditions should should be charged a higher rate, since the system wouldn't work otherwise - but within reason, and they should *not* be denied health care.

This is most certainly not insightful - having a well is fairly common in rural areas where the nearby town doesn't pipe water in. It is certainly *not* drinking from where you crap - wells are drilled down to a much lower water table than where your septic is.

Now, a more valid argument would be that many places in the world cannot dig wells because they do not have the water table to sustain too many of them. Or perhaps an even better one would be that the majority of people are unwilling to give up what they perceive as needs in order to conserve energy, and so this approach isn't applicable to everyone.

I just read a book on psychoactive drugs where a group of researchers and professors in the field were asked to rate the most commonly used drugs based on addictiveness. They actually placed nicotine far above heroin. I would argue that the dangerousness of heroin stems more from the fact that it is both easier to overdose on than nicotine due to the fact that people inject it, and is generally dispensed without any sort of quality control - the strength will vary greatly from dose to dose.

Yeah, but the first 100 years or so really sucked, especially if you were a convict. Some of the penal settlements like Norfolk Island were so inhumanly run that inmates killed themselves, or in the case of Irish Catholics who believed that you went to hell if you killed yourself, drew straws and picked someone to be killed so they'd be sent to the mainland for trial. Just so they'd get out of there. Ever read The Fatal Shore? It is a really fascinating book about the founding of Australia.

I can think of one reason - asbestos and various other pollutants that will probably leach out from decaying buildings.

Ditto what you said. My roommate's old laptop was an Alienware - when the screen died, he looked into getting it fixed. The screen alone cost something like $200.

While I can't personally relate, my grandmother certainly can. She was a secretary before the anti-smoking laws were created, and though she retired 15+ years ago, she still has persistence bronchitis and lung issues from working with her co-workers, who all smoked.