I actually like maximized windows. I just use a multi-screen setup. All the small windows that I need to see a status of at a glance get thrown into my fourth monitor. The other three are usually for the item I'm working on, the window I'm referencing, and maybe another item I'm merging with the first. I don't quite understand why anyone would *want* only one or two monitors. It's one thing if you're on a laptop and that's all you have, but multi-monitor setups are the only thing I'll work on for any serious project.

First off, I'd like to apologize on my "older business folks" comment as its not necessarily age related, you're the same age as my sister so I don't really care about age. I just used it as a way to express that previous generations did business face to face and some people still think that is the only way. Some have adapted to modern communication, some haven't. As your scenario points out there are instances where a phone call, possibly a meeting, is called for due to one of the parties being grossly misinformed or entirely uninformed and its just quicker to meet up. I'm speaking of those who insist on face to face meetings where no misinformation or gross ignorance exists.

As for older folks being better at reading people due to life experience, I agree. I *don't* have that experience and as I'm sure is quite obvious, I'm not a "people" person. I already have enough deficiency among my own age bracket, I don't need the additional hurdle of going up against an expert who is trying to make me as uncomfortable as possible with pressuring me. I have an order, I want it at a reasonable price based upon market conditions. I don't care about extracting every drop of blood from the stone but the other side doesn't seem to agree with that. They abhor leaving "money on the table" instead of just being profitable enough in business to stay in business. So generally they filter themselves out of my world but every so often I have no choice and it sticks in my craw.

Yes, sometimes a quick phone call can solve a string of miscommunication in email, but one of the reasons that phone call was so quick is because the person already had all the information over email. You just had to clear up the one bit of data they were mistaken or confused on. A "quick" meeting is never a quick meeting. Whenever I have to leave the office to meet with someone it's almost always going to take 2-4 hours. Just the travel time involved is 30 minutes minimal there and back unless they happen to be down the hallway.

In those scenarios I agree with you. But those I find who most insist on meetings are the ones least able to spontaneously generate new ideas or direction. They just want to sit around talking about things in a circlejerk without actually doing anything for months. Waste of time. Those that can do adhoc communication are just good at getting things done and meetings aren't needed except to get the circlejerks in line.

Face to face meetings in business are more effective because the older business folks (and those trained by them) refuse to do anything until you meet them face to face. I think it mostly has to do with tradition and that they aren't interested in making a reasonable percentage of profit but in getting the highest amount possible. This then requires their ability to read people which needs face to face meetings. So effective isn't the proper word "willing" would be closer to the mark.

Just the other day I had to have a meeting with someone that took a month to setup (my schedule was hectic so I kept having to move them around). Everything that was spoken about could have been handled in a quick email but they required I meet them in person so they could feel good about themselves. I don't need to know if you're blond, brunette, male, female, and honestly I don't give a damn. I just want to get things done and face to face is the most inefficient method I know of.

You're dead on. Any of those would have instantly put Star Wars into Science Fiction for me. By any chance have the novels ever delved into where the energy for these feats comes from? Since that is the main sticking point for me when it comes to putting SW into Science Fiction... I just can't give credit to bacteria for it even if those little guys do get a lot of respect from me for other reasons. Thanks for the conversation, I've really enjoyed it.

No, we don't know how today. But we're researching it with drugs and the theories as they stand today seem sound since we know its 100% possible. People get hit in the head with a baseball bat and suddenly can recall facts perfectly or some other major mental change occurs. We *know* this can happen, the thing is we don't know how to accomplish it *on demand*. That's what the Mule represents, the ability to do these on demand.

Umm no. Asimov starts with a very strong understanding of physics and chemistry and then extrapolates from that a science fiction setting were our understanding is even greater. There is nothing in his universe that could *never* happen unless you want to be silly about it. Which considering how you're having fun with this, I'm guessing you are. ;)

If that was how Star Wars handled things, were The Force basically was sort of like a remote hand/light telekinese not crazy off the charts level I'd be willing to accept it. Some sort of Techno Mage ability ala Babylon 5 but encoded into Mitochlorians. But it doesn't. The Force stops a starship the size of a city with a thought, nothing else. You think. It stops. Period. No rockets retard the movement. Straight up Q level power except without the excuse of being an interdimensional being that can cheat by using exterior devices to control things in our universe (which is how Q's got their power if I recall my lore on them properly).

I'm still holding out that FTL is possible, because otherwise our universe is going to be very lonely place. Plus, I love Star Wars, with the exception of jarjar who needs to die in an acid bath. The six episodes are my favorite Space Fantasy movies ever.

Asimov doesn't state the how, but the ability to alter moods and memory at will are being worked on right as we speak. Hell just look up some of the Japanese research that lets you control people like a remote control car and that's old news. Asimov also shows later on that machines can duplicate Mule's ability so it's not 'mystical' in nature, it really is just something we don't understand but are based on theories we actually posses today. So it's a case where we have theories that say its possible, we're finding ways to actually do it in reality, and he just endowed a character with those abilities without all the encumbrance of machinery... I'm willing to forgive that the way I forgive FTL. So I don't see his ability as something that makes the series fantastical even if the *way* he has those abilities is stretching probability to the breaking point.

Unlike The Force which can let a meatbag of a couple dozen kilos stop the forward momentum of starship the size of a city that we blatantly know is impossible unless our understanding of reality is totally skewed. Things like that coupled with all the other abilities The Force imbues their practitioners with is why its just another name for Magic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model

Yes. It's not wrong enough to be replaced by something else yet.

"Science that is unknown to us"? The same thing could be said for Dungeons & Dragons then. You've got people walking around who have the ability to nullify physics with a thought and with no energy requirement except happy thoughts. Fantasy.