Just a few years ago, a Canadian study using baseball stats (because they tracked handiness closely) concluded that lefties were far more likely to die, ( http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199110033251412) this was later shown to have suffered a seemingly paradoxical sampling error (not controlling adequately for those that didn't die). Then there was another study that concluded that left-handedness was likely the result of anoxia in the womb ( http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002839327390050X). It was discounted for similar sampling error problems. Neurological "wiring error"; perhaps a mutation with few consequences; advantages in the mathematical world (presumably via having a screwy mindset); Language disadvantages; Language *advantages*; high proportion of left-handed (possibly suppressed) American presidents http://www.anythingleft-handed.co.uk/presidents.html (Clinton, Bush, Obama ... ). So... run a elaborate predator/prey model applied to sports and see an advantage for the 10% that are different; sounds like rediscovery of Perato distribution to me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution I'm just not convinced that there's been a proper scientific approach to this issue to date, and until then i'm still stuck with a twisted spine in most college classrooms.

i didn't conclude anything. the topic here is Brin attacking Facebook as a "threat to internet freedom", CISPA is a threat to internet freedom (i say), but Brin doesn't mention the fact that Facebook is supporting CISPA. i just want to know why.

...and no mention made at all of Facebook's recent scary support of the SOPA-heir: CISPA? Why wouldn't google want to tar Facebook with that one? ...might it be that google likes CISPA?

if in doubt blame the browser, but i see a change between frames #1 and #2 and then it gets 'stuck' and no more changes are seen. Firefox 14.0a1 "nightly" ("well y'see thars yer problem right char")

Yes, this is exactly my point too. As an limiting argument, let's say my window manager had some-sort of graphics interface with more bells and whistles than emacs. "ooo look! i wrote a script that resulted in a full Donkeykong game in less than 32 characters!!" of course, that was one of the features of the fancy fictitious graphics interface that there are a number of example games that could be started with the equivalent of "run('donkkong')"

The central problem with 3d-ing stuff is that it solves no problem, scratches no apparent itch, feeds no bull-dog, *and* annoys the pig. Every implementation i've been 'lucky' enough to observe comes off as a skit John Candy did where the 3d feature was made the central feature of the plot (of some silly B-movie). oh, here's a sample (forgot it was "Dr Tongue") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u4tTFEF_XE

So... "look at this crap we want you to by... *look* at it! ooo..." [moves object fitfully in/out of visual plan]

Someone should insist with (much-beloved) Professor Stroustrup that it's ok/desirable to leave it so Han Solo shoots first.

"What do you want Google? The Key of Orthanc, or perhaps the keys of Barad-dûr itself, along with the crowns of the seven kings, and the rods of the five wizards?"

nah... just start a company that makes killer-drones. "drones to kill their drones" ...drone-wars!

These efforts are to a large extent laudable, and ought to be encouraged in any case; ...however, it gets messy when this hardware requires firm/soft -ware which comes only on a proprietary platform, or binary only libraries, or libraries which require binary only libraries. .Net, Eagle, MPLAB... are easy examples, others are more subtle. These guys know about this problem and either are "working" on it (and for that, gawdbless'em), or in some few cases, just don't give a damn; (there is a buck to be made presenting it thus after-all). So, "Open Source Hardware" is often "Open Hardware", sans the source.

yes, "moving" the lawn, or even "mowing" the lawn... -sigh- (need more coffee...)