In other words, it doesn't clean the air. (Of course it doesn't!) You have to hand it to doublespeak. Marketing copywriters are managing to convince some people that automobile exhaust is more breathable than air. Astonishing.

When people self-report their media consumption, they tend to underestimate (or under-report) the amount of TV they watch. The Video Consumer Mapping Study (VCM), the largest study of video consumption to date, also documented this tendency.

Even for the well-intentioned, it's easy to underestimate. While participants in the VCM commonly under-reported by 25%, I find it especially interesting when a person under-reports by a very large amount—like 80%. There is a social stigma about watching television. Some people feel shame about it, and may even be aware that television is part of a coping strategy in their lives—one of the factors in television addiction.

But the VCS is a media study, not a sociopsychological one. It has a lot of fascinating data about American's viewing habits. Do people watch more TV or less if they own a DVR? Do most people watch alone or with others? How many people watch more video online than on television? It's in there.

So maybe reading the study will make you feel better about watching TV. Or maybe, like Jerry Mander, author of Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television , you feel more depressed and concerned as you think about the impact of TV-viewing on our bodies, brains, and societies.

I'm very fond of Peep Show . But I can't shake this nagging awareness that time I spend consuming is time taken away from creating.

Having read the article, I see a significant discrepancy between the headline and the text.

Jonsdottir is doing more than "commenting as an... activist". She presumes to speak in behalf of the WikiLeaks network, although her assertions are not corroborated on wikileaks.org.

Wikileaks.org is the mouthpiece of the organization. In the WikiLeaks spirit of full disclosure of primary documents, see the WikiLeaks blog post dated 21 August, 2010 (which, at this writing, remains the most recent).

Also, Jonsdottir cites no empirical "reason to think" the accusation is plausible. When evaluating statements in the media, we must all think critically rather than prejudicially. Look beyond the claims to the evidence.

There is a big difference between missing nonverbal signals, and being incapable of apprehending nonverbal communication. It's a grossly untrue stereotype that people of great cognitive ability lack emotional intelligence and street smarts (social intelligence). Such a discrepancy, savantism, is rare. That many autistic people are savants is another untrue stereotype. Asperger syndrome, one of the autism spectrum disorders, is more common. Like all ASDs, Asperger syndrome is a developmental disorder, not a proclivity.

We live in an age in which incidence of pervasive developmental disorders such as autism (including Asperger syndrome) is on a troubling rise. To help put it into perspective, the autistic population is greater than the population of people with IQs higher than 140. It's much easier to accept Asperger symptoms as "normal" when they occur in so many people.

So why are autism spectrum disorders more prevalent now? The prevailing theory is that autistic people have one of various genetic weaknesses that make them more susceptible to environmental toxins (such as mercury) that impair brain development. Industrialization exposes people to much higher levels of these toxins than in pre-industrial society. Bigger picture: this is sociobiological evolution in action. Social evolution precedes biological evolution. This is just one way in which the industrial lifestyle is affecting our species.

"Microsoft Accepted by Old/Curmudgeonly"

Those twits just love to tweet about Thuat. But seriously, Thuat ftn.

I, for one, welcome our new murine overlords.

...an action that releases tons of iron a year and stimulates the growth of phytoplankton which absorb and trap carbon dioxide. If only we humans could say the same for our poop, which really doesn't do much more than just sit there."

Of course human "poop" has a similar role; the waste of every single organism does. In fact, there is no such thing as "waste" per se, only input and output. Your poop is for some species food, for others a home, and for others a womb.

This is a crucial part of the cycle of life. Once organisms adapt into symbiosis, they eat and grow together without harming each other. The beneficial bacteria in your gut secrete enzymes that digest your food, as well as organic chemicals that allow your immune system to function healthily. Such a relationship can take a long time to form. Symbiosis is a primary goal of biological evolution. There is nothing bad or shameful or evil or naughty or worthless about what you urinate or defecate. In fact, it is exactly the opposite.

This article on monsanto.com makes it very plain:

"Monsanto has never developed or commercialized a sterile seed product. Sharing many of the concerns of small landholder farmers, Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile seed technology in food crops. We stand firmly by this commitment. We have no plans or research that would violate this commitment in any way."

In spite of this reassurance, one can't rule out the possibility that Monsanto will decide later that it's in their own best interest to market a sterile seed technology.

Monsanto has persecuted many farmers for allegedly saving the seeds of their GM plants (corn, soybeans, and cotton) for planting. See http://www.monsanto.com/seedpatentprotection/monsantos_position.asp for one of the several Monsanto resources that discusses this practice. There's very little a farmer can do to protect his business when Monsanto makes such an accusation. The legal battles can last years, and are devastating.

Nope, you're good.

http://www.useragentstring.com/pages/Googlebot/

...science fiction anticipates scientific discovery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBmgZv6YAxE&fmt=18

(From Red Dwarf series 4, episode 4, "White Hole".)

PhRMA says pubic lice theft exceeded $51B in 2009.