Thank God we have Google to defend the end-users' interests.

Seriously, is there anything that Google can't provide? Maybe they should run everything!

I'd suggest disabling javascript and calling it a day.

FWIW, this is Slashdot. You can be pretty confident that a Slashdot user is aware of disabling Javascript, and of NoScript, and all the other obvious non-solutions. You can also be confident that if they haven't done so, there's a pretty good reason. In my case, the trouble it fixes is not as bad as the trouble it causes. Not a few Web sites do not work, or work poorly without Javascript. Sometimes it's even useful.

This has been a problem going all the way back to 1995 with a million nested tables and IMG tags with no width or height attributes. It's simply bad design and the bad habit of blindly following trends. People do that because good design is hard and expensive, and following trends is easier and cheaper than developing an individual marketing campaign.

With NoScript on and off, the web is a totally different place

Yes. Quite often completely non-functional, because the site requires Javascript to do anything.

Usually this is followed by an assertion that the site's developer is a clueless knob--which may be true, but doesn't help at all. This is the Web we deserve, I suppose: 6 megabit cable connections and dual-core 2.5 gigahertz processors that can't render a forum page for Pokemon addicts in under 8 seconds.

And all other "add this piece of Javascript to your Web page and make it more awesomer!"

Yes, yes, they're useful. And you can't fathom a future without them. But in the meantime I'm watching my status bar say, "completed 4 of 5 items", then change to "completed 11 of 27 items", to "completed 18 of 57 items", to "completed... oh screw this, you're downloading the whole Internet, just sit back, relax and watch the blinkenlights".

Remember when a 768kbps DSL line was whizzo fast? Because all it had to download was some simple HTML, maybe some gifs?

I want my old Internet back. And a pony.

I think most people are that way. Most people tolerate TV ads, for example, or use those discount cards at the grocery store.

I was willing to let Facebook know some things for their service, but not now. I got tired of every few months having to play the most played (and least popular) game on Facebook, "Oh Jesus, What's Changed Now, And How Can I Make It Go Away?". The News/Live feed thing did it for me. Yeah, I really want some Facebook programmer's script to determine what's "interesting" or "not interesting" for me. Who would think that's a good idea?

I didn't compare them. I made a jocular analogy to highlight the tendency for some people to overreach and why some people find that annoying. You interpreted it to fit your preconceived arguments, so I told you to go pound sand.

We can debate the fine line between logical speculation and hand-waving and story-telling if you want to (I don't), but as I said, if there were definitive science you'd point to it. There isn't. What you offered instead was a dodge, suggesting that I should go study biochemistry and self-organizing systems. It's clear to me that you haven't thought very carefully about this and prefer to wrestle strawmen.

I'm not entirely unfamiliar with what's gone on in this field. For example, I know enough that your suggestion that I "look into basic biology" and "self-organization in nature" is pretty much bluster. If you could point to a self-replicating cell created in the lab under conditions that seemed likely 3 billion years ago, you would. You can't, so you insinuate that I'm talking out of my ass and try to condescend.

Arrogance, in other words--though I have doubts that you're a scientist. More likely just an enthusiast with a grudge.

While there's a lot of good, interesting science going on here, some of it suggestive, that's all it is. Speculate all you want, but be honest enough to say it's speculation.

Wasn't part of Saddam's beef with Kuwait in Iraq War 1.0 that the Kuwaitis were slant-drilling? Or was it the other way around?

Or as P.J. O'Rourke says, "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then get elected and prove it."

It's not that scientists haven't been able to reproduce what happened over a million years that engenders skepticism. It's that scientists manage to make a nut and a bolt in the lab, and evolution cheerleaders point to it and say, "And in a million years, it becomes a car! WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW, JESUS BOY?"

I think it's neat that we're getting hints about how life can possibly form from ordinary chemistry. But they're just hints, and it's just a possibility. Hand-waving, story-telling and invoking the million-year magick is not all that enlightening.

Who is using Netbeans?

Is there any major Internet site or technology that relies on it?

This sounds like the kind of announcement that will make two or three dozen Netbeans programmers gnash their teeth, and everybody else go, "....so?"

The problem with using "insurance" to pay for routine things is it separates the buyer from the seller with a third-party. Whenever you do this you decrease the efficiency of the market. The seller will adjust prices according to what he thinks the third-party will pay, and the buyer won't care.

Under a federally-mandated and/or controlled health insurance plan, now you've introduced a fourth party to the equation. This isn't to say it can't work, but I wouldn't bet on it. And in 10 years we'll be bitching to replace the reform because it's clearly not working.

This reform could have been a lot simpler. Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. Mandate that health care providers advertise prices. Make health insurance premiums tax-free, whether employer paid or self paid. Establish a bare minimum of insurance coverage, explicitly spelled out by law, established by looking at a baseline healthy citizen's average risks and costs and bumping it up a bit, with a reasonable maximum coverage cap, say $750,000. Provide federal funding for the bottom 10-20% of income earners to buy minimum coverage policies from private insurers. Forbid dropping coverage for pre-existing conditions, and allow for refusal of payment for pre-existing conditions for 1 year after establishing the policy.

Basically, remove perverse incentives, increase transparency in health care costs, and provide funding for those who simply cannot afford it otherwise. Those that can afford it will have information available to them so that they can make better decisions on where to go and won't have to be taxed for money spent on health care.

I've known more than a few electricians whose natural skin resistance allowed them to grab bare 110 wires while they're still hot. It's quite something to see somebody wire in a new receptacle while it's still live.

Thank you for your insight into the butthole region.

I would be very interested to see the stats of death per capita due to electrical shock in the home for USA and UK.

That wouldn't tell you anything re: the 2-prong vs. 3-prong debate unless the data is broken out by how the electrical shock occurred.

The purpose of the third ground prong is to provide a path to ground for the appliance's casing. Interestingly enough, most appliances are built reasonably carefully so that their case won't become electrified. Crispy chunks of long pig do not buy new blenders, so they've got an incentive to do so. I imagine most deaths due to electric shock occur when the homeowner is dicking around with the wiring in the wall or ceiling while adding a ceiling fan or a hot tub, not from getting a fatal jolt of juice from the Cuisinart.

It's not that serious of a safety issue. It will sort itself out in time, without Chicken Littling everybody to death.