I _liked_ the original ending; it had a massively plausible indoctrination interpretation that made you really question what was going on. The revised ending disappointed me by putting the kibosh to that...

Surely the local searching could be handled locally and integrated into the search results without involving the server?

That's some mighty industrious reasoning you got there, son.

I really enjoyed Tintin, for one.

A modern take on VR would probably be better - perhaps some directed-to-retina laser displays, and Kinect-style motion-sensing, or nerve-impulse tracking so the person doesn't have to move.

I hope Adam Buxton gets to play someone. The librarian would do.

Close. The Care Bears is Why.

I hope Frank T. Lofaro Sr. is ashamed of you

Logic really does not always take you to a creator. A timeless, unchanging state of existence (in which the perceived passage of time, and other physical phenomena, emerges via forced perspective of internal structures) not only does not logically need a creator but renders the concept absurd and meaningless.

Any logic that takes you to a creator doesn't know what to do once it gets you there, except shuffle its feet awkwardly and hope you don't want to go any further.

I remember reading an interesting article in New Scientist a few years back which suggested that particles could be seen as 'knots' in their underlying fields, which makes a lot of intuitive sense.

Ah, I think this was it http://www.sns.ias.edu/~witten/papers/KnotsandPhysics.pdf

You don't make your own wires and tape?

The problem is that we have a religious culture that encourages extremely high levels of obedience, faithfulness and passion. And this is not necessarily going to cause problems, but....

But it's unstable, like a dictatorship. Your first dictator might be a fine Wise Benevolent Leader, and everybody's happy. But then his son takes over, and he's maybe something more on the Cackling Lunatic Leader side of thing. You're trapped in a system that doesn't regulate itself. As long as you're shackled to the ideologies attached to a name, rather than the rationale behind the ideologies themselves, something horrible can go wrong.

And it has.

As generalisations go, this is somewhat on the sweeping side.

It's really rather hard to take the cries of "Them scientists are lying to us!" very seriously.

No, I put the green line on myself. It seems at least as good a fit to the data as the cyclic one, and I doodled it in 10 seconds.

My point is that with such a small amount of data, you can't just plonk a regression curve onto it and call it a day; you can get any number of different curves of different kinds to make a good fit. Linear, quadratic, some fourier terms... but your choice can be arbitrary and highly leading and suggestive. The one you provided made it appear cyclic. Mine made it appear a distinct upwards trend.

In short, that data is too ambiguous to analyse like that.

Before I do anything else, I want to address this:

"If the problem is CO2 being released into the atmosphere, then why don't they support nuclear power?"

Who are 'they', exactly? Climate scientists just tell us about what the climate is doing, and what we are doing to it. I don't think it's quite within their remit to support anything.

I can see it must be hard, lacking an obvious way to get the pronunciation of _Mis_ter _Sci_entist across correctly in plaintext, and get the sheer contempt across properly. Here's a nice vid you might want to link to in future http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103850/look-retards