Or perhaps the real world doesn't actually work the simplistic way young ideology likes to think. The hard cold reality of deadlines, market, and responsibilities outside of career get in the way of producing work of the caliber that dudes on the internet without enough time to read the article demand.

The people 'smart enough' and organized/driven enough to really shine aren't wasting their time posting on comments on Slashdot about articles they didn't read.

Some peoples' subtle is other peoples' meh.

Its a great short story. It is pushing it as a novel. It certainly isn't bad, and is an engaging read, but a heavy in in the literary world? Really? You are kidding right?

In that case we should certainly name the first gigantic, floating, guitar-shaped space city 'Boston'.

Thank you for an informed opinion, The trick as always is resist the pressure from those impatient and dismissive of process and legitimate concerns. There are enough stories of water sources ruined by bad drilling practices and the difficulties for the effected parties. Connecting contamination to a specific project is not easy and the victims are often fucked. There is a lot of irrational hype over fracking, but the is also legitimate reasons for people to be concerned.

"Cheaper energy, boost to the economy, bla bla bla". None of this gets you ahead if you do more long term damage especially to really important resources like WATER. Be informed, do it right the first time, This sort of short term selfish frat boy thinking is costing us too much already.

"Water can be treated"? Not very cheaply if the contaminant is sodium or some other salt, which is typical of water contamination from poor drilling practices.

"Back to living in caves"? No one is suggesting that, advocating responsibility does not make one a Luddite.

  prasadsurve, jacekm, and coward you guys are from the fuckin' fifties.

No-one wants to see your bloody boring one of a billion living room, or your one of a billion pasty body on your one of billions couch or the same old crap you do there that everybody else does. If you are worried about privacy you can live a perfectly enriching technological life by taking some simple measures and really small sacrifices. If you really need a Modern Blast'um 25 from Evil Faceless Developer Corp then maybe you you don't need the precious privacy that playing it violates. Maybe just go outside.

This is a fantastic little exposition, and is very insightful. I've really enjoyed some of Card's work and found it quite thought provoking at times. It also helps me see (not necessarily understand) how someone with a drastically different world view can still approach controversy in a similar way. Depriving yourself of broader understanding on political grounds seems counterproductive. Even the Dalai Lama is going to have some character flaws, that's humanity.

I also see the other view point. If I am annoyed, or just 'tired' of someone's public agenda why should I continue to support it? Can I just approach this on a case by case basis? There is also a distinction between supporting a public figure's agenda and exploring the knowledge and experience that is out there to be had. I likely will not be missing out on personal enrichment if I skip this movie; Ive read the short story, the novel and a sequel or two. It is up to me whether I want to spend money on it or not and for what reason.

I am sorry, do you have a cite? Maximum theoretical overall efficiency of LED lighting is only 43.9 % (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy). Real world efficiency tops out at 22%. That's before efficiency losses in the solar panels (HUGE) and transmission losses. You should know that such claims are almost guaranteed bunk, 2nd law of thermodynamics and all. I believe arcite was jesting../

It is one thing to not RTFA, but couldn't you at least read the summary? They are not talking about the event horizon smarmy-pants.

You probably mean "self-identified" "scientists". I cant believe the nerve of these guys who specialize in a particular discipline of study and come to conclusions that do not agree with your uninformed and fluff based opinion. Don't let the truth get in the way of your little fantasy about the big conspiracy. Why don't you just quote the slew of 'climategate', hockey stick arguments, and general LIES about the data that have been soundly refuted by the scientific community again and again and again. There are lots of examples of this in the past, Google Deutsche Physik. You are a perfect example of the fools that this article points to.

Well the subject of the article, TF2 is a huge counter example to your post. It is entirely pvp and there is really no advantage against f2p players. If you put your time into the game you will get all the items needed to be competitive. A cool hat or strange weapon does not make you any tougher. All of my preferred weapons are from achievements, drops or crafting. You can pay 20 buck for a package of starter weapons, but play for a couple weeks and you will have what you need anyway. Just try to resist opening that mysterious crate for a measly couple of bucks though...

The flight sim community has been using TrackIR to control POV for quite a few years now.

It is an Ekranoplan. 'Huge sea jet of some' sort is pretty close.

"The "climate change" crazies have one thing in common: they all know how to lie with statistics [amazon.com]. My clearest evidence against them is the fact that their "argument" relies more on the star/celebrity power of their spokespeople than on actual scientific evidence, just like the anti-vaccination crowd." You are appealing to reason, but you categorically dismiss people that hold the view you are opposing as crazies? What an ass. Emotion, not reason is what is motivating you. There are some serious questions to ask here, but you have obviously already made your decision based on something else other than reason. Why dont you just simplify it and start ranting about liberals? By the way, those "crazies" happen to include the vast majority of climatologists, you know, scientists that study climate, rather than say petroleum engineering, or geology, or geophysics, or develop nuclear warheads, or various other disciplines that are not climate. Ive read quite a few articles, by scientists that do not study climate, decrying Anthropogenic Climate Change. Often some very good criticisms of the science or presentation are raised, some that I have seen addressed and some that I haven't. This is good, what isnt good is how often the argument degrades to complaints about media, celebrities, economics, political issues and other things that are not science, and how often climate change itself is attacked even though the articles usually start with a disclaimer that that is not what they are disputing. I take the good, leave the bad, and remember that there is a discipline of science that studies climate, and that these guys are criticizing from outside the discipline, which is good but does not put their contributions above those within. There are some serious criticisms of Anthropogenic Climate Change that need to be addressed, but that those that hold that view are "crazies" is not one of them.