I think that the act of holding a phone to your ear in a car is negligible considering what's actually going on under the surface, namely, the scattering of an almost unfathomable amount of radio and microwaves through the space, probably collected and amplified into a bit of an eddy by the frame of the car, so essentially worst-case scenario for bioelectric brain health.

This all aside from the fact that the radio is already a brain-programming technology of mass mind control, so really I think this kind of debate is kind of a red herring in the face of the stark reality of what a freeway really is.

I think the gravity of this post is the fact of the novel occurrence, that is to say, that a new technology is being used to do a fairly mundane thing. Though the thing is mundane, the means raise some questions, and hint at perhaps some subtle and largely unseen developments in the netsphere.

Scary? Just don't look inside the iPod ...

I did that with monkeys and typewriters a while back, but they started writing tabloids instead of Shakespeare and I had to shut the thing down. Unfortunately, I think some monkeys may have escaped.

Like, cancer, but on computers. In computers. Swarming through an incomprehensibly convoluted and complicated array of computers. Why, oh why, did I ever, start, using, computers?

Well, I've been sitting on this one for a bit, but I think it works here - consider Fermat's "last" theorem, that A^n + B^n cannot equal C^n.

If you look at the underlying assumptions of this, I think it might become apparent that in fact the Pythagorean theorem holds only in twospace, or rather is a planar function. The "astoundingly simple proof" is the fact that the theorem is false. True, higher powers of the operands will not satisfy the equation in twospace - but why not rather ask, "On which curve might this equation work with powers higher than 2?"

As for the connection between this and the quantum thing, basically what we're seeing here is that numbers are not solid; a logical assertion is just that, an assertion, proved by its intrinsic ruleset; as Godel describes, this leaves us with a self-reflexive definition for truth, which by definition cannot prove itself true.

So I think where this all is going is a return to perception as the basis for truth: I don't need to logically prove that I drink coffee; I just do. I need logic and number theory to decide what kind of coffee I want, and how to make it, but its existence is a priori. Logic must be re-understood as being a tool which organizes the underlying substrate of matter-consciousness, not as a truth unto itself; numbers act upon underlying chaotic waters.

And I thought I was bad. Might make for an interesting classroom dynamic though.

"What's that in the radiator?"

I dunno, they've been doing that for decades, and it's not exactly as if the modern classroom weren't already chock full of various forms of advertisement, subliminals, etc. Perhaps we should just have salesmen start administering tests, and instead of grading it, you get feedback on what you should buy, and then get told to get through school and get a job to buy it. Wait a second ...

Could be fun, maybe it could even by a psychic mug that would read the thoughts of the customer and give them a beer specifically tailored to their emotional state, sensed by skin temperature etc. Even better, a teleport mug that instantly refills itself as you're drinking the beer.

Windows apple mix cookies it really just doesn't matter, a week ago I would have gotten worked up over this into some kind of evangelical Linux trip, but I dunno, who really cares? It's a disk, with a bunch of numbers on it, and when you put it in your computer, it draws boxes and prints words and makes pictures and provides a nice platform to play Solitaire. I mean, sounds good to me. Blue screen of death! Best code ever written.

I mean really, I've been waiting for this game for so long it's just not even funny. VIRTUAL PIECE: it'll sell millions!

I think that members of the AGU, which I have myself been rather frustrated with lately due to the stress of prolonged negotiations over what I can only figure to be the aesthetics of hairstyle or some equally inane aspect of reality - let's just settle on curls and call it good - might benefit by the reminder that pants, in fact, exist only at an intersection of temporal planes, and that in fact, everybody is actually naked underneath the illusory refraction of clothes consciousness.

Well, I think that the obvious risk with this new form of censorship is the decline of music, as Metallica has so emphatically - and correctly - understated; if people have independent freedom to download and listen to all forms of music, they might - God forbid - start listening to really, really stupid and bad music, and wandering around with iPods jammed into their brains. Of course, this is nothing compared to the risk that people might download a track by Milly Vanilly, and be permanently infected by a rare form of cranio-musical psychosis unprecedented before the advent of the 4/4 bass line, which I personally think killed the whole thing to begin with.

I dunno, it was also an accident, I was a bit drunk and started swinging random stuff around and like "holy hell, this could sell," and called up a marketing executive. She called me crazy, so I started a better company. I didn't actually do this, but I think the principle holds that drinking and silicon DO NOT MIX, and should never be anywhere remotely near each other under any circumstance, unless the silicon is mixed with an appropriate substrate to facilitate the absolution of grinprocessing, and an FPU to correct for the spins.

Though not an expert, I might expect that an acorn is a distant cousin to "traditional" corn, thus deriving the definiton "not-corn," or "a-corn," although their nonexistence in said specific instances might hint at some larger force at work. Clearly, it's all Nicole Kidman's fault.