The point that the AC made is valid. How much energy can you draw from the wind, before the wind is tapped-out? Certainly, it will be renewed constantly, but I would expect areas with a high density of turbines to develop weaker gusts downwind of the generator field. Taken to excess, we could see the winds begin to stagnate-- at which point, global warming really does become a problem.
To be fair though, I have my doubts about us being able to produce enough turbines for this to turn into something to worry about. Given that human population is growing exponentially, with every generation, this silly idea of large quantities of wind turbines producing adequate energy to supply the world becomes less and less likely. When we start running low on undeveloped, useful land, we'll want to use power sources that take up less space. Consider that we already have technologies that produce significantly more energy than wind, in a fraction of space. Simply enough, we won't be able to afford to waste the room that we have-- not when that space is better used in growing food.
Large points of a school district's curriculum is likely to reflect the values of the local community-- for better or for worse. Curriculum is generally changed in small bits, rather than as a whole, which often results in contradictory materials being taught, and confused children. In my own region, the schools have a horrible habit of adopting a new 5-year Reading program every two years, or so. You'd think that English-speaking cultures, after having taught people to read for several hundred years (and to the population en masse for near to a hundred), would have worked out by now, just what sort of approach works. If one were to take example from our schools, then one would be forced to conclude that this is apparently not the case.
Simply enough, the focus is on pleasing people, rather than identifying clear priorities, and employing mechanisms that are both demonstrated to work and understood. A Social Studies teacher tells his 14 year-old students that a condom is 99% effective in birth control, and certain birth control drugs are also comparably effective. One of those students goes home, tells his parents what he was taught, and next, the whole neighborhood is aflame with rage, that their children are being taught to have sex. A group of concerned parents then pickets the school, writes angry letters to local politicians and newspapers, finally culminating in the strict teaching of abstinence in that city. The next event in the queue, is that the schools get blamed for the inevitable rise in teenage pregnancy.
I, for one, believe that the problems with public schools, K-12, are largely related to the districts getting stuck in the middle of retarded near-political crossfire, much like what I've described above. These are the endless complaints of a sprawling group of specious parents, who're too busy plotting the course of their own self-important social lives, to settle down to the serious business of actually raising their own children themselves.
No, the so-called "liberal enclave" is found much more readily in higher education; those institutions beyond 12th grade. I don't know that it's some deliberate effort to steer the votes of our nation's youth, so much as a sloppy, disorganized collection of contradictory philosophies, having no error-checking against each other.
Yes, but how do you legally define "annoying the crap out of everyone around you", without creating a loophole, in which the law can be abused to violate another's constitutionally-protected rights, such as Freedom of Speech? "Annoyance" is a fairly broad term, especially in a culture as impatient as our own. God forbid that anyone should upset another person.
You make a strong point, but you fail to take into account two things of vital importance: First, that even those who are capable of making good decisions are unable to do so on a governmental scale, when they must spend their time seeing to their careers, rather than spending their time maintaining a well-informed state regarding the issues upon which they must make decisions. The second thing is that those selected to make decisions are necessarily accountable to those who selected them. Should those people be unhappy with his performance, then he will be replaced on the occurrence of a regular interval.
Everyone makes adequate decisions for their everyday life. That is not to say that they necessarily make good decisions, but they tend to make decisions that do not kill them, nevertheless. Those who fail to meet that minimum sufficiency, thankfully, remove themselves from our presence, thereby preventing them from governing us.
Perhaps the average person can be taught to make good decisions, but I've found that those who are content simply to know things, do not have the patience to try to understand them, as well. We save ourselves quite a lot of time and frustration, by letting a large group of them find a person that they can agree with, to make the decisions in their stead. If you'd like to make it sound as though that means I'd like to dis-empower the people, then I suppose that it's your prerogative to do so, but I assure you that this is not the case.
You may be right about our educational system having severe flaws, but I believe that they are largely in curriculum, rather than structure. We focus far too much on matters that are politically "correct", instead of on math, science, language and art. It's probably not fair, though, to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of an institution that is trying in vane to compensate for the severe shortcomings of our nation's parents.
The problem inherent with the form of government that you describe is, first of all, that not everyone is fit to make decisions on a large scale. Consider that an individual of average intelligence is not, as it turns out, very bright. These are the people that make Nigerian scams work. They are gullible, easily convinced, and easily confused. Consider someone you know who has social problems variously including anger management issues, alcoholism, drug abuse and/or severe financial mismanagement: in short, someone who repeatedly makes very poor life-choices. We all know the sort, and they are indeed, copious amongst our population. Is this the kind of person that you want involved in making the decisions that will be governing the resources in your life? This doesn't even take into consideration that maintaining a state of being adequately informed to make such decisions requires more time out of one's life than a typical working stiff has available.
This is why Representative government is favored. The implementation of such in the United States is based on the idea that our population en mass is far more capable of choosing a few people from amongst themselves who are capable of making good decisions, than they are of making the decisions, themselves. The recent failure of this concept, however, either means that we are, on the whole, incapable of selecting a good representative, or we are, more fundamentally, no longer capable of breeding a good representative.
In truth, the newspapers are supposed to be the most professional fact gatherers, but the truth is that they're quite biased one way or another, often depending on the overall demeanor of their city of origination. The unfortunate thing is that, like all facets of the media, newspapers are not written for the pure purpose of letting people know about what is going on in the world, but rather, to generate revenue. They want to sell more papers, gain a larger readership, and in turn, charge more for advertisement space. The end result is that editors choose and reporters write stories to, metaphorically speaking, jerk off their audience. There is no integrity.
There was a time when a company was certain to provide their product in an impressive package-- after all, only cheap products, likely to fail at the slightest awkward glance could possibly come in cheap packaging. It seems to me that there are only a few industries remaining that take any sort of pride in the container their product is delivered in. Two that come to mind are the cigar industry, and the wine industry (with some limited extension to hard alcohol, of course). I don't know about any of you, but when I first discovered the "blister pack", I was amazingly unimpressed with it-- after all, this is a protective package that cannot be re-used, in any event. Wine and cigars tend to come in ornate, hardwood boxes, often with clever opening mechanisms. Game controllers, heatsinks, flash drives and some toys have this eye-sore, heat-sealed clear plastic armor that is simply unattractive. Granted, a wooden box is unlikely to be appropriate, but can't we at least get a nice, rectangular cardboard box with some iconic artwork on it, like the same sorts of products came in only 15 or 20 years ago?
I'm not terribly concerned with the overall changes to the Google homepage, but there is one thing in particular that bothers me: the new GMail gadget displays a preview of your recent e-mails. That is not cool. I don't have a problem with there being an option to do so, but I'd appreciate greatly, if I had an option *not* to do so- you can't turn it off. At this point, it's either display my e-mail for anyone walking by to see, or don't use the GMail gadget.
I simply wouldn't give my children an e-mail address until I believe they're ready to handle the sorts of spam they'll receive. The real key to not letting your kids get fucked up, is to make sure they know about things before the world tells them. Some things you can shield them from for a while, and some things you can't.
At five years old, there truly is nothing they should really be doing on the internet without your direct interaction. At five years old, a child should still be tackling the hurdle we call "reading", and his vocabulary is still very small. There's basically no one he can contact that he can't contact just as well through you, the parent. There's really nothing he can do on the internet, anyway-- legally, he can't participate in a forum until he's 13, and most kiddie websites are geared toward selling things to the children's parents.
At the end of the day, just keep in mind that words the kid doesn't understand are things that he doesn't understand. A lewd phrase is likely to go right over his head. A picture is something to be concerned with, and a video is even worse, but a few words here and there really won't have a huge impact on him, if he doesn't know what they mean-- in which case, it's already too late: the damage has already been done.
I never can figure out if you need an extra period, or if you should just omit the period inside the quotes
American standard: punctuation outside the quote. British standard: punctuation inside the quote.
Another accepted standard is to only include punctuation inside the quote, if the punctuation is part of the quote. Personally, I prefer this, as it is more precise, though I think the proper comprehension of it escapes the average person's mind; thus, British and American standards that fail to be dynamic.
To the contrary, I submit that God's telecommunication system is really quite sophisticated, in that you can successfully send Him a message without any special equipment, and all you have to do is speak, or by some doctrines, think it. Where the complication comes in, however, is that He is apparently mute, and must therefore reply with subtleties.
This is precisely why Science has to ignore religion as an adversary. A man pursuing science as an alternative to religion is a fool-- science must be nonobjective, choosing its materials according to their properties and capacities, rather than their social meaning.
The books making up the New Testament are all included, partly due to their popularity with early churches. The excluded remainder, the Apocrypha, is rather obscure in our time, and the majority of today's Christians are unaware of them. Today's "religious folks" have very little to do with the selection of books currently being taught.
As for the qualities that make the Apocrypha so apocryphal, some of the books don't contain any information that is unique, or useful amongst the other books. Other books are directly contradictory to the group at large and may advocate philosophies that are contradictory to the philosophies taught in the accepted books (i.e., Gnostic philosophies). Some of the Apocrypha were written hundreds of years after the events of the gospel, claiming to be written by someone else entirely.
Perhaps some of the books of the Apocrypha deserve to be included in the New Testament, and some of the books of the New Testament in the Apocrypha, but it seems that the sifting mechanisms of time and generations of Christians have done a fairly good job of holding onto what's important, and leaving the unimportant at the side-- even if doctrine and priorities have gotten crossed.
Actually, survival of the fittest only removes traits that are likely to cause death prior to breeding. If it does not prevent breeding, then it will not go away, whether it's used or not. Just the same, it doesn't inspire new mutations that add or remove parts. All that we can really suppose on this, is that the dumb chickens breed more than the smart chickens.
The hard coding of our own basic desires seems dubious. One of our basic desires includes the consumption of food, as this is essential to our survival; eating disorders such as anorexia are directly contrary to this, however, and demonstrate that a maladjusted personality can override even survival instincts. Just the same, incidents of cannibalism such as the Donner Party demonstrate that that needs such as hunger can override familial attachment.
It seems to me that an AI with hardcoded wants and desires would be too limited and restricted to achieve true sentience. It would be lacking a rather large degree of free will.
You make a concise and entirely valid point. It may be up to those of us with fewer scruples to prevent DRM-laden products to be decidedly less profitable than those that are DRM-free.
Despite the best warnings of our historical authors, mankind will, inescapably create intelligent robots. It comes from our sheer desire to create; perhaps it is part of our nature to aspire to be like our own creator? Regardless, just as we cast off our own faith in our gods, cursing them and labeling them as myths, our own creations, built in our own image, will inevitably do the same. The only question is this: will our robots succeed in destroying us, or will we succeed in destroying them?
Meh. Maybe it's because I'm near-sighted and have rather poor aural senses, but I really can't say that I enjoy watching my brother-in-law's 60+ inch HDTV with Bose surround system any more than my own 27" SDTV complete with built-in Mono-speaker. This advance in technology simply doesn't impress me, and I cannot justify spending thousands of dollars to create a "home theater experience" that is endlessly more dependent upon the quality of the content than the equipment.
I have my doubts about the continued viability of media sold on a physical medium-- particularly media requiring a relatively small storage space, such as music and movies. That Blu-Ray should be more appealing to others than is Digital Media, is something I just don't understand.
It seems to me that the inherent problem with Blu-Ray is that it marginally improves upon DVD's strengths, but is still subject to its weaknesses. DVD was a no-brainer improvement over VHS because it doesn't degrade over time, does not require rewinding, it takes up less space, offers better AV quality, carries multiple audio tracks, optional subtitles and just a great deal of interactivity in general. Blu-Ray does all these things, sure, but it still vulnerable to fingerprints and scratches. Add that it's more expensive, and you've got a deal-breaker, hands-down. Quite frankly, I don't understand why we bothered with it, at all.
I'm thinking that a genuine upgrade in formats would sacrifice none of DVD's advantage over VHS, and have physical durability such that fondling it, throwing it across a room or sliding it across a desk should not be a problem. This naturally makes me wonder why, as a culture, we've been quick to engage in HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray, but have failed to observe the incredible advantages found in Digital Media Players-- most of us already have a great deal of the equipment necessary, and to top it off, obtaining media for them is cheaper, faster and easier.
Slashdot Mirror
The point that the AC made is valid. How much energy can you draw from the wind, before the wind is tapped-out? Certainly, it will be renewed constantly, but I would expect areas with a high density of turbines to develop weaker gusts downwind of the generator field. Taken to excess, we could see the winds begin to stagnate-- at which point, global warming really does become a problem.
To be fair though, I have my doubts about us being able to produce enough turbines for this to turn into something to worry about. Given that human population is growing exponentially, with every generation, this silly idea of large quantities of wind turbines producing adequate energy to supply the world becomes less and less likely. When we start running low on undeveloped, useful land, we'll want to use power sources that take up less space. Consider that we already have technologies that produce significantly more energy than wind, in a fraction of space. Simply enough, we won't be able to afford to waste the room that we have-- not when that space is better used in growing food.
Large points of a school district's curriculum is likely to reflect the values of the local community-- for better or for worse. Curriculum is generally changed in small bits, rather than as a whole, which often results in contradictory materials being taught, and confused children. In my own region, the schools have a horrible habit of adopting a new 5-year Reading program every two years, or so. You'd think that English-speaking cultures, after having taught people to read for several hundred years (and to the population en masse for near to a hundred), would have worked out by now, just what sort of approach works. If one were to take example from our schools, then one would be forced to conclude that this is apparently not the case.
Simply enough, the focus is on pleasing people, rather than identifying clear priorities, and employing mechanisms that are both demonstrated to work and understood. A Social Studies teacher tells his 14 year-old students that a condom is 99% effective in birth control, and certain birth control drugs are also comparably effective. One of those students goes home, tells his parents what he was taught, and next, the whole neighborhood is aflame with rage, that their children are being taught to have sex. A group of concerned parents then pickets the school, writes angry letters to local politicians and newspapers, finally culminating in the strict teaching of abstinence in that city. The next event in the queue, is that the schools get blamed for the inevitable rise in teenage pregnancy.
I, for one, believe that the problems with public schools, K-12, are largely related to the districts getting stuck in the middle of retarded near-political crossfire, much like what I've described above. These are the endless complaints of a sprawling group of specious parents, who're too busy plotting the course of their own self-important social lives, to settle down to the serious business of actually raising their own children themselves.
No, the so-called "liberal enclave" is found much more readily in higher education; those institutions beyond 12th grade. I don't know that it's some deliberate effort to steer the votes of our nation's youth, so much as a sloppy, disorganized collection of contradictory philosophies, having no error-checking against each other.
Yes, but how do you legally define "annoying the crap out of everyone around you", without creating a loophole, in which the law can be abused to violate another's constitutionally-protected rights, such as Freedom of Speech? "Annoyance" is a fairly broad term, especially in a culture as impatient as our own. God forbid that anyone should upset another person.
Just watch out for the sales tax on the motel room.
Actually, there's no sales tax in Oregon, at all. Odd, that.
You make a strong point, but you fail to take into account two things of vital importance: First, that even those who are capable of making good decisions are unable to do so on a governmental scale, when they must spend their time seeing to their careers, rather than spending their time maintaining a well-informed state regarding the issues upon which they must make decisions. The second thing is that those selected to make decisions are necessarily accountable to those who selected them. Should those people be unhappy with his performance, then he will be replaced on the occurrence of a regular interval.
Everyone makes adequate decisions for their everyday life. That is not to say that they necessarily make good decisions, but they tend to make decisions that do not kill them, nevertheless. Those who fail to meet that minimum sufficiency, thankfully, remove themselves from our presence, thereby preventing them from governing us.
Perhaps the average person can be taught to make good decisions, but I've found that those who are content simply to know things, do not have the patience to try to understand them, as well. We save ourselves quite a lot of time and frustration, by letting a large group of them find a person that they can agree with, to make the decisions in their stead. If you'd like to make it sound as though that means I'd like to dis-empower the people, then I suppose that it's your prerogative to do so, but I assure you that this is not the case.
You may be right about our educational system having severe flaws, but I believe that they are largely in curriculum, rather than structure. We focus far too much on matters that are politically "correct", instead of on math, science, language and art. It's probably not fair, though, to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of an institution that is trying in vane to compensate for the severe shortcomings of our nation's parents.
The problem inherent with the form of government that you describe is, first of all, that not everyone is fit to make decisions on a large scale. Consider that an individual of average intelligence is not, as it turns out, very bright. These are the people that make Nigerian scams work. They are gullible, easily convinced, and easily confused. Consider someone you know who has social problems variously including anger management issues, alcoholism, drug abuse and/or severe financial mismanagement: in short, someone who repeatedly makes very poor life-choices. We all know the sort, and they are indeed, copious amongst our population. Is this the kind of person that you want involved in making the decisions that will be governing the resources in your life? This doesn't even take into consideration that maintaining a state of being adequately informed to make such decisions requires more time out of one's life than a typical working stiff has available.
This is why Representative government is favored. The implementation of such in the United States is based on the idea that our population en mass is far more capable of choosing a few people from amongst themselves who are capable of making good decisions, than they are of making the decisions, themselves. The recent failure of this concept, however, either means that we are, on the whole, incapable of selecting a good representative, or we are, more fundamentally, no longer capable of breeding a good representative.
In truth, the newspapers are supposed to be the most professional fact gatherers, but the truth is that they're quite biased one way or another, often depending on the overall demeanor of their city of origination. The unfortunate thing is that, like all facets of the media, newspapers are not written for the pure purpose of letting people know about what is going on in the world, but rather, to generate revenue. They want to sell more papers, gain a larger readership, and in turn, charge more for advertisement space. The end result is that editors choose and reporters write stories to, metaphorically speaking, jerk off their audience. There is no integrity.
I would find it amusingly ironic if the package opening device referenced happens to come in a clamshell.
There was a time when a company was certain to provide their product in an impressive package-- after all, only cheap products, likely to fail at the slightest awkward glance could possibly come in cheap packaging. It seems to me that there are only a few industries remaining that take any sort of pride in the container their product is delivered in. Two that come to mind are the cigar industry, and the wine industry (with some limited extension to hard alcohol, of course). I don't know about any of you, but when I first discovered the "blister pack", I was amazingly unimpressed with it-- after all, this is a protective package that cannot be re-used, in any event. Wine and cigars tend to come in ornate, hardwood boxes, often with clever opening mechanisms. Game controllers, heatsinks, flash drives and some toys have this eye-sore, heat-sealed clear plastic armor that is simply unattractive. Granted, a wooden box is unlikely to be appropriate, but can't we at least get a nice, rectangular cardboard box with some iconic artwork on it, like the same sorts of products came in only 15 or 20 years ago?
I'm not terribly concerned with the overall changes to the Google homepage, but there is one thing in particular that bothers me: the new GMail gadget displays a preview of your recent e-mails. That is not cool. I don't have a problem with there being an option to do so, but I'd appreciate greatly, if I had an option *not* to do so- you can't turn it off. At this point, it's either display my e-mail for anyone walking by to see, or don't use the GMail gadget.
I simply wouldn't give my children an e-mail address until I believe they're ready to handle the sorts of spam they'll receive. The real key to not letting your kids get fucked up, is to make sure they know about things before the world tells them. Some things you can shield them from for a while, and some things you can't.
At five years old, there truly is nothing they should really be doing on the internet without your direct interaction. At five years old, a child should still be tackling the hurdle we call "reading", and his vocabulary is still very small. There's basically no one he can contact that he can't contact just as well through you, the parent. There's really nothing he can do on the internet, anyway-- legally, he can't participate in a forum until he's 13, and most kiddie websites are geared toward selling things to the children's parents.
At the end of the day, just keep in mind that words the kid doesn't understand are things that he doesn't understand. A lewd phrase is likely to go right over his head. A picture is something to be concerned with, and a video is even worse, but a few words here and there really won't have a huge impact on him, if he doesn't know what they mean-- in which case, it's already too late: the damage has already been done.
To be fair, most of the female nerds out there aren't very attractive and/or masquerade as men on the internet.
This sort of behavior is the precise reason why Microsoft has the lion's share of the OS market, instead of Apple.
I never can figure out if you need an extra period, or if you should just omit the period inside the quotes
American standard: punctuation outside the quote.
British standard: punctuation inside the quote.
Another accepted standard is to only include punctuation inside the quote, if the punctuation is part of the quote. Personally, I prefer this, as it is more precise, though I think the proper comprehension of it escapes the average person's mind; thus, British and American standards that fail to be dynamic.
To the contrary, I submit that God's telecommunication system is really quite sophisticated, in that you can successfully send Him a message without any special equipment, and all you have to do is speak, or by some doctrines, think it. Where the complication comes in, however, is that He is apparently mute, and must therefore reply with subtleties.
This is precisely why Science has to ignore religion as an adversary. A man pursuing science as an alternative to religion is a fool-- science must be nonobjective, choosing its materials according to their properties and capacities, rather than their social meaning.
The books making up the New Testament are all included, partly due to their popularity with early churches. The excluded remainder, the Apocrypha, is rather obscure in our time, and the majority of today's Christians are unaware of them. Today's "religious folks" have very little to do with the selection of books currently being taught.
As for the qualities that make the Apocrypha so apocryphal, some of the books don't contain any information that is unique, or useful amongst the other books. Other books are directly contradictory to the group at large and may advocate philosophies that are contradictory to the philosophies taught in the accepted books (i.e., Gnostic philosophies). Some of the Apocrypha were written hundreds of years after the events of the gospel, claiming to be written by someone else entirely.
Perhaps some of the books of the Apocrypha deserve to be included in the New Testament, and some of the books of the New Testament in the Apocrypha, but it seems that the sifting mechanisms of time and generations of Christians have done a fairly good job of holding onto what's important, and leaving the unimportant at the side-- even if doctrine and priorities have gotten crossed.
Actually, survival of the fittest only removes traits that are likely to cause death prior to breeding. If it does not prevent breeding, then it will not go away, whether it's used or not. Just the same, it doesn't inspire new mutations that add or remove parts. All that we can really suppose on this, is that the dumb chickens breed more than the smart chickens.
Seriously. We're talking about a creature whose behavior fails to change, after its head has been removed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATz3AdbjyRI
http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/story.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken
The hard coding of our own basic desires seems dubious. One of our basic desires includes the consumption of food, as this is essential to our survival; eating disorders such as anorexia are directly contrary to this, however, and demonstrate that a maladjusted personality can override even survival instincts. Just the same, incidents of cannibalism such as the Donner Party demonstrate that that needs such as hunger can override familial attachment.
It seems to me that an AI with hardcoded wants and desires would be too limited and restricted to achieve true sentience. It would be lacking a rather large degree of free will.
When was the last time you heard someone say, "Sega is way better than Nintendo!" or "Nu-uh, Sega beats the pants off Nintendo!"
Holy mother of cheese and rice, that brings me back to the early 90's.
You make a concise and entirely valid point. It may be up to those of us with fewer scruples to prevent DRM-laden products to be decidedly less profitable than those that are DRM-free.
Despite the best warnings of our historical authors, mankind will, inescapably create intelligent robots. It comes from our sheer desire to create; perhaps it is part of our nature to aspire to be like our own creator? Regardless, just as we cast off our own faith in our gods, cursing them and labeling them as myths, our own creations, built in our own image, will inevitably do the same. The only question is this: will our robots succeed in destroying us, or will we succeed in destroying them?
Meh. Maybe it's because I'm near-sighted and have rather poor aural senses, but I really can't say that I enjoy watching my brother-in-law's 60+ inch HDTV with Bose surround system any more than my own 27" SDTV complete with built-in Mono-speaker. This advance in technology simply doesn't impress me, and I cannot justify spending thousands of dollars to create a "home theater experience" that is endlessly more dependent upon the quality of the content than the equipment.
I have my doubts about the continued viability of media sold on a physical medium-- particularly media requiring a relatively small storage space, such as music and movies. That Blu-Ray should be more appealing to others than is Digital Media, is something I just don't understand.
It seems to me that the inherent problem with Blu-Ray is that it marginally improves upon DVD's strengths, but is still subject to its weaknesses. DVD was a no-brainer improvement over VHS because it doesn't degrade over time, does not require rewinding, it takes up less space, offers better AV quality, carries multiple audio tracks, optional subtitles and just a great deal of interactivity in general. Blu-Ray does all these things, sure, but it still vulnerable to fingerprints and scratches. Add that it's more expensive, and you've got a deal-breaker, hands-down. Quite frankly, I don't understand why we bothered with it, at all.
I'm thinking that a genuine upgrade in formats would sacrifice none of DVD's advantage over VHS, and have physical durability such that fondling it, throwing it across a room or sliding it across a desk should not be a problem. This naturally makes me wonder why, as a culture, we've been quick to engage in HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray, but have failed to observe the incredible advantages found in Digital Media Players-- most of us already have a great deal of the equipment necessary, and to top it off, obtaining media for them is cheaper, faster and easier.
They're talking about Calcium Hydroxide. Not citrus. Minerals, not fruit.