Who doesn't like to play with fire? I know very few people that didn't go through at least a phase where they liked to play with fire. Hell, just drive through your town, and look at all of the fireplaces. Unless you live in a third world country, every single one of them is there because people like to play with fire. With very few exceptions, fireplaces are massively inefficient for heating a home, yet people love them. Why? Because people love to play with fire. Fortunately, most people learn very young that there is a limit to what you can do to safely play with fire, and realize that crossing that line isn't worth it.
Your use of playing with fire in this argument actually works against you.
I'm not convinced on the regenerative braking. I haven't seen the numbers, but without detailed info, it give the impression of being more gimmick than environmental.
To me the biggest benefit of having electric cars is that electricity is a very good 'lowest common denominator' for our energy use. There is no reason that an electric car cannot run on gasoline that has been burned, or hydrogen running though a fuel cell, or solar cells on the roof charging super capacitors. Some or all of these may not be practical, but it whatever the future energy system is, having the vehicle run off of electricity, would allow that change to happen with far less reengeneering of the vehicle. Vehicles could even be made to switch power sources, just as the light bulb in my office runs off of coal some days, wind on others, and hydro on others. Well, really, its probably a little bit of all of them all of the time, but the point remains.
I don't know, when they double the speed of the 333Mhz processors, all of the CPU manufacturers labeled their chips as 667 Mhz. So, there must be some thought given to the the Christian tech sector. Of course, it could just be that they thought there were more Christian CPU buyers than Satanic ones.
It only seems limitless and impossible to use to the unimaginative. I currently have more than 6 terabyte here at home, and it isn't even close to enough space. (And, no, I am not downloading movies and music with bittorrent.) For the foreseeable future, we will continue to hear X size hard drives are bigger than we need just like we will hear X speed processors are faster than what we need. It will continue to be wrong just like it was wrong before. I can already think of places that I would like to have a few petabyte of storage just for home use. Heck, the fact that data storage cannot really be used as write once shows that we are not even close to having enough of it. That, and the rarity of having multiple redundant storage is another indicator that we don't have close to enough.
That isn't even getting into video security systems. There is no way that I could have permanent storage of 100 or so cameras in my home with good resolution? I wouldn't even hazard to guess what kind of storage a proper video security system would take in a store the size of a Walmart. No, I am not talking about the totally inadequate systems that are use today with a few cameras installed in the ceiling periodically around the store. I am talking multiple cameras on every isle, from multiple angles. In a resolution that would actually identify thieves, and none of this one second of video every six seconds trash either.
We are not even close to having limitless and impossible to use storage. Not even close.
Wow, you like to use that word, yet not only did you get mixed up between generation and storage in the previous post, but now you seem to think that the only energy expended for storage is in the conversion. You don't seem to understand that creating the storage system uses energy as well. It is highly unlikely that the creation of a hydrogen storage system is going to be nearly as dirty as in battery creation. It is also highly unlikely that batteries will achieve the longevity of a hydrogen storage system. Then there is disposal. It is likely that disposing of a hydrogen containment system will be entirely clean. That's if it can't be melted down and used as raw material for the next batch.
Now, I can't claim to know which storage method will win, or which is better when ALL of the numbers are hashed out, but calling people stupid for not agreeing with your overly simplistic analysis doesn't help your argument.
You are quick to call people stupid, but then turn around and get energy generation and energy storage. If you can make clean energy for batteries, you can make clean energy for hydrogen generation.
While I agree that electric cars the way to go, I am not convinced that batteries are the right way to store the energy. The are netoriously environmentally dirty both to make and dispose of, expensive, and and just don't last very long.
It certainly isn't stupid for someone to think that the problems with storing and transporting hydrogen can be solved easier than solving the huge problems with batteries. It is entirely possible that the real solution will be a hybrid solution.
Actually, they should have the sliding scale based on the number of patents you have. Huge corporations would get increasingly more expensive patents. They could mitigate this cost by releasing older, less valuable patents into the public domain. The small inventor would be able to afford the very low cost initial patents. If any of their patents paid off, they could then afford more. If they don't pay off, they could release them into the public domain, and not have to worry that some corporation will patent it behind them, and cut off their idea from the rest of the world.
"There is a very real difference between the nervous system and emotional capacity of an animal versus a plant. If you are saying there is no difference, then you are saying we should all exist in a vegetative state, rather than expanding on our nervous system and emotional capacity. I do think it technically diminishes people collectively to permit such mass suffering for unnecessary reasons."
And there is a very real difference between a human and a cow. To villainize the killing and eating of meat, without acknowledging the evil of killing and eating of plants is hypocritical. All you are doing is making excuses as to why your killing is OK. Most killer do this, so you are not alone.
"But I am not making the ethical argument."
You sir, are a liar. Either that, or you don't know what the word "ethical" means, and thus are totally unqualified to take part in the conversation.
"people have grown lazy and insist on meat three times a day, without thinking about it."
And this isn't the case with eating plants? Your kidding right?
"But it's not required any more"
"For no reason."
Given that you do things every day for no reason that are not required, it is absolutely hypocritical to use this in an argument that is designed to make others look bad.
"And there is a very real difference between the environmental costs and impact of animal vs plant farming. But I'm not really emphasizing the environmental impact."
A short sighted and poorly thought out argument. The environmental impact that is a problem is 100% associated with overpopulation. The same problem will happen with plant farming when the population gets big enough. That makes the whole "environmental impact" argument a red herring being used to try and trick people. It's like telling people they are evil because their car only gets 10 miles to the gallon, but your good because yours gets 12.
"Many people would be much healthier if they ate less meat. But, as a kind of positivist nihilist, I don't think I'm better."
You make a statement of fact (which does not mean it is a correct statment of fact). Then claim you don't believe it. Own your words.
"That's your defensive meat-eater's reaction, not my problem,"
Strawman. There isn't even a defense of meat-eating in the comment, so you even failed in your attempt at a strawman argument.
"though some hardcore vegans may be making a point that the above reasons are bad for the planet, etc, etc, but it's not my argument."
Again... You sir, are a liar. That is your argument. You have been very clear on that. You just don't want to take responsibility for what you say. Own your words.
"As I said, I just find the passive consumption of too much meat to be boring and thoughtless. I doubt it makes any difference in anyone's quality of life, except for some vague feelings of entitlement."
The vast majority of people don't think about the food they eat. The act of passive consumption has nothing to do with eating meat or plants. Can you honestly tell me that you have seriously thought about the billion of lives you have snuffed out with your plant eating? Can you really say that you even know where all of your plants are grown? Taking a moral stance because you think something is boring and thoughtless is just stupid. It's like trying to call people evil because they like whittling on their porch.
"I doubt it makes any difference in anyone's quality of life"
Then you have not been paying attention to the world around you.
"except for some vague feelings of entitlement."
Hypocritical. Do you not feel you have the right to eat your murdered plants?
"I think it's perfectly reasonable to eat meat occasionally"
So, after all of the blathering about the evils of meat, you end with saying that it's ok to eat meat? Clearly the rest of your comments were intended to deceive.
And this shows the problem with the moral argument of vegetarianism. The very people that you are so quick to try to shame, do have a useful scale of harm. They just disagree with where the line is drawn. This makes your whole argument a bunch of blathering with no meaning. Which is is? Is killing inherently wrong or not? Thinking that you are somehow better because your killing is better than meat eaters makes you lose all credibility on the subject.
While my comment may have been funny, that doesn't mean it isn't true.
"Sorry, I just find people who use your kind of logic a bit simple, but I guess if you want to justify your lifestyle and continue stuffing dead animals in your mouth three times a day, backed by completely natural factory farms and a host of ghouls who enjoy working in meat packing plants (I've known a couple of them) then just do it."
Talk about people being simple. Another vegetarian trying to take the high ground when their kind murders trillions of the most defenseless life forms on the planet, but if you want to justify your lifestyle and continue stuffing dead plants as well as still living victims into your mouth three times a day, backed by completely natural factory farms and a host of ghouls who enjoy working in plant packing plants then just do it.
Where are you people when the florists open their doors. The poor life forms that are being murdered for that industry are not even being used for food. Ghouls (thats what we are calling people who kill, right?) then put them in their homes and watch them die.
"Vegetarianism is not dumb or for tree-huggers, it's a very logical position."
Vegetarianism (when done for moral reasons) is hypocritical and without logic. You don't get to take the high ground on ethics by claiming that you don't kill animals when vegetarians murder TRILLIONS of the most defenseless life forms on the planet DAILY. Your complaint about the horrors of factory farming. Have you seen how they grow plants? It sure isn't free range. Claiming that eating plants is ethically OK and meat is not is like a murderer saying that his killing is OK because he only kills dumb people. No... Your shade of gray is not better than mine.
"we don't even have room on the planet for the crops to feed all the cattle that would be eaten by 6 billion human beings if humanity followed an american/western diet, and that's not even counting the crops still needed to feed humans the rest of the plant based food they need anyway."
This is a problem of over population. Period. Over population is not solved by eating plants. It is solved by having fewer babies than deaths. Period. Even if you poorly thought out idea had any validity, it would only be a temporary measure. So, either you are are not clearly thinking things out, or you are intentionally using and invalid argument. Unless, you have some plan on what you plan on eating when the population outstrips the plant production. If you do, lets hear it.
This would remove 80% of the drivers from the road, and bring the economy to it's knees. There is also the problem that many of the biggest complainers are idiot drivers themselves. Public transportation is not an answer. Moving closer to jobs is not an answer. The only real solution to the death and carnage that is the automobile is automatically driven cars. I don't see that happening soon.
Well, I have a C64 in a joystick that I can drop off of the roof, pick up and keep using. The problem with the XO is that it was a way to get private research done with donations from the naive. Because of this, it tried to be a cutting edge device. We all know what happens when you get the first batch of cutting edge products.
I'm just amazed how all of the particles drop down into the exact same spots when they are done floating, and how they don't rub against each other causing erosion on the surface. Of course maybe we just can't tell with it being made out of green cheese and all.
I know that you are playing devils advocate, and pointing out the other side, so don't take this as a comment on your comment, just on the report.
It is the ultimate in disruptive technology, and while to it is only 6% of estimated trillion dollars IT budgeted annually, it represents a real loss of $60 billion in annual revenues to software companies This could easily have been written:
It is the ultimate in disruptive technology, and while to it is only 6% of estimated trillion dollars IT budgeted annually, it represents a real savings of $60 billion annually for businesses and consumers.
So clearly thier claim of "objective" is total BS.
No kidding, there are consenting adults out there having sex... FOR MONEY! That is far more important use of our law enforcements time than trying to stop people from being burgled.
The only logical explanation is that the use of flash is a joke, and it is going over everybody's head. What else could explain the site doing in real life, exactly what the site is designed to make fun of?
I don't see how "multi-touch" is considered even close to new. I remember using two mice to play Lemmings back in '91. Yes "multi-touch" is using a touchpad, but can you imagine what it would have been like if we had the same problem with "touchpad" pantents that we have with "computer" patents? A pantent on selecting email "with a touchpad"? A patent on shutting down your computer "with a touchpad"?
While your statement isn't exactly untrue, as a whole it is wrong in only getting it half right. Wikipedia is exactly like every other source; a shade of gray in the truth. Yes, it is a lighter shade of gray, but the whole idea of "primary source" is a bunch of BS. Even if you go and personally interview first hand witnesses, you cannot be sure of the facts. Heck, even if you sit down and do an experiment yourself, you cannot be sure that you are interpreting the results correctly.
People have it completely wrong when they think that any facts they have are definitely correct. What they have are the most likely correct information that they have come across to date. One of the big problems with what is considered 'good' research is that kids are taught, and then as adults, look for information that supports their assertions. There is absolutely no attempted to find information that falsifies their assertions. So, in a climate where getting the correct answer is not the goal; where the only goal is to have sources that agree with you so that you have plausable deniability when you are shown to be wrong, Wikipedia is an entirely valid source.
If I am having a debate with someone, Wikipedia is considered a valid source unless a more believable source can be presented that contradicts Wikipedia. Then, that source is considered valid until it can be disproven. Hearing people argue that newspapers and magazines and reports should use a lower quality standard of evidence than what I would accept in a nerd fight is pretty sad.
I honestly cannot tell if you are trying to make a point, or just trying to make a joke. If you are trying to make a point, it doesn't make sense, since installing conduit is pretty much just as easy as installing wire directly, it doesn't take any more room, and is pretty darn cheap. Plus, the equivilent of a Jefferies tube already exists in most houses. It is called an "attic", and the "crawl space" under the house. Sometimes there are really big ones called "basements".
Your install would not have suffice even at completion. Your install is only going to handle TCP/IP traffic. What about the telephone lines, audio lines, and video lines? Basically you have missed a huge amount of data that is being shuffled around your average home. You like most people pulling wire directly are too wrapped up in solving a small problem to see the big picture.
Fiber isn't even present proof. Thy hooking up your good old telephone to that fiber. I'm sure it can be done, but you are talking about thousands of dollars per phone. Plus, there is no guarantee that fiber will EVER be common or economical in the home.
Slashdot Mirror
Who doesn't like to play with fire? I know very few people that didn't go through at least a phase where they liked to play with fire. Hell, just drive through your town, and look at all of the fireplaces. Unless you live in a third world country, every single one of them is there because people like to play with fire. With very few exceptions, fireplaces are massively inefficient for heating a home, yet people love them. Why? Because people love to play with fire. Fortunately, most people learn very young that there is a limit to what you can do to safely play with fire, and realize that crossing that line isn't worth it.
Your use of playing with fire in this argument actually works against you.
I don't know, after all, apparently, it's not express consent when you set up a wireless access point with no password. ;)
I'm not convinced on the regenerative braking. I haven't seen the numbers, but without detailed info, it give the impression of being more gimmick than environmental.
To me the biggest benefit of having electric cars is that electricity is a very good 'lowest common denominator' for our energy use. There is no reason that an electric car cannot run on gasoline that has been burned, or hydrogen running though a fuel cell, or solar cells on the roof charging super capacitors. Some or all of these may not be practical, but it whatever the future energy system is, having the vehicle run off of electricity, would allow that change to happen with far less reengeneering of the vehicle. Vehicles could even be made to switch power sources, just as the light bulb in my office runs off of coal some days, wind on others, and hydro on others. Well, really, its probably a little bit of all of them all of the time, but the point remains.
I don't know, when they double the speed of the 333Mhz processors, all of the CPU manufacturers labeled their chips as 667 Mhz. So, there must be some thought given to the the Christian tech sector. Of course, it could just be that they thought there were more Christian CPU buyers than Satanic ones.
It only seems limitless and impossible to use to the unimaginative. I currently have more than 6 terabyte here at home, and it isn't even close to enough space. (And, no, I am not downloading movies and music with bittorrent.) For the foreseeable future, we will continue to hear X size hard drives are bigger than we need just like we will hear X speed processors are faster than what we need. It will continue to be wrong just like it was wrong before. I can already think of places that I would like to have a few petabyte of storage just for home use. Heck, the fact that data storage cannot really be used as write once shows that we are not even close to having enough of it. That, and the rarity of having multiple redundant storage is another indicator that we don't have close to enough.
That isn't even getting into video security systems. There is no way that I could have permanent storage of 100 or so cameras in my home with good resolution? I wouldn't even hazard to guess what kind of storage a proper video security system would take in a store the size of a Walmart. No, I am not talking about the totally inadequate systems that are use today with a few cameras installed in the ceiling periodically around the store. I am talking multiple cameras on every isle, from multiple angles. In a resolution that would actually identify thieves, and none of this one second of video every six seconds trash either.
We are not even close to having limitless and impossible to use storage. Not even close.
Wow, you like to use that word, yet not only did you get mixed up between generation and storage in the previous post, but now you seem to think that the only energy expended for storage is in the conversion. You don't seem to understand that creating the storage system uses energy as well. It is highly unlikely that the creation of a hydrogen storage system is going to be nearly as dirty as in battery creation. It is also highly unlikely that batteries will achieve the longevity of a hydrogen storage system. Then there is disposal. It is likely that disposing of a hydrogen containment system will be entirely clean. That's if it can't be melted down and used as raw material for the next batch.
Now, I can't claim to know which storage method will win, or which is better when ALL of the numbers are hashed out, but calling people stupid for not agreeing with your overly simplistic analysis doesn't help your argument.
You are quick to call people stupid, but then turn around and get energy generation and energy storage. If you can make clean energy for batteries, you can make clean energy for hydrogen generation.
While I agree that electric cars the way to go, I am not convinced that batteries are the right way to store the energy. The are netoriously environmentally dirty both to make and dispose of, expensive, and and just don't last very long.
It certainly isn't stupid for someone to think that the problems with storing and transporting hydrogen can be solved easier than solving the huge problems with batteries. It is entirely possible that the real solution will be a hybrid solution.
Actually, they should have the sliding scale based on the number of patents you have. Huge corporations would get increasingly more expensive patents. They could mitigate this cost by releasing older, less valuable patents into the public domain. The small inventor would be able to afford the very low cost initial patents. If any of their patents paid off, they could then afford more. If they don't pay off, they could release them into the public domain, and not have to worry that some corporation will patent it behind them, and cut off their idea from the rest of the world.
"There is a very real difference between the nervous system and emotional capacity of an animal versus a plant. If you are saying there is no difference, then you are saying we should all exist in a vegetative state, rather than expanding on our nervous system and emotional capacity. I do think it technically diminishes people collectively to permit such mass suffering for unnecessary reasons."
And there is a very real difference between a human and a cow. To villainize the killing and eating of meat, without acknowledging the evil of killing and eating of plants is hypocritical. All you are doing is making excuses as to why your killing is OK. Most killer do this, so you are not alone.
"But I am not making the ethical argument."
You sir, are a liar. Either that, or you don't know what the word "ethical" means, and thus are totally unqualified to take part in the conversation.
"people have grown lazy and insist on meat three times a day, without thinking about it."
And this isn't the case with eating plants? Your kidding right?
"But it's not required any more"
"For no reason."
Given that you do things every day for no reason that are not required, it is absolutely hypocritical to use this in an argument that is designed to make others look bad.
"And there is a very real difference between the environmental costs and impact of animal vs plant farming. But I'm not really emphasizing the environmental impact."
A short sighted and poorly thought out argument. The environmental impact that is a problem is 100% associated with overpopulation. The same problem will happen with plant farming when the population gets big enough. That makes the whole "environmental impact" argument a red herring being used to try and trick people. It's like telling people they are evil because their car only gets 10 miles to the gallon, but your good because yours gets 12.
"Many people would be much healthier if they ate less meat. But, as a kind of positivist nihilist, I don't think I'm better."
You make a statement of fact (which does not mean it is a correct statment of fact). Then claim you don't believe it. Own your words.
"That's your defensive meat-eater's reaction, not my problem,"
Strawman. There isn't even a defense of meat-eating in the comment, so you even failed in your attempt at a strawman argument.
"though some hardcore vegans may be making a point that the above reasons are bad for the planet, etc, etc, but it's not my argument."
Again... You sir, are a liar. That is your argument. You have been very clear on that. You just don't want to take responsibility for what you say. Own your words.
"As I said, I just find the passive consumption of too much meat to be boring and thoughtless. I doubt it makes any difference in anyone's quality of life, except for some vague feelings of entitlement."
The vast majority of people don't think about the food they eat. The act of passive consumption has nothing to do with eating meat or plants. Can you honestly tell me that you have seriously thought about the billion of lives you have snuffed out with your plant eating? Can you really say that you even know where all of your plants are grown? Taking a moral stance because you think something is boring and thoughtless is just stupid. It's like trying to call people evil because they like whittling on their porch.
"I doubt it makes any difference in anyone's quality of life"
Then you have not been paying attention to the world around you.
"except for some vague feelings of entitlement."
Hypocritical. Do you not feel you have the right to eat your murdered plants?
"I think it's perfectly reasonable to eat meat occasionally"
So, after all of the blathering about the evils of meat, you end with saying that it's ok to eat meat? Clearly the rest of your comments were intended to deceive.
"but constantly, c'mon."
Really? REALLY???
And this shows the problem with the moral argument of vegetarianism. The very people that you are so quick to try to shame, do have a useful scale of harm. They just disagree with where the line is drawn. This makes your whole argument a bunch of blathering with no meaning. Which is is? Is killing inherently wrong or not? Thinking that you are somehow better because your killing is better than meat eaters makes you lose all credibility on the subject.
While my comment may have been funny, that doesn't mean it isn't true.
"Sorry, I just find people who use your kind of logic a bit simple, but I guess if you want to justify your lifestyle and continue stuffing dead animals in your mouth three times a day, backed by completely natural factory farms and a host of ghouls who enjoy working in meat packing plants (I've known a couple of them) then just do it."
Talk about people being simple. Another vegetarian trying to take the high ground when their kind murders trillions of the most defenseless life forms on the planet, but if you want to justify your lifestyle and continue stuffing dead plants as well as still living victims into your mouth three times a day, backed by completely natural factory farms and a host of ghouls who enjoy working in plant packing plants then just do it.
Where are you people when the florists open their doors. The poor life forms that are being murdered for that industry are not even being used for food. Ghouls (thats what we are calling people who kill, right?) then put them in their homes and watch them die.
"And then there are that simple fact that we don't need to eat them, so why do it?"
If you believed that not needing to do something meant that you shouldn't do it, you would not have posted that comment.
"Vegetarianism is not dumb or for tree-huggers, it's a very logical position."
Vegetarianism (when done for moral reasons) is hypocritical and without logic. You don't get to take the high ground on ethics by claiming that you don't kill animals when vegetarians murder TRILLIONS of the most defenseless life forms on the planet DAILY. Your complaint about the horrors of factory farming. Have you seen how they grow plants? It sure isn't free range. Claiming that eating plants is ethically OK and meat is not is like a murderer saying that his killing is OK because he only kills dumb people. No... Your shade of gray is not better than mine.
"we don't even have room on the planet for the crops to feed all the cattle that would be eaten by 6 billion human beings if humanity followed an american/western diet, and that's not even counting the crops still needed to feed humans the rest of the plant based food they need anyway."
This is a problem of over population. Period. Over population is not solved by eating plants. It is solved by having fewer babies than deaths. Period. Even if you poorly thought out idea had any validity, it would only be a temporary measure. So, either you are are not clearly thinking things out, or you are intentionally using and invalid argument. Unless, you have some plan on what you plan on eating when the population outstrips the plant production. If you do, lets hear it.
"Idiots should be banned from driving."
This would remove 80% of the drivers from the road, and bring the economy to it's knees. There is also the problem that many of the biggest complainers are idiot drivers themselves. Public transportation is not an answer. Moving closer to jobs is not an answer. The only real solution to the death and carnage that is the automobile is automatically driven cars. I don't see that happening soon.
Well, I have a C64 in a joystick that I can drop off of the roof, pick up and keep using. The problem with the XO is that it was a way to get private research done with donations from the naive. Because of this, it tried to be a cutting edge device. We all know what happens when you get the first batch of cutting edge products.
I'm just amazed how all of the particles drop down into the exact same spots when they are done floating, and how they don't rub against each other causing erosion on the surface. Of course maybe we just can't tell with it being made out of green cheese and all.
I can accept a patent on the specific method of identifying two points on a touch screen, but anything beyond that is a bogus patent.
It is the ultimate in disruptive technology, and while to it is only 6% of estimated trillion dollars IT budgeted annually, it represents a real loss of $60 billion in annual revenues to software companies This could easily have been written:
It is the ultimate in disruptive technology, and while to it is only 6% of estimated trillion dollars IT budgeted annually, it represents a real savings of $60 billion annually for businesses and consumers.
So clearly thier claim of "objective" is total BS.
No kidding, there are consenting adults out there having sex... FOR MONEY! That is far more important use of our law enforcements time than trying to stop people from being burgled.
The only logical explanation is that the use of flash is a joke, and it is going over everybody's head. What else could explain the site doing in real life, exactly what the site is designed to make fun of?
I don't see how "multi-touch" is considered even close to new. I remember using two mice to play Lemmings back in '91. Yes "multi-touch" is using a touchpad, but can you imagine what it would have been like if we had the same problem with "touchpad" pantents that we have with "computer" patents? A pantent on selecting email "with a touchpad"? A patent on shutting down your computer "with a touchpad"?
While your statement isn't exactly untrue, as a whole it is wrong in only getting it half right. Wikipedia is exactly like every other source; a shade of gray in the truth. Yes, it is a lighter shade of gray, but the whole idea of "primary source" is a bunch of BS. Even if you go and personally interview first hand witnesses, you cannot be sure of the facts. Heck, even if you sit down and do an experiment yourself, you cannot be sure that you are interpreting the results correctly.
People have it completely wrong when they think that any facts they have are definitely correct. What they have are the most likely correct information that they have come across to date. One of the big problems with what is considered 'good' research is that kids are taught, and then as adults, look for information that supports their assertions. There is absolutely no attempted to find information that falsifies their assertions. So, in a climate where getting the correct answer is not the goal; where the only goal is to have sources that agree with you so that you have plausable deniability when you are shown to be wrong, Wikipedia is an entirely valid source.
If I am having a debate with someone, Wikipedia is considered a valid source unless a more believable source can be presented that contradicts Wikipedia. Then, that source is considered valid until it can be disproven. Hearing people argue that newspapers and magazines and reports should use a lower quality standard of evidence than what I would accept in a nerd fight is pretty sad.
I honestly cannot tell if you are trying to make a point, or just trying to make a joke. If you are trying to make a point, it doesn't make sense, since installing conduit is pretty much just as easy as installing wire directly, it doesn't take any more room, and is pretty darn cheap. Plus, the equivilent of a Jefferies tube already exists in most houses. It is called an "attic", and the "crawl space" under the house. Sometimes there are really big ones called "basements".
Your install would not have suffice even at completion. Your install is only going to handle TCP/IP traffic. What about the telephone lines, audio lines, and video lines? Basically you have missed a huge amount of data that is being shuffled around your average home. You like most people pulling wire directly are too wrapped up in solving a small problem to see the big picture.
Fiber isn't even present proof. Thy hooking up your good old telephone to that fiber. I'm sure it can be done, but you are talking about thousands of dollars per phone. Plus, there is no guarantee that fiber will EVER be common or economical in the home.