With as scientifically ignorant as many venture capitalists are, I wouldn't use that as a barometer of plausibility.
I think Randall Mills was on slasdot a while back, but I read about him several years ago in Robert Park's book Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness To Fraud.
Mills has been around for years and years, with no evidence that there's anything behind his crank inventions, but "Dr Mills says that his company, Blacklight Power, has tens of millions of dollars in investment lined up to bring the idea to market"
If that's true, there are going to be a lot of severely disappointed people.
I'd like to point out that many alternative fuels are already used
Biodiesel is already in use, as it (as I understand) functions is normal diesel engines without and retrofitting.
Hybrid cars are becoming commonplace
Many companies are planning on making ethanol capable models--Ford even has the CEO of Ford making some promises on-air (not that that necessarily means they'll live up to them)
Various mass transit systems are putting hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol, and biodiesel into production. Mass transit systems, by the way, can provide an answer to the chicken/egg problem for alternative fuel vehicles. Since companies won't create a signficant number of vehicles until there's an infrastructure to support them, so people will buy them, and an infrastructure won't be built until there's a market, there's traditionally been a problem. However, governments have the money and the muscle to bring both of them into being at the same time, if in a limited capacity. Mass transit systems can have buses, for example, fuel at the depots, to start with. They could also open the depot up for public purchase. As more mass transit systems adopt alternative fuels, more fuel stations will arise, and more people will purchase alternative energy vehicles. Slow, maybe, but potentially very effective.
Things don't happen overnight, but they do happen.
Sensationalization, I agree, tends to be an ultimately harmful trend in journalism.
I didn't, however, see any of the reports making claims of facts beyond what is/was known. I did see a lot of speculation and supposition, but to me, they seemed to be clearly in the realm of speculation, mingled with some outrage that I, personally, find understandable.
With the scenario you mention with TiVo, I'm not surprised, but I don't care whether my usage information was anonymous or not, if they want my data, they ought to tell me beforehand and let me decide. Especially in a system where I pay to use it.
I'll admit that I may be somewhat peculiar about my privacy preferences and principles (say that pi times fast), but in a world that is growing ever more Big Brother (especially here in the US with the new DoJ appropriations reauthorization stuff, and an overwhelmingly Republican [who appear to me to be much more frequently strict constructionists--i.e. non-believers in a Constitutional right to privacy] government), I feel that what little privacy there is left should be respected.
Now, I'm not saying I think that Apple is secretly plotting against me, or that they're in league with the RIAA, but the fact that they apparently don't disclose this at all worries me a great deal. It feels like an erosion. Plus, if the motivation is merely improving the user experience, one would think they'd be happy to inform us. It's the non-disclosure that bothers me most. I do see it as a breach of privacy.
I suspect that part of the reason for the sensational feel to the story is the surprise/outrage that Apple, of all companies, would employ tactics that at least appear questionable.
Anyway, considering that this doesn't/won't/shouldn't affect me, I guess it's academic for me, at the moment.
For the record, it wasn't my argument. I'm just saying, the motivation behind that particular phrasing, accurate or not, is that the prize for software that runs exclusively on OSX was a Microsoft product. Now, please be careful here. It's not about the game systems. It's not about the fact that OSX was used by students. It's not about Linux or PS[#] or Nintendo, or BlahBlahBlah. It's about the fact that Apple considers itself the AntiMicrosoft. "Here, Mr. Mac-man, have a Microsoft Thing(TM)"
I know that [the Large Multinational Company I work for] uses AIX to the exclusion of Linux with the official justification of (I don't know about the accuracy):
Support
Reliability
Accountability
Ostensibly, actually, the SCO lawsuit. They don't want to mess with anything that might even possibly get futzed with.
Actually, strictly speaking, from a statistically perspective, given a normal/Gaussian distribution, it's precisely true. The normal distribution curve is a fairly accurate model for quantitative phenomena in the many realms, like behavioral sciences. Many psychological and intellectual test scores as well as various phenomena like photon counts approximate a normal distribution. That being said, in a normal distribution, 50% of the population is above the mean, and 50% is below (since from a statistical standpoint, the probability of someone existing at a single point on the curve is defined as zero--now, obviously, this isn't precisely true from a real world perspective, especially given the integer nature things like IQ)
Moreover, IQ is actually defined statistically, with 100 being the average IQ. Consequently, approximately half of the population of the world/country/sample has an IQ of 100 or below.
This may well be innocuous. We don't know what Apple does with the information, I think is the point. The article doesn't offer proof that the data is retained by Apple, but without an insider at Apple, or other such mechanism, how do we know? The answer is, we don't. You suggest what it could be, in apparent defense of Apple, but you don't know, either. It could be a lot more is taken and retained.
Forgive me for suggesting this, or if I'm incorrect, but I get the impression that you wouldn't sound quite so sedate if the situation involved a different company, like, say, Microsoft (and you needn't point out any examples of MS doing likewise).
And you ask what use will Apple have for the information? I don't know. I still don't like it. I take my privacy pretty seriously, and will voluntarily give it up, but only when I choose. In other words, I have to know it first. I know Amazon'll be tracking my purchases, since they need to for other reasons, and am willing to abide by that. If I don't want them knowing what I buy, I don't shop there. That being said, Amazon doesn't know when or how many times I watch Lost In Translation, or how often I might use an adult toy with my girlfriend. And while I don't know whether Amazon specifically discloses the fact that they use purchases to make recommendations, it is pretty common knowledge. From what I've read, Apple apparently does not disclose this, or what use it will make of the information.
Now, me, I don't use iTunes. I'm satisfied with various other players (e.g. Winamp) for the moment. When I get an iPod, maybe I'll use iTunes, but we'll see.
I agree that it's easy to disable, which is props for Apple. To me, that doesn't make up for the fact that it's there, undisclosed, in the first place, opened by default.
I think the point was that an XBOX360 (Microsoft Product) was the prize for the winner, a game that ONLY worked on OSX laptops (very NOT Microsoft, even, dare I say, AntiMicrosoft).
Not "gasp! look! it's a bird! it's a plane! it's OSX software by an academic institution!"
Well, I mean, AMDs in general are more reliable than Intel processors. That partially comes from having a lower clock speed and, consequently, less heat. Partially comes from different design philosophy. Partially comes from the fact that AMD doesn't have to manufacture the sheer number of processors. And it's partially 'cause AMD is just straight up plain better than Intel.
Celerons, in particular, are problematic. Durons, in comparison, are goldenboys, from what I've seen.
Moreover, non-Intel boards for Intel chips don't tend to have the stability of Intel branded boards. This isn't the case with AMDs, for obvious reasons. Now, I don't know what Dell uses, but offhand, I'll bet they, like many PC manufacturers, use a custom (read as: non-standard) board.
And honestly, an awful lot of users go for The Cheapest Computer They Can Buy. Which, historically, has been a Celeron. So even if you put higher performance Intels on par with AMDs, the low cost market would benefit significantly in reliability from the switch, while probably reducing Dell's price, enabling them to: a) profit more (the most likely scenario), b) use higher quality parts for other parts of the computer (increasing reliability), or c) reducing the consumer price.
Now, it's been a year since I seriously went shopping/what have you, but last year, according to some numbers I saw, DDR2 memory was actually (seen then primarily/exclusively seen on Intel boards), due to CAS latency issues, slower than high quality DDR, and much more expensive. That alone would drop the price or allow higher quality parts to be used to increase reliability.
So various things would contribute to the increase in reliability.
I'm not so sure it's Teens as much as stupid people. I actually found in my old tech repair days (in a major college town) that adults were more likely to click anything that popped up in front of them. Probably due to panic (or in some cases, randiness). In general, they seem much less tech-savvy, and while teenagers had the same kind of problems, it was less frequent, and often due to the user being a sports scholarship;) Now, of course it wasn't rare, but such a large population has, well, shall we say, a relatively large tail on the Bell curve. So
I'll agree that most teens/etc are less sophisticated than they should be, but the same holds true for adults as well.
Does your work use straight MSN? Mine uses the Windows/MSN messenger client, but we use an SIP Communications Service and whatnot.
I haven't tried using any alternative clients, but since we use the SIP, so I don't know if they'd even work. I don't imagine it matters that much, aesthetic considerations aside.
"Hacker groups have large (compromised) server farms to experiment with propagating exploits. They hide Trojans and viruses, and control these botnets via IRC,"
No, you're right, it probably won't be a blow to copy protection, though in TFA, it says that the Bafta members consider the film pretty well shut out of the nominations for awards. So while it's possible that Spielberg will make a stink, it's unlikely that it'll affect anyone other than at Universal/the encoding lab. Especially since there was more than one screwup.
The film has been criticised by Israeli officials for what is perceived as Spielberg's sympathetic attitude towards the Palestinian cause
Maybe it's another "Zionist Conspiracy"::insert tongue A into cheek B::
Honestly, this really shouldn't make me as happy as it does. Don't get me wrong, I like Spielberg just fine, I'm just happy someone else is finally getting reamed a little bit.
At a minimum, don't you think that AMD processors would improve the reliability of Dell computers, while enabling (note that I did not say causing) lower prices? Especially in the low-end computing arena (i.e. Celeron processors)?
And since most of us who use/recommend AMD processors now would know that any continued problems with Dells are not, in fact, due to AMD processors...
Assuming AMD continues in the path they've been making, I would see this as a good thing.
The real numbers provide an uncountably infinite set, so even given a finite universe, there is clearly an uncountably infinite number of concepts. Moreover, I'd posit that that the gestalt of even a finite universe could lead to an infinite emergent system.
All this talk of an infinite coffin reminds me strangely of Gabriel's Horn for some reason. Which, by the by, is an astoundingly neat piece of topology.
And see? Even Einstein believes there's something out there that's infinite;) Quod erat demonstrandum
As I see it, the problem stems from two different areas.
Firstly, a large portion of the (loudest of the) ID crowd seem to feel that evolution isn't an option, and that genesis is a literal account. There are, however, some that are willing to accept evolution as a directive of the creator's will. The second area comes from the fact that they advocate the teaching of ID in school science classes, either as an alternative to evolution (in the former case), or as a motivation for evolution (in the latter). The problem therein is that science is based upon certain precepts, upon which ID is not founded. Many or most in the Evolutionist camp (myself included) are very open to/proponents of the notion of a creator being the ultimate driving force behind the universe. Most of these (ibid), however, are vehemently against the teaching of that view in a scientific setting because there isn't a basis of scientific inquiry behind it.
So I agree with you that there's no fundamental disconnect between science and the concept of a creator as a designer. I do, however, think that they shouldn't be comingled as a discipline.
In my own, admittedly somewhat biased view, the problem stems primarily from an ignorance of the nature and state of science. A problem that'll only be exacerbated by the dilution of scientific instruction.
I suspected that that was the explanation for the phenomenon. I, personally, am not worried about it. Apparently there are some out there who are, however (paranoid or not).
Perhaps this is a case of "Caesar's wife must be above reproach." I don't know the mechanics of the process, but is there a way to alter the system to remove the potential appearance of impropriety?
I think you have a good point about user faith in the impartiality of the editing system. That is vital to maintaining the community, and does need to be addressed in some fashion. I'm not sure what mechanism would be good for this, since I'm not familiar with the mechanics behind the submission/approval process. I did see comments about having two editors approve a story. Perhaps that would be a useful process, if a bit more unwieldy.
At the same time, I personally don't see anything particularly wrong from benefitting financially (indirectly) from the work of submitting a good story (keyword: good). I did note that Taco said that that he tends to give speed a greater weight than quality, which maybe should be reversed. That could potentially reverse the trend of storyspamming, since, to get credit, you'd have to take a hot minute to write a thoughtful summary. Which could erode the fiscal benefit to linkspammers without punishing genuine, thoughtful contributors.
I'm more interested in the stories than the users. For the most part, I think that a good story should speak for itself, regardless of who submitted it. I do think that if you try hard enough, you should get the credit for submitting a story, however, even if you choose to waste it. I guess that there are some heuristics that editors will have to use, trying the weigh the interest of the story versus the potential degeneration.
On the other hand, I think that as a community, we should be mature enough to debate the merits of an article and discuss it without getting mired in who did what and where they're linking. If we can't handle that, maybe we deserve to lose the story.
That being said, maybe a "Conspiracy Theory" mod could be implemented that does 2d6 points of fire damage to a comment.
On a positive note, this'll make it much easier to bludgeon people to death with your mouse than ever before, a feature that just might make up for its hideousness.
Slashdot Mirror
With as scientifically ignorant as many venture capitalists are, I wouldn't use that as a barometer of plausibility.
I think Randall Mills was on slasdot a while back, but I read about him several years ago in Robert Park's book Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness To Fraud.
Mills has been around for years and years, with no evidence that there's anything behind his crank inventions, but "Dr Mills says that his company, Blacklight Power, has tens of millions of dollars in investment lined up to bring the idea to market"
If that's true, there are going to be a lot of severely disappointed people.
There's mass! It's convenient! :)
At least....it will be once we can figure out how to convert it efficiently...
Well, algae are photosynthetic organisms, so don't forget the solar aspect.
I'd like to point out that many alternative fuels are already used
Biodiesel is already in use, as it (as I understand) functions is normal diesel engines without and retrofitting.
Hybrid cars are becoming commonplace
Many companies are planning on making ethanol capable models--Ford even has the CEO of Ford making some promises on-air (not that that necessarily means they'll live up to them)
Various mass transit systems are putting hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol, and biodiesel into production. Mass transit systems, by the way, can provide an answer to the chicken/egg problem for alternative fuel vehicles. Since companies won't create a signficant number of vehicles until there's an infrastructure to support them, so people will buy them, and an infrastructure won't be built until there's a market, there's traditionally been a problem. However, governments have the money and the muscle to bring both of them into being at the same time, if in a limited capacity. Mass transit systems can have buses, for example, fuel at the depots, to start with. They could also open the depot up for public purchase. As more mass transit systems adopt alternative fuels, more fuel stations will arise, and more people will purchase alternative energy vehicles. Slow, maybe, but potentially very effective.
Things don't happen overnight, but they do happen.
Sensationalization, I agree, tends to be an ultimately harmful trend in journalism.
I didn't, however, see any of the reports making claims of facts beyond what is/was known. I did see a lot of speculation and supposition, but to me, they seemed to be clearly in the realm of speculation, mingled with some outrage that I, personally, find understandable.
With the scenario you mention with TiVo, I'm not surprised, but I don't care whether my usage information was anonymous or not, if they want my data, they ought to tell me beforehand and let me decide. Especially in a system where I pay to use it.
I'll admit that I may be somewhat peculiar about my privacy preferences and principles (say that pi times fast), but in a world that is growing ever more Big Brother (especially here in the US with the new DoJ appropriations reauthorization stuff, and an overwhelmingly Republican [who appear to me to be much more frequently strict constructionists--i.e. non-believers in a Constitutional right to privacy] government), I feel that what little privacy there is left should be respected.
Now, I'm not saying I think that Apple is secretly plotting against me, or that they're in league with the RIAA, but the fact that they apparently don't disclose this at all worries me a great deal. It feels like an erosion. Plus, if the motivation is merely improving the user experience, one would think they'd be happy to inform us. It's the non-disclosure that bothers me most. I do see it as a breach of privacy.
I suspect that part of the reason for the sensational feel to the story is the surprise/outrage that Apple, of all companies, would employ tactics that at least appear questionable.
Anyway, considering that this doesn't/won't/shouldn't affect me, I guess it's academic for me, at the moment.
::patpat::
Yes, dear.
For the record, it wasn't my argument. I'm just saying, the motivation behind that particular phrasing, accurate or not, is that the prize for software that runs exclusively on OSX was a Microsoft product.
Now, please be careful here. It's not about the game systems. It's not about the fact that OSX was used by students. It's not about Linux or PS[#] or Nintendo, or BlahBlahBlah. It's about the fact that Apple considers itself the AntiMicrosoft.
"Here, Mr. Mac-man, have a Microsoft Thing(TM)"
See my disclaimers.
I didn't say I thought it was logical.
It's just the rationale (foolishnesse?) that my company apparently uses.
Actually, strictly speaking, from a statistically perspective, given a normal/Gaussian distribution, it's precisely true. The normal distribution curve is a fairly accurate model for quantitative phenomena in the many realms, like behavioral sciences. Many psychological and intellectual test scores as well as various phenomena like photon counts approximate a normal distribution. That being said, in a normal distribution, 50% of the population is above the mean, and 50% is below (since from a statistical standpoint, the probability of someone existing at a single point on the curve is defined as zero--now, obviously, this isn't precisely true from a real world perspective, especially given the integer nature things like IQ)
Moreover, IQ is actually defined statistically, with 100 being the average IQ. Consequently, approximately half of the population of the world/country/sample has an IQ of 100 or below.
Kind of a scay thought, neh?
This may well be innocuous. We don't know what Apple does with the information, I think is the point. The article doesn't offer proof that the data is retained by Apple, but without an insider at Apple, or other such mechanism, how do we know? The answer is, we don't. You suggest what it could be, in apparent defense of Apple, but you don't know, either. It could be a lot more is taken and retained.
Forgive me for suggesting this, or if I'm incorrect, but I get the impression that you wouldn't sound quite so sedate if the situation involved a different company, like, say, Microsoft (and you needn't point out any examples of MS doing likewise).
And you ask what use will Apple have for the information? I don't know. I still don't like it. I take my privacy pretty seriously, and will voluntarily give it up, but only when I choose. In other words, I have to know it first. I know Amazon'll be tracking my purchases, since they need to for other reasons, and am willing to abide by that. If I don't want them knowing what I buy, I don't shop there. That being said, Amazon doesn't know when or how many times I watch Lost In Translation, or how often I might use an adult toy with my girlfriend. And while I don't know whether Amazon specifically discloses the fact that they use purchases to make recommendations, it is pretty common knowledge. From what I've read, Apple apparently does not disclose this, or what use it will make of the information.
Now, me, I don't use iTunes. I'm satisfied with various other players (e.g. Winamp) for the moment. When I get an iPod, maybe I'll use iTunes, but we'll see.
I agree that it's easy to disable, which is props for Apple. To me, that doesn't make up for the fact that it's there, undisclosed, in the first place, opened by default.
Here are more responses.
I think the point was that an XBOX360 (Microsoft Product) was the prize for the winner, a game that ONLY worked on OSX laptops (very NOT Microsoft, even, dare I say, AntiMicrosoft).
Not "gasp! look! it's a bird! it's a plane! it's OSX software by an academic institution!"
Well, I mean, AMDs in general are more reliable than Intel processors. That partially comes from having a lower clock speed and, consequently, less heat. Partially comes from different design philosophy. Partially comes from the fact that AMD doesn't have to manufacture the sheer number of processors. And it's partially 'cause AMD is just straight up plain better than Intel.
Celerons, in particular, are problematic. Durons, in comparison, are goldenboys, from what I've seen.
Moreover, non-Intel boards for Intel chips don't tend to have the stability of Intel branded boards. This isn't the case with AMDs, for obvious reasons. Now, I don't know what Dell uses, but offhand, I'll bet they, like many PC manufacturers, use a custom (read as: non-standard) board.
And honestly, an awful lot of users go for The Cheapest Computer They Can Buy. Which, historically, has been a Celeron. So even if you put higher performance Intels on par with AMDs, the low cost market would benefit significantly in reliability from the switch, while probably reducing Dell's price, enabling them to: a) profit more (the most likely scenario), b) use higher quality parts for other parts of the computer (increasing reliability), or c) reducing the consumer price.
Now, it's been a year since I seriously went shopping/what have you, but last year, according to some numbers I saw, DDR2 memory was actually (seen then primarily/exclusively seen on Intel boards), due to CAS latency issues, slower than high quality DDR, and much more expensive. That alone would drop the price or allow higher quality parts to be used to increase reliability.
So various things would contribute to the increase in reliability.
Think stapleguns. They don't have to be standing nearly as still.
I'm not so sure it's Teens as much as stupid people. ;) Now, of course it wasn't rare, but such a large population has, well, shall we say, a relatively large tail on the Bell curve. So
I actually found in my old tech repair days (in a major college town) that adults were more likely to click anything that popped up in front of them. Probably due to panic (or in some cases, randiness). In general, they seem much less tech-savvy, and while teenagers had the same kind of problems, it was less frequent, and often due to the user being a sports scholarship
I'll agree that most teens/etc are less sophisticated than they should be, but the same holds true for adults as well.
Me speak good.
I haven't tried using any alternative clients [at work--I don't use MSN at home], but since we use the SIP, I don't know if they'd even work.
Does your work use straight MSN? Mine uses the Windows/MSN messenger client, but we use an SIP Communications Service and whatnot.
I haven't tried using any alternative clients, but since we use the SIP, so I don't know if they'd even work. I don't imagine it matters that much, aesthetic considerations aside.
Thank God for IRC?
"Hacker groups have large (compromised) server farms to experiment with propagating exploits. They hide Trojans and viruses, and control these botnets via IRC,"
You're one of them, aren't you?! ADMIT IT!!
Just remember, IRC isn't safe, only safer
No, you're right, it probably won't be a blow to copy protection, though in TFA, it says that the Bafta members consider the film pretty well shut out of the nominations for awards. So while it's possible that Spielberg will make a stink, it's unlikely that it'll affect anyone other than at Universal/the encoding lab. Especially since there was more than one screwup.
::insert tongue A into cheek B::
The film has been criticised by Israeli officials for what is perceived as Spielberg's sympathetic attitude towards the Palestinian cause
Maybe it's another "Zionist Conspiracy"
Honestly, this really shouldn't make me as happy as it does. Don't get me wrong, I like Spielberg just fine, I'm just happy someone else is finally getting reamed a little bit.
At a minimum, don't you think that AMD processors would improve the reliability of Dell computers, while enabling (note that I did not say causing) lower prices? Especially in the low-end computing arena (i.e. Celeron processors)?
And since most of us who use/recommend AMD processors now would know that any continued problems with Dells are not, in fact, due to AMD processors...
Assuming AMD continues in the path they've been making, I would see this as a good thing.
The real numbers provide an uncountably infinite set, so even given a finite universe, there is clearly an uncountably infinite number of concepts. Moreover, I'd posit that that the gestalt of even a finite universe could lead to an infinite emergent system.
;)
All this talk of an infinite coffin reminds me strangely of Gabriel's Horn for some reason. Which, by the by, is an astoundingly neat piece of topology.
And see? Even Einstein believes there's something out there that's infinite
Quod erat demonstrandum
As I see it, the problem stems from two different areas.
Firstly, a large portion of the (loudest of the) ID crowd seem to feel that evolution isn't an option, and that genesis is a literal account. There are, however, some that are willing to accept evolution as a directive of the creator's will.
The second area comes from the fact that they advocate the teaching of ID in school science classes, either as an alternative to evolution (in the former case), or as a motivation for evolution (in the latter). The problem therein is that science is based upon certain precepts, upon which ID is not founded.
Many or most in the Evolutionist camp (myself included) are very open to/proponents of the notion of a creator being the ultimate driving force behind the universe. Most of these (ibid), however, are vehemently against the teaching of that view in a scientific setting because there isn't a basis of scientific inquiry behind it.
So I agree with you that there's no fundamental disconnect between science and the concept of a creator as a designer. I do, however, think that they shouldn't be comingled as a discipline.
In my own, admittedly somewhat biased view, the problem stems primarily from an ignorance of the nature and state of science. A problem that'll only be exacerbated by the dilution of scientific instruction.
I suspected that that was the explanation for the phenomenon. I, personally, am not worried about it. Apparently there are some out there who are, however (paranoid or not).
Perhaps this is a case of "Caesar's wife must be above reproach."
I don't know the mechanics of the process, but is there a way to alter the system to remove the potential appearance of impropriety?
I think you have a good point about user faith in the impartiality of the editing system. That is vital to maintaining the community, and does need to be addressed in some fashion. I'm not sure what mechanism would be good for this, since I'm not familiar with the mechanics behind the submission/approval process. I did see comments about having two editors approve a story. Perhaps that would be a useful process, if a bit more unwieldy.
At the same time, I personally don't see anything particularly wrong from benefitting financially (indirectly) from the work of submitting a good story (keyword: good). I did note that Taco said that that he tends to give speed a greater weight than quality, which maybe should be reversed. That could potentially reverse the trend of storyspamming, since, to get credit, you'd have to take a hot minute to write a thoughtful summary. Which could erode the fiscal benefit to linkspammers without punishing genuine, thoughtful contributors.
I'm more interested in the stories than the users. For the most part, I think that a good story should speak for itself, regardless of who submitted it. I do think that if you try hard enough, you should get the credit for submitting a story, however, even if you choose to waste it. I guess that there are some heuristics that editors will have to use, trying the weigh the interest of the story versus the potential degeneration.
On the other hand, I think that as a community, we should be mature enough to debate the merits of an article and discuss it without getting mired in who did what and where they're linking. If we can't handle that, maybe we deserve to lose the story.
That being said, maybe a "Conspiracy Theory" mod could be implemented that does 2d6 points of fire damage to a comment.
I was going to ask if it was just me.
On a positive note, this'll make it much easier to bludgeon people to death with your mouse than ever before, a feature that just might make up for its hideousness.