Oh yeah, a casual styled site run by a lawyer that doesn't cite any of it's sources. (It doesn't mention any sources, let alone link to them.) Great link. [/sarcasm]
The majority of the major chains serve coffee at that temperature, because they know how coffee works. The "National Coffee Association" and the "Specialty Coffee Association" both agree that coffee should be served at that temperature. They all understand that this is hot enough to burn you. None of them think people should be pouring 190 degree coffee down their throats. That isn't what you do when you are served coffee.
There is nothing wrong with serving something dangerously hot when that is how it is meant to be served. Package it properly and put a warning on it, sure, but serve it at the desired temperature. Millions of people every day demonstrate the level of responsibility required to perform the oh so dangerous task of consuming coffee served to them at this temperature. Millions. Every day. Just because a few people can't handle the same task is no reason to run to Big Brother for help. (Or if the packaging and/or warning are insufficient, that is no reason to bitch about how hot the coffee is. If you are going to run to Big Brother, at least do it with a sensible complaint.)
it was kept 60F _above_ what was industry standard.
That is a bold-faced lie. Not only do other major sellers of coffee sell their coffee at temperatures near, at, or above the temperature in question, but McDonald's continues to serve it around the same temperature as well. Starbucks - FUCKING STARBUCKS - recommends coffee be served at or near the temperature McDonald's serves it at.
Get a clue. Even after a big settlement and a high-profile case, the only changes made in the coffee serving industry were more secure packaging and more/clearer warnings. If those thins had been the claims in the case, maybe I'd be okay with it. But to say that the coffee was too hot is definitely a frivolous claim.
I couldn't put an in-dash CD player in it, so I went with a 10-disc CD changer instead. Only problem was the changer needed to be plugged in through the antenna wire (with a pass-through for the antenna). The kicker is, I had no idea WHERE the radio actually was (and following the antenna wire wasn't easy). I eventually found the radio under the center console beside the driver seat, and it didn't look like a radio at all.
Want to know a bigger buzzkill? The realization that the touch screen sucks in a car. I realized that when I drove a 1987 Buick Riviera with touch screen controls (my first car, and it was over a decade old at the time). It's neat and all, but it is so much nicer to be able to feel the controls you are reaching for while driving down the road. Even once I was used to the controls and could change radio presets without looking, it was still a pain to do some things without looking (notably the climate controls). That is kind of important, and it pains me to see such a bad move (IMO) from a company I have been otherwise rooting for. Not a deal breaker by any means, just disappointing.
Well, I know electromagnetic forces directly affect carbon dating, but they do so in a way that doesn't directly affect these other methods. I wasn't clear in that when I previously used the word "direct" I didn't mean "a direct cause", I was just stating that the connection between the Earth and Sun was a direct connection, as opposed to all implied indirectness of the watered down semantics used by scientists too afraid to admit that there is electricity in space.
As far as the cause, I meant to imply that these changes in the electromagnetic forces alter something else that we don't fully understand, even though we thought we did because of how (relatively) constant these forces have averaged in our extremely short time observing them.
I'd expect the impact to be heavily reliant on what the actual cause is. I find it hard to believe that the cause isn't a direct electromagnetic connection. Despite the dancing many do around the subject, there most definitely is a direct electromagnetic link between the Earth and Sun. And despite what scientists claim, they have no idea how it works. I have never heard a decent explanation for a cause of the solar wind that allows for the sudden complete stoppage and subsequent restart of the solar wind as we have witnessed in the past. Stars being electrically powered may be a start towards explaining that, but it just pushes the causes one step backwards in our understanding of what is going on here.
Man, who could have predicted that these "jets" would be moving along these "cracks"? Oh, that's right, plasma cosmologists predicted that as soon as NASA found the "jets". They also predicted the shape of these "cracks" as well (which aren't shaped like cracks at all, but rather sharply cut v-trenches).
Too bad these plasma cosmologists spend all of this time thinking about how things work according to science instead of tweaking the mathematical equations of a scientifically-meaningless model (where over 90% of the universe is imagined by a hole-plugging theory) until they work out all of the flaws created by these pesky observations.
This tit for tat is old, as you clearly don't know what you are talking about. But a few points stand out. Your claim that standard cosmologists are well trained in plasma and electromagnetics, yet they always treat plasma solely as a "hot gas" ignoring what properties plasma has and aside from this, blatantly violate electromagnetc laws with some theories. You seem to deny the existence of Hannes Alfven and Kristian Birkeland and anyone else who came before those currently active in plasma cosmology. Your alleged shortcomings of plasma cosmology are laughable. Pulsars? Really? You're going to throw out one of the things plasma cosmology defines more clearly than standard cosmology? You ignore the nature of my points: you point out how having more than one possible cause for a phenomenon is a weakness (which I never denied), but you still contend they have no explanations, which is ironically true for some of those same phenomenon under the standard model. You still refute the existence of electrodynamics. You still show the Big Bang hypocrisy of not allowing for a similar phenomenon in other models. You ignore that comets produce tails well beyond where the standard model allows them to (i.e. a failure).
As far as the previous debate with a cosmologist (who was an acquaintance prior to the debate when he was then in his post grad work) I mentioned, I did learn much more than my simplified points, but those things either fell under those points or weren't relevant overall to the debate. And I bet you he learned from me as well. Not any point to make him doubt anything, but rather clearing up misconceptions he had about the nature of the counterpoints against him. Which is more than I can say for you.
If I want something licensed under CC, I'm going to go where the bigger community is unless they have something in place to promote better seeding (and I see nothing like that for regular users here).
No; plasma cosmologies do not explain "everything" as in "all observations to the present date", period. Dilettantes who both 1) are unfamiliar with the body of observations in astronomy and astrophysics, and 2) botch the application of simple physics (simple, but outside their realm of training and understanding) write word-heavy, physics-lite books about it anyway.
On the contrary, it is detractors such as you who 1) are unfamiliar with the body of observations in electrical discharges in plasma, and 2) botch the application of complex effects of electric charges in a plasma (complex and far outside the realm of the training and understanding of standard cosmologists) and who write imaginary object-heavy and reality-lite books.
it would be disingenuos to say that standard cosmology was mostly wrong based only on missing mass or energy. Standard cosmology takes into account all our observations about the universe, from orbits to kinematics to thermodynamics to fluid mechanics to quantum effects to electromagnetism to gravity and everything in between, breaking down only at the extreme end, at our observational limit.
It is not disingenuous. They have destroyed their own model as a result of creating their own imaginary replacements for missing mass and energy. They now inject both everywhere, even in places where it was previously not a concern (but now they have a tool for eliminating all margins of error). But they have even failed in this and were recently forced to recognize an electrical connection in space between Jupiter and one of its moons. However, they only accept what they cannot ignore, and sadly, their power to ignore is impressive.
Plasma cosmology, and especially the joke that is the particular "Electric Universe" flavor, fails to account for the majority of physical observations, and even its purported explanations fail through misapplication of electromagnetism in the first place.
You make the third mistake here, in imagining that there is a such thing as a defined "Electric Universe". Despite the claim of any person or group of a complete or well defined universal model like this, there is no such thing in practice with regards to the actual theorists responsible for the individual parts of the alleged model. And your claims that they "[fail] to account for the majority of physical observations", that is quite laughable. Not only do they account for them, they quite often have more than one possible explanation for them. Again, this goes to show the flaw in assuming any complete, defined "Electric Universe" model withing the world of the theorists. And I am aware that some theorists have used that term, but my point is that they aren't declaring a definite thing which they themselves don't plan on picking apart and rooting out any flaws or incompatibilities as they collectively bring together a more complete understanding of things.
Just because you mount a pre-emptive attack against certain arguments doesn't make those arguments incorrect. You're doing something called "poisoning the well"; look it up.
On the contrary, I was not "poisoning the well". I was not introducing bias, I was providing the counter-points to the most likely arguments. I was helping the other side to argue against me by skipping an extra exchange being necessary. Now that you know of likely counter-points, you can avoid arguments that can be debunked on those points, or you can point out why your arguments are not countered by my points.
There is only one set of governing laws describing electromagnetism. When somebody misapplies these laws, there is no way to resort to "special pleading" because there is only one theory which describes electromagnetism.
You refute the existence of more than one set-up of models under the same governing theories of electromagnetism? Even though both models exist in uses i
These guys are going to get it WRONG a fair amount of the time. Wrong is just as good as right, with questions as whacked out far out as these are.
You miss the point. While they are getting it wrong, they learn nothing from their mistakes and lead us further down a dead end road. Meanwhile, there are people out there trying to lead us down other roads whose nature is not yet known. These other paths could be the correct path, or perhaps another dead end. Either way, to continue down the same dead end we've been on is a waste of time.
I'd say a basic electro-dynamic model explains everything far more simply and produces far less surprises. It isn't perfect, but it matches what we see far better than the "96% dark stuff" theory.
And before you even imagine that my suggested theory has ever been "proven" wrong, I will tell you the two biggest ways in which attempts to prove it wrong have failed:
1. They almost always attack assumed properties of an electro-static model (i.e. not the model in question).
2. The "flaws" they point out are actually accurate representations of what happens in a plasma. They miss this due to the fact that they never treat plasma as plasma, but rather as a hot gas.
Also, an electro-dynamic model can and has made accurate predictions where the "96% dark stuff" failed to (and was "shocked" and "surprised). This happens almost every time they get better data from comets (most notably when they smashed into one).
And a scientist was able to actually produce "tiny galaxies" in the lab over 50 years ago using electro-dynamic forces in plasma (and these experiments are easily reproducible). And plasma phenomenon are scalable to the galactic scale and orders of magnitude beyond. So not only has the theory been supported by models in a supercomputer, all of the effects can be physically observed in the laboratory at a much smaller scale.
Again, I'm not claiming it's perfect, but so far it can explain pretty much everything we have observed out there without conjuring up imaginary substances to fudge out horrible discrepencies.
There is nothing wrong with observing what we can. The problem is that anytime the theory or model fails, one of two imaginary objects are placed wherever necessary to make it right again. And the model almost always fails. So 96% of their theory is nothing more than fudging the numbers to make everything they observed work without admitting failure.
You must not have understood this because you said "explain the universe based on what we can see and what we know". That is the exact opposite of what they are doing.
Basically, they will take more accurate measurements than before. Then they will look at how badly gravity-only models fail. They will adjust this as much as possible using the imaginary qualities of "dark matter". When they still come up well short of getting it right, then the rest will be explained away by assuming "dark energy" wherever needed to adjust for the failure.
When "96% of the universe" is only detectable by how your model fails with the visible stuff alone, measurements of the visible stuff become useless. It isn't even science at that point.
The only thing worse than how both sides are so much alike is how the general public has lost their view of right and left. "Right" used to mean a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, with left, of course, being the opposite.
Clearly, there are less than a handful of "rights" left in DC. If you are going to peg both parties as being on the same side of any right/left paradigm, the only one that fits is the left side in terms of Constitutional interpretation.
Too easy for people to lie and say "sure, I own that and I donate it as well". I say you set up this online library of yours in partnership with public libraries across America. In order for something to be donated, it must be physically donated to a participating library. Things could be kept at these libraries or sent to a regional or national holding area. Also, libraries could opt into donating their existing copyrighted works as well.
With China (& Japan) loaning so much $$ to the US, eg, to fund the Iraq war, etc. (Go check it out!)...it won't be -too- long before China (&/or Japan) will -own- the US.
Try again. Saudi Arabia owns far more of the USA than China and especially Japan.
If you can't appreciate what is special about an MIT prank, fine.
But if you can't appreciate what is special about XKCD, then you have some reading to do. Start here. And don't forget to read the TITLE text by hovering over the images. (Not ALT text, as others have mislabeled it.)
You can't find that out from Wikipedia, because the gravity-based cosmologists there are deathly afraid of people supporting plasma cosmology (which still does have a Wikipedia page). Even if new info is presented as what plasma cosmologists believe but everyone else has moved beyond, it gets immediately cut out. It's like a medical doctor gutting the page on bloodletting, because he disagreed with the practice. No crap, you disagree with it. That doesn't mean nobody should know what it's about. The fact that the Hollow Earth theory has a bigger page than plasma cosmology says a lot about what those idiots are doing to the page (and I say "idiots" NOT because I think gravity-based cosmologists have anything wrong with their own theory - it's just the ones at Wikipedia who feel the need to suppress information).
That has already been decided. Blu-Ray / HD-DVD are 50 / 30 GB (max), respectively, for all useful comparisons. No commercially significant players will support anything beyond double-layers. (Just like DVD can go beyond double-layered, but no commercially significant player supports it.)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh yeah, a casual styled site run by a lawyer that doesn't cite any of it's sources. (It doesn't mention any sources, let alone link to them.) Great link. [/sarcasm]
The majority of the major chains serve coffee at that temperature, because they know how coffee works. The "National Coffee Association" and the "Specialty Coffee Association" both agree that coffee should be served at that temperature. They all understand that this is hot enough to burn you. None of them think people should be pouring 190 degree coffee down their throats. That isn't what you do when you are served coffee.
There is nothing wrong with serving something dangerously hot when that is how it is meant to be served. Package it properly and put a warning on it, sure, but serve it at the desired temperature. Millions of people every day demonstrate the level of responsibility required to perform the oh so dangerous task of consuming coffee served to them at this temperature. Millions. Every day. Just because a few people can't handle the same task is no reason to run to Big Brother for help. (Or if the packaging and/or warning are insufficient, that is no reason to bitch about how hot the coffee is. If you are going to run to Big Brother, at least do it with a sensible complaint.)
it was kept 60F _above_ what was industry standard.
That is a bold-faced lie. Not only do other major sellers of coffee sell their coffee at temperatures near, at, or above the temperature in question, but McDonald's continues to serve it around the same temperature as well. Starbucks - FUCKING STARBUCKS - recommends coffee be served at or near the temperature McDonald's serves it at.
Get a clue. Even after a big settlement and a high-profile case, the only changes made in the coffee serving industry were more secure packaging and more/clearer warnings. If those thins had been the claims in the case, maybe I'd be okay with it. But to say that the coffee was too hot is definitely a frivolous claim.
For "governator", on the other hand, you arbitrarily splice parts of the two words, losing the marvelous coincidence in the existing words.
I think that is exactly why "governator" works better. Well, that and the fact that the vast majority of people never use the word "gubernatorial".
More appropriate comparison to your example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft#Spirit_of_Justice_censorship
I couldn't put an in-dash CD player in it, so I went with a 10-disc CD changer instead. Only problem was the changer needed to be plugged in through the antenna wire (with a pass-through for the antenna). The kicker is, I had no idea WHERE the radio actually was (and following the antenna wire wasn't easy). I eventually found the radio under the center console beside the driver seat, and it didn't look like a radio at all.
Want to know a bigger buzzkill? The realization that the touch screen sucks in a car. I realized that when I drove a 1987 Buick Riviera with touch screen controls (my first car, and it was over a decade old at the time). It's neat and all, but it is so much nicer to be able to feel the controls you are reaching for while driving down the road. Even once I was used to the controls and could change radio presets without looking, it was still a pain to do some things without looking (notably the climate controls). That is kind of important, and it pains me to see such a bad move (IMO) from a company I have been otherwise rooting for. Not a deal breaker by any means, just disappointing.
Well, I know electromagnetic forces directly affect carbon dating, but they do so in a way that doesn't directly affect these other methods. I wasn't clear in that when I previously used the word "direct" I didn't mean "a direct cause", I was just stating that the connection between the Earth and Sun was a direct connection, as opposed to all implied indirectness of the watered down semantics used by scientists too afraid to admit that there is electricity in space.
As far as the cause, I meant to imply that these changes in the electromagnetic forces alter something else that we don't fully understand, even though we thought we did because of how (relatively) constant these forces have averaged in our extremely short time observing them.
I'd expect the impact to be heavily reliant on what the actual cause is. I find it hard to believe that the cause isn't a direct electromagnetic connection. Despite the dancing many do around the subject, there most definitely is a direct electromagnetic link between the Earth and Sun. And despite what scientists claim, they have no idea how it works. I have never heard a decent explanation for a cause of the solar wind that allows for the sudden complete stoppage and subsequent restart of the solar wind as we have witnessed in the past. Stars being electrically powered may be a start towards explaining that, but it just pushes the causes one step backwards in our understanding of what is going on here.
Man, who could have predicted that these "jets" would be moving along these "cracks"? Oh, that's right, plasma cosmologists predicted that as soon as NASA found the "jets". They also predicted the shape of these "cracks" as well (which aren't shaped like cracks at all, but rather sharply cut v-trenches).
Too bad these plasma cosmologists spend all of this time thinking about how things work according to science instead of tweaking the mathematical equations of a scientifically-meaningless model (where over 90% of the universe is imagined by a hole-plugging theory) until they work out all of the flaws created by these pesky observations.
This tit for tat is old, as you clearly don't know what you are talking about. But a few points stand out. Your claim that standard cosmologists are well trained in plasma and electromagnetics, yet they always treat plasma solely as a "hot gas" ignoring what properties plasma has and aside from this, blatantly violate electromagnetc laws with some theories. You seem to deny the existence of Hannes Alfven and Kristian Birkeland and anyone else who came before those currently active in plasma cosmology. Your alleged shortcomings of plasma cosmology are laughable. Pulsars? Really? You're going to throw out one of the things plasma cosmology defines more clearly than standard cosmology? You ignore the nature of my points: you point out how having more than one possible cause for a phenomenon is a weakness (which I never denied), but you still contend they have no explanations, which is ironically true for some of those same phenomenon under the standard model. You still refute the existence of electrodynamics. You still show the Big Bang hypocrisy of not allowing for a similar phenomenon in other models. You ignore that comets produce tails well beyond where the standard model allows them to (i.e. a failure).
As far as the previous debate with a cosmologist (who was an acquaintance prior to the debate when he was then in his post grad work) I mentioned, I did learn much more than my simplified points, but those things either fell under those points or weren't relevant overall to the debate. And I bet you he learned from me as well. Not any point to make him doubt anything, but rather clearing up misconceptions he had about the nature of the counterpoints against him. Which is more than I can say for you.
I'm a big boy and I know what is licensed and not. Not to mention most things legally licensed explicitly say so in their descriptions.
Why was this modded flamebait?
If I want something licensed under CC, I'm going to go where the bigger community is unless they have something in place to promote better seeding (and I see nothing like that for regular users here).
No; plasma cosmologies do not explain "everything" as in "all observations to the present date", period. Dilettantes who both 1) are unfamiliar with the body of observations in astronomy and astrophysics, and 2) botch the application of simple physics (simple, but outside their realm of training and understanding) write word-heavy, physics-lite books about it anyway.
On the contrary, it is detractors such as you who 1) are unfamiliar with the body of observations in electrical discharges in plasma, and 2) botch the application of complex effects of electric charges in a plasma (complex and far outside the realm of the training and understanding of standard cosmologists) and who write imaginary object-heavy and reality-lite books.
it would be disingenuos to say that standard cosmology was mostly wrong based only on missing mass or energy. Standard cosmology takes into account all our observations about the universe, from orbits to kinematics to thermodynamics to fluid mechanics to quantum effects to electromagnetism to gravity and everything in between, breaking down only at the extreme end, at our observational limit.
It is not disingenuous. They have destroyed their own model as a result of creating their own imaginary replacements for missing mass and energy. They now inject both everywhere, even in places where it was previously not a concern (but now they have a tool for eliminating all margins of error). But they have even failed in this and were recently forced to recognize an electrical connection in space between Jupiter and one of its moons. However, they only accept what they cannot ignore, and sadly, their power to ignore is impressive.
Plasma cosmology, and especially the joke that is the particular "Electric Universe" flavor, fails to account for the majority of physical observations, and even its purported explanations fail through misapplication of electromagnetism in the first place.
You make the third mistake here, in imagining that there is a such thing as a defined "Electric Universe". Despite the claim of any person or group of a complete or well defined universal model like this, there is no such thing in practice with regards to the actual theorists responsible for the individual parts of the alleged model. And your claims that they "[fail] to account for the majority of physical observations", that is quite laughable. Not only do they account for them, they quite often have more than one possible explanation for them. Again, this goes to show the flaw in assuming any complete, defined "Electric Universe" model withing the world of the theorists. And I am aware that some theorists have used that term, but my point is that they aren't declaring a definite thing which they themselves don't plan on picking apart and rooting out any flaws or incompatibilities as they collectively bring together a more complete understanding of things.
Just because you mount a pre-emptive attack against certain arguments doesn't make those arguments incorrect. You're doing something called "poisoning the well"; look it up.
On the contrary, I was not "poisoning the well". I was not introducing bias, I was providing the counter-points to the most likely arguments. I was helping the other side to argue against me by skipping an extra exchange being necessary. Now that you know of likely counter-points, you can avoid arguments that can be debunked on those points, or you can point out why your arguments are not countered by my points.
There is only one set of governing laws describing electromagnetism. When somebody misapplies these laws, there is no way to resort to "special pleading" because there is only one theory which describes electromagnetism.
You refute the existence of more than one set-up of models under the same governing theories of electromagnetism? Even though both models exist in uses i
These guys are going to get it WRONG a fair amount of the time. Wrong is just as good as right, with questions as whacked out far out as these are.
You miss the point. While they are getting it wrong, they learn nothing from their mistakes and lead us further down a dead end road. Meanwhile, there are people out there trying to lead us down other roads whose nature is not yet known. These other paths could be the correct path, or perhaps another dead end. Either way, to continue down the same dead end we've been on is a waste of time.
I'd say a basic electro-dynamic model explains everything far more simply and produces far less surprises. It isn't perfect, but it matches what we see far better than the "96% dark stuff" theory.
And before you even imagine that my suggested theory has ever been "proven" wrong, I will tell you the two biggest ways in which attempts to prove it wrong have failed:
1. They almost always attack assumed properties of an electro-static model (i.e. not the model in question).
2. The "flaws" they point out are actually accurate representations of what happens in a plasma. They miss this due to the fact that they never treat plasma as plasma, but rather as a hot gas.
Also, an electro-dynamic model can and has made accurate predictions where the "96% dark stuff" failed to (and was "shocked" and "surprised). This happens almost every time they get better data from comets (most notably when they smashed into one).
And a scientist was able to actually produce "tiny galaxies" in the lab over 50 years ago using electro-dynamic forces in plasma (and these experiments are easily reproducible). And plasma phenomenon are scalable to the galactic scale and orders of magnitude beyond. So not only has the theory been supported by models in a supercomputer, all of the effects can be physically observed in the laboratory at a much smaller scale.
Again, I'm not claiming it's perfect, but so far it can explain pretty much everything we have observed out there without conjuring up imaginary substances to fudge out horrible discrepencies.
There is nothing wrong with observing what we can. The problem is that anytime the theory or model fails, one of two imaginary objects are placed wherever necessary to make it right again. And the model almost always fails. So 96% of their theory is nothing more than fudging the numbers to make everything they observed work without admitting failure.
You must not have understood this because you said "explain the universe based on what we can see and what we know". That is the exact opposite of what they are doing.
Basically, they will take more accurate measurements than before. Then they will look at how badly gravity-only models fail. They will adjust this as much as possible using the imaginary qualities of "dark matter". When they still come up well short of getting it right, then the rest will be explained away by assuming "dark energy" wherever needed to adjust for the failure.
When "96% of the universe" is only detectable by how your model fails with the visible stuff alone, measurements of the visible stuff become useless. It isn't even science at that point.
Lame /. posts produce wobble?
The only thing worse than how both sides are so much alike is how the general public has lost their view of right and left. "Right" used to mean a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, with left, of course, being the opposite.
Clearly, there are less than a handful of "rights" left in DC. If you are going to peg both parties as being on the same side of any right/left paradigm, the only one that fits is the left side in terms of Constitutional interpretation.
Too easy for people to lie and say "sure, I own that and I donate it as well". I say you set up this online library of yours in partnership with public libraries across America. In order for something to be donated, it must be physically donated to a participating library. Things could be kept at these libraries or sent to a regional or national holding area. Also, libraries could opt into donating their existing copyrighted works as well.
Try again. Saudi Arabia owns far more of the USA than China and especially Japan.
Now THAT would be a trilogy worth making! (I know there were more than three, but surely you can guess the three I'm talking about.)
If you can't appreciate what is special about an MIT prank, fine.
But if you can't appreciate what is special about XKCD, then you have some reading to do. Start here. And don't forget to read the TITLE text by hovering over the images. (Not ALT text, as others have mislabeled it.)
You can't find that out from Wikipedia, because the gravity-based cosmologists there are deathly afraid of people supporting plasma cosmology (which still does have a Wikipedia page). Even if new info is presented as what plasma cosmologists believe but everyone else has moved beyond, it gets immediately cut out. It's like a medical doctor gutting the page on bloodletting, because he disagreed with the practice. No crap, you disagree with it. That doesn't mean nobody should know what it's about. The fact that the Hollow Earth theory has a bigger page than plasma cosmology says a lot about what those idiots are doing to the page (and I say "idiots" NOT because I think gravity-based cosmologists have anything wrong with their own theory - it's just the ones at Wikipedia who feel the need to suppress information).
That has already been decided. Blu-Ray / HD-DVD are 50 / 30 GB (max), respectively, for all useful comparisons. No commercially significant players will support anything beyond double-layers. (Just like DVD can go beyond double-layered, but no commercially significant player supports it.)