Good call on Talk Talk Talk

It's kind of strange that they put the UK Office on there, but no other non-US shows (none that I noticed, anyway). As a fan of Britcoms, I'd have to say that Spaced and Black Books deserve spots in at least the top-15.

Yes, he really does sound like an asshole. That said, I think many of the rules would improve the dining experience - I'd never feel entitled to receive the treatment Buschel lays out, and I'd certainly never ever complain about its absence... but if I knew a restaurant had those rules, it would make me more likely to eat there. Also, more likely to tip extra-generously in recognition that the staff has to deal with an asshole boss.

The burden of proof is on the people who claim that the book was secretly ghostwritten by Ayers. Dismissing similarities that aren't very unique or compelling is certainly a reasonable approach to take with the people who are bringing nothing but non-unique and non-compelling similarities to the table. I'll start paying attention to the authorship "debate" when someone does a rigorous statistical analysis of the text, with an openly discussed, appropriate methodology, that shows widespread similarities in style that are unlikely to be attributable to chance. Or when someone can produce reliable, on-the-record sources. Until then, it's "Whitey Tape" redux.

what is the practical purpose of bringing a gun to a town hall meeting?

You get to be on TV.

They're doing an American remake of Death at a Funeral? Really?

But yeah, great news that the pilot is going forward. "Gripped with excitement and trepidation" is about right... it would be all trepidation if the networks or a lesser cable channel were doing the adaptation, but with HBO you gotta believe there's a fighting chance that they'll create something truly great.

Fantastic post. I first read about the movement to normalize autism as a difference rather than a disorder a few days ago, and was deeply unsettled but not quite able to articulate why. This explains it perfectly; and the point about the people closest to an issue not being the best-informed or most rational about the issue can't be made enough.

The worst possible outcome, should the skeptics prove wrong (and I am not one of them) is that the earth becomes a greenhouse hell similar to Venus, unable to support life. But what are the odds of that happening, and when will it happen?

I don't think any serious scientist believes that runaway global warming is even remotely possible; there is positive feedback with warmer temps leading to more water vapor (which is a GG) but other effects shut down the warming as the planet's radiative wavelengths change.

There are a lot of potentially disastrous results of global warming, though, and good chunk of them do appear to be reasonably feasible. There's plenty of uncertainty, and some positive effects are also possible, but the sheer number of somewhat-likely-and-disastrous possible outcomes makes a pretty strong case for pro-action.

I do think a lot of the proposed solutions are inelegant and not attractive from an economic standpoint. Which, and this dovetails with your space geekery, is why I favor building a giant space parasol to shield the earth from some adjustable percent of solar radiation. Some of the other engineering-based solutions to global warming are pretty cool too.

Some bands I’m sure can sell a lot of downloads with this model. Whether or not they are doing so in a way that is actually fiscally solvent is a larger question. Are these bands recouping a profit in this model? Is the profit enough to earn them at least a decent living? And is this model upwardly scalable?

In the coming years I expect the answers to the above questions will be yes /no / no. But there's another part of the equation: touring. I think the business model for bands will shift to less time in the studio and more time on the road. Which isn't as profitable a model, but still should be decently profitable. As for books, I am deeply pessimistic despite personally preferring paper to Kindle.

The image refuses to load for me, but on the off-chance that it's the disturbing life-like computer rendering of Mario that I've seen, you might be interested in the similar one of Homer Simpson that is perhaps worse:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_rtOXMZlMTkg/R_b_rYWGk2I/AAAAAAAAA0E/xLPS-Tm02Po/s400/real_homer.jpg

The avian fettucine avatar is not a live option for anyone, as far as I know. For cultural and historical reasons, the Christian God is much more likely to be one in our place and time.

I think this is exactly correct, but isn't this precisely what the FSM is used to point out? That it obviously isn't a live option for religious belief while Christianity is: but why? What is the fundamental difference? Which Will answers by pointing to cultural and historical reasons and you answer by pointing out that psychology and plausibility aren't always in the realm of the rational, but neither of those, to me, are compelling reasons why the Christian God is more likely to actually exist than the FSM.

the many large concessions that Democrats have made

I think the biggest master stroke of the Obama administration so far has been convincing people that the tax cuts in the stimulus package are only there as a concession to the GOP. In reality, tax cuts as a fairly large portion of stimulus are entirely in line with the economic thinking of Obama's advisers: public works takes time so a short term stop-gap of tax cuts is appropriate. I guess there have been a few legit concessions, like cutting out abortion and contraception funding, but that was fairly minor and I suspect it was only there as a lightning rod to draw off GOP criticism in the first place.

I think the Democrats are actually doing what you want them to do. They have successfully made the GOP look obstructionist, and this was helped immensely by the fact that the GOP has nothing constructive to add to the debate. I frankly don't see much in the way of compromise going on, and that's a good thing at this point.

I don’t think many of the people mocking Ashton Kutcher et al. would be doing so if they were showing fealty to a President McCain rather than a President Obama, and there’s a failing there.

Probably not. But if that mirror-universe video were made, surely liberals would be mocking it just as conservatives are mocking the real one. I don't disagree with anything in the post per se, but isn't it just pointing out the obvious: that partisan people like being partisan? I dream of the world where we all unite in mocking creepy political videos with quick-cuts of overly earnest celebrities.