Nintendo DSi might be my last portable Nintendo device

I bought a Nintendo DSi thinking I'd play some cool games, and as I got into it, I was somewhat pleased with the games, but after a bit, I started really missing the functionality of my Nokia N800. Touch screen? Sure. But the biggest BIGGEST problem with the DSi is the absolutely crappy browser. I know, "It's not about the browser, it's about the GAMES!" Seriously? There is no reason to include a browser that can't do basic streaming of any media. There's no reason to include a browser that can't legitimately and functionally render web pages. There's no reason to include a media player that can't play MP3s.

As I played with the Nintendo DSi, I realized that what I really wanted was what I already had: an Internet Device that didn't tell me that it couldn't do things on the web that I wanted. In fact, what I probably really wanted was an iPod touch. Even then, not so much. I want the flexibility of my N800 with an app base. Probably what I'll end up with is a cross between a Garmin, an Archos, and my N800 (which, btw, did have flash, even on a touch screen!). We'll see if the Samsung Moment might be a reasonable alternative.

Methane Leak from melting ice

http://news.discovery.com/earth/methane-leak-permafrost-arctic.html
Even if we agree 1) that global warming exists and 2) that humans "caused" it, we still have the problem of how do we humans fix it fast enough that will counteract the release of so much methane at once? Is anyone going to be able with authority to tell us that the earth needs to cool by 4 degrees and the only way to do that is to basically kill all humans?

Is someone going to be able to say that the amount of methane emissions here is equivalent to the amount of methane released (and therefore we should cap it) by production of x human widgets? What if this amount of methane is significantly more than what humans produce?

I'm not taking this lightly. I'm not being a denier. I am simply asking: "How do we humans who aren't scientists deal with the information presented here in a proactive manner?"

This article doesn't tell us that this amount of methane is x ppm vs y ppm that humans (or cows?) produce. It does, however, say a specific *type* of carbon production leads to global warming. Good thing. We're hearing that Carbon is bad. We need to stop buying diamonds, procreating, breathing, producing flatulence, driving, and burning anything. We need to start planting more trees and stop building and making stuff. And until everyone basically stops breathing, they can buy carbon offset credits to make them feel better about their polution.

A global warming rant

Read: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece
And yet, nobody actually tells us what it will take to increase the arctic ice. Given that CO₂ is a lagging indicator (some say it's a feedback to global warming. Nobody explains why it's not simply a by-product.)

I think they're saying if the entire world shuts down for a few years we could get the ice back. But I thought the CO₂ was there for 3000 years? I submit that anything that will happen in 5-10 years is going to happen regardless of whatever is accomplished at Copenhagen. It will take that long before most things get implemented and/or effective. And then what? What if the earth is simply doing what it is doing to get rid of humanity? Won't that simply fix its own problem?

We've seen George Bush compared to a chimpanzee...

Could anyone dare compare another popular candidate to a chimpanzee? I'm just saying.

The question has been asked and the comments are ridiculous. No, idiots, forget that one wouldn't do it because of x or y especially because democrats have the ability to get away with things that others cannot. It doesn't matter if cognitively the candidate should or should not be compared. If pictures are pictures, why not simply compare pictures?

Yes, that's right. I'm simply saying that race has nothing to do with comparisons, until you're offended.

You know what? If you're voting for someone simply and primarily because that person's skin color more or less matches yours or because of skin color, you're a racist. If you're voting for someone because that person is actually good for the constituency, that is a better plan.

My StumbleUpon Visitors. They amuse me.

Not that they talk to me or anything. I am not female, for one. But I love to read people's profiles, especially when they use them for their own brand of intolerance.

Oh, I'm sorry. I can't say that and mean it, right? That's so much of a bigot, right? [/sarcasm]. Hey, you know what? I don't really care that you're a Secular Humanist and a Democrat. If that is all that defines who you are, you simply have chosen another path of conformity. As long as it makes you feel good, I guess.

What I'm getting at is that if you want to define who you are, define it in terms of you, not of in terms of a group. Hrm. OK, so it is "I" don't believe in .... Meh. So what? That doesn't make you unique. It doesn't make you that interesting, either. I guess I shouldn't be so interested. I just want to know what makes your, my, our place on this rock that hurtles through space that much more important. In the end, I guess, you, me, we don't matter much. In the grand scheme of things, we have the same viewpoints of the futility of existence, right?

I'm not advocating any bodily harm to anyone. However, I am asking what the point is of defining oneself in such broad strokes as being a member of a group. Is one a Democrat or Republican because one really hates the other party, or is one philosophically beholden to the tenets of the party to which they hold fealty? Really? All of those tenets? Do you know what they are?

Fine. Then we can talk civilly about life, the universe, and everything.