Cartoons, stupidity, cleverness

* I think the third frame in “this”:http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005044.html _Doonesbury_ packs a lot into one picture.
* Whereas xkcd, “here,”:http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/getting_out_of_hand.png doesn’t even need speech.
* And, on geekery, “I want this”:http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/generic/991e/ for Christmas.
* Still geeking: you could not improve [“this definition”:http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=489958] of “open”, or indeed, “anyone”.
* On stupidity: Andrew Leonard “quotes”:http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/10/25/climate_collaboratorium/index.html an MIT report. %(sane) “Today’s on-line discussion forums, blogs, and chat rooms do a good job of encouraging lots of people to express their opinions and share them widely. But these systems are not very good at supporting evidence-based, logical deliberation: the quality of contributions can vary enormously.%
and adds
%(loony)Which is kind of like saying nuclear bombs do a good job when employed for purposes of mass destruction, but are not so great for handcrafting quality woodwork%
* Clever people: David Chalmers “has tarted up”:http://fragments.consc.net/djc/2007/10/mindpapers.html his already excellent consciousness bibliography.
* Perhaps you would prefer [“biology”:http://biosource.blogspot.com/2007/10/online-books-ncbi-ebooks.html]? Lots of good searchable texts there.