Ahem... Don't speed. Problem solved.

A hundred bucks for a shitty notebook seems to me to be pretty representative of our fucked up out of control consumer society. These machines are full of stuff that is simply bad shit: Lead, arsenic, antimony trioxide, polybrominated flame retardants, selenium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, mercury.

At 100 bucks a pop for a machine that is very nearly obsolete, we're encouraging people to purchase, dispose, and repurchase. No one is going to spend money to recycle their $100 notebook-let.

And supposing this person did recycle it. Some estimates suggest that 50 to 80 percent of so-called "E-waste" that is "recycled" in the US ends up on container ships bound for the third world. Once they've arrived, these machines sit in piles in landfills where the poor--paid miniscule amounts--strip them bare, frequently using corrosive acids to disolve chips and get at the silver inside, or simply burning the machines to get at the metal inside.

...OK so that was a bit of an over-reaction to an innocuous post about a cheap laptop, but apparently, I felt really strongly about it.

Wonder if these and other exoskeleton-ey things would work for a sort of passive strength training. I'm imagine wearing one of these all day, walking to work, walking the dog, jogging with the resistance jacked up.

I really wanted to comment on this, but I'm kinda at a loss for words. It's just amazing that folks have this much time on their hands, both the mall ninjas and their gleeful antagonizers. The endless stream of bullshit makes for quite a read. One of my favorites:

"it’s nice to know that I have your support in this dark cruel world."

Far be it from me to stir the libertarian dragon, but it seems to me (as some mentioned in the comments) this this extremely unfortunate event presents a rather compelling argument for gun control. Dwelling on hypotheticals doesn't accomplish much, but had Mr. Maye not been armed, he'd likely have paid a fine or gotten community service for a small amount of marijuana. Ron Jones would most certainly be alive.

I'm taking for granted that that the US "drug war" is an abject a failure prosecuted with draconian enthusiasm (other commenters can make those points better than I) and needs some serious rethinking. I'm also not speaking to the race aspect of the situation or the obvious fact that Mr. Maye's case was handled poorly (and with some questionable conduct on the prosecutor's part).

But the approach this article takes gives me some concern. Why do people feel that we have the right to kill someone for trespassing in our home or on our property? Is it the perception of threat (or the fear of threat) that gives someone that right? Is it the trespassing? What if I feel threatened sitting on my front porch by someone walking on the sidewalk? Radley Balko seems to take it as a given that if the police didn't identify themselves appropriately, Mr. Maye was justified in attempting to kill someone. Why is that? Not having children myself, I can only imagine that the argument is that protecting your children gives you that right, but I don't know.

Also, I love the way that Mr. Balco tuns this phrase: "[Mayne] fired three bullets, one of which killed Officer Ron Jones." There are a number of ways to make the same statement, most of them aren't nearly as passive.

Awww, so cute. I actually thought they were little plush animals before I read the text.

It seems to me that Mr. Green misses an important point here: drivers will be eating as well. While cyclists may need to consume some extra food for energy, I'd imagine that the extra amount consumed (and the energy that goes into producing it) is only marginally more than the food consumed by an automobile commuter, if there is an overage at all.

And I know I'm generalizing, but I'd imagine that folks who make the choice to bike to work (especially those who do so on for health or environmental reasons) are likely to: a) consume foods that have less energy impact (that is to say, less beef or other land meats), and b) consume more organics.

John: I also doubt that folks will warm to these, but I'm not sure if this particular example of convergence is completely impractical. The bluetooth is where it's at. Think for a second of all the people you know who seem to constantly live with a blue tooth headset growing from their ear. This device could let them eliminate their phone altogether, get it out of their pocket or unstrapped from their belt. Which of course brings us one step closer to the the ultimate goal: the day when the phone actually resides inside our ear.

Gotta say, the flash ad in the middle of that disturbing slideshow was a bit incongruous.

Actually, to be fair, it's probably the baby amphibians who could really use the unicorn chaser. After eating amphibian skin, a shot of unicorn probably tastes great.

Does this qualify for a unicorn chaser?