Shared publicly  - 
 
Normally I'd say that this is hilarious, but it's actually a little sad.

Nikola Tesla++

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla

#tesla

EDIT 1: I am not related in any way to Catherine Fitzpatrick.

EDIT 2: I hereby declare this thread to be the best thing on the internet.
98
68
Lauren Weinstein's profile photoPeter Munnerlyn's profile photoRick Klau's profile photoAllen Cross's profile photo
293 comments
 
Man. I was a defender of Tesla before it was cool.
 
Imaletyoufinish, but the best Tesla is Bowie in The Prestige.
 
Nah, it's always been cool.

Remember: 'cool' is even cooler, the fewer people that are hip to it.
 
Oh, what a lot of tendentious self-serving tripe. Geeks and their myths! He completely left out things like the time Tesla shorted out an entire neighbourhood around Hudson Street in New York with his experiment. And hey, how about the Tunguska Explosion reported to be caused by Tesla's energy weapon? It flattened forests and villages disappeared in Siberia. That was ok for the sake of the douchebaggery that was Tesla's experiments?
 
Lasers flattening out forests is pretty much the definition of rad.
 
""Wait, you flattened a forest with a fucking LASER? Here, let me buy you a copy of Diablo 3"
 
The Internet made like the French and surrendered to me years ago, son.
 
Tesla was: A genius. Mentally ill. Right about a tremendous number of things way ahead of his time. Wrong about quite a bit. His own worst enemy. Brilliant. Tragic. Self-made. Self-destroyed. Vastly underappreciated. Human.
 
I heard the Tunguska Explosion was caused by a tachyon pulse from HAARP...
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick "And hey, how about the Tunguska Explosion reported to be caused by Tesla's energy weapon?"

Hey, how about [citation needed].
 
Use Google, champ, and read all about it from a variety of sources. Hint: Search is right here on this page.
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick your information seems a little bit off. This was never proved and the accepted theory is that the explosion was caused by a meteor. There were meteor fragments found and not much positive evidence to support Tesla's involvement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event#The_Wardenclyffe_Tower

Unfortunately guys, it looks like Tesla wasn't cool enough to flatten forests with lasers.

But yeh, Tesla was a brilliant man, though not quite entirely all there. It seems very likely that it was his personal problems that caused his lack of recognition for all of these events. However when I was studying Physics (not that long ago) we were informed of the awesomeness of Tesla, and the salesmanship of Westinghouse. Also the douchbagness of Edison.

History was the best part of Physics!
 
Tesla clearly just powered his Super Forest Destroying Laser with meteor magic!
 
The meteor theory has been discounted. My information isn't any more "off" than this crazy loon's account of Edison, as if he was guilty of dog murdering, plagiarism, blah blah blah. It's some kind of geek mythology that requires dumping on folk heroes or figures of authority in order to prop up the sagging, insecure, infantile ego of the geek and make Tesla absorb the burden of all that angst. It really is psychopathy. Tesla was a brilliant man that did a lot of cool things. That can be affirmed without writing loony crap about Edison, ahistoric crap that applies the values of today on a figure in the past in a different culture, and is silent about Tesla's flaws. Edison is a figure that ultimately built a company, a country. Tesla was a geek hero who did a lot of cool things. Why would you think that we need to indulge in infantile geek rewriting of history here for poiltical ends? Only an insensitive loon would twist Edison's words about being shaken regarding the death of his partner in an experiment into something that made him close-minded and ignorant.
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick "The meteor theory has been discounted" [citation needed]

I'm sorry about the Edison hate I didn't know you two were that close. :( What was he like?
 
It's almost as if Edison is a stand-in for Ron Paul.
 
All our electricity should be backed by gold!
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick except that there are videos of him murdering an elephant. He did this to show the "dangers" of AC voltage when he was competing with Westinghouse. Never mind that high enough amps of DC would produce pretty much the same thing. Electrocution of Topsy, Luna Park, Coney Island 1903

You honestly think Edison could do with lasers what nobody today can do? That's a mighty lot of hope you're placing in his ability, but really it's all the more likely that people made up stories because he was weird and in the area.

Seriously, what have you got against geeks? And why do you feel this is political? I feel like I'm missing something.
 
Again, you're applying the PETA-induced morals of today to historical figures, which is ahistorical and stupid. It was not perceived at the time that this was a "murder". It was not Babar's mother. Of course it's political as the day is long. It's a terribly tendentious wrenching of history to try to shoe-horn various geeky religious doctrines into the lives of famous people. It's like saying that Jesus was concerned about climate change.
 
I don't normally like tainting people with the troll brush, but having viewed your profile. I'm gonna say it's pretty likely. Either way, you have been proven to be factually inaccurate, and personally anyone who proclaims they are a "critic of Interet" on a website is pretty low on my list of people who are likely to enlighten me.

And if you're not a troll I would be more than happy to continue a conversation with you. However it would have to be not in someone else's feed, Because the frustration your logic causes with others, inflames them and causes the conversation to devolve.
 
Tesla is also a cautionary tale when the patent enforcement pendulum swings too far away from protecting inventors. Tesla had patents but couldn't afford to enforce any of them. We are in a period where there's too much patent litigation, almost no one denies that, but lets not forget there was, and remains, a place for it.
 
+Emma Puls she's not a troll, she's a True Believer. This is the opposite of a troll.
 
Mr. Knapp loses credibility right off the bat by saying The Oatmeal is fantastic and/or a comic. BOOM.
 
Oh! This is about Serbian nationalism. Oh, and it sure is debatable that humanism relates to animals. Humanism is about kindness to humans, not animals. And to impose PETA-style notions about animal "rights" on historical figures who had no such context or values is just plain manipulative and stupid. And indeed it is debatable.
 
It's true we are all hardline Serbian nationalists we hath been outed.
 
Actually, I'm more of an Elephant-firster
 
Hey guys, don't you miss... the... capital... of Serbia? It's majestic... natural features... are unparalleled anywhere else in the world. It really is the best.
 
Yeah, one of the reasons G+ loses people and can't seem to get them to stick is due to the culture of Google engineers who overpopulate the service.
 
+Emma Puls Um, nobody "proved me wrong," that's ridiculous. I indicated an alternative narrative to the alternative narrative that is this entire Tesla concoction. This entire exchange is so typical of Google engineering scientism. If you need citations, again, hint: Google search is handily right on this page. You can see competing hypotheses and narratives and you can pick and choose. Why on earth you would believe one or another was "disproved" "just because a Google engineer said so" is outrageous.
 
+Brian Fitzpatrick say Brad (no relation), while we're talking about alternative narratives and the process of scientific hypotheses and all, are you coding this thing yourself? Because this idea that you unscientifically make things "disappear" and generate messages "this content does not exist" when people are muted or their comments muted or whatever -- that's pretty Orwellian. Because of course the content does exist. It just "doesn't exist" in the virtual world of that muted user. That's creepy. You know your leader +Sergey Brin says more knowledge is better than less knowledge. So you really need to lose that Memory Hole on your platform here.
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick Nice ad hominem there, BTW. Well-executed, although sort of ill-conceived (it's just too easy.)

I give it 6.5 out of 10.
 
You don't follow me either, Dan, you elephant killer.
 
+Dan Morrill the entire notion of "ad hominem" comes out of Boys' Latin School rhetoric debates. Did you go to Boys' Latin School? And guess what: ad hominem attacks are allowed by the US Constitution. This is something Google engineers have not been able to change, since Google itself is now trying to avail itself of the First Amendment. I give you Times v. Sullivan. That is, yes, we get it that it is "their company and they can do what they want" and any individual can mute whomever, but you know, they should strive for the maximum amount of free speech tolerance and just not follow somebody whose speech distresses them.
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick Thank you very much, but I do not accept Times v. Sullivan. I take only Visa, Mastercard, and American Express.
Rick Klau
+
1
7
8
7
 
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
+Rick Klau who me? I don't have a "newsletter". I have a blog. And you can, um,. "put me in your circles" BTW I saw UberConference at TechCrunch Disrupt today but didn't get a chance to study it. If this is related to Uber the car service which is helping to undermine the living of the good taxi drivers of NYC, I can't accept it. But maybe the word Uber is the new black? Please advise.
 
So many windmills under attack, Quixote would be proud.
 
It's like mother lion brought us a baby gazelle.
 
I can no longer understand this conversation, but I feel someone has to stick up for the engineers. Won't someone please think of the geeks?! Engineers are people too! [placard here]
 
Google engineers eat baby gazelles for breakfast now. It's not a nice place like it was when +Doug Edwards worked there. In fact I bet +Doug Edwards was the first and last liberal arts major to work at the Google Borg.
 
Mrs. Fitzpatrick, how much would you like to bet?
 
Wow, gazelles! Although that sounds like PETA morals, I should probably just quit my degree, lock myself in a house somewhere and post information I've gathered from conspiracy sites and reject all further education.
 
+Tim Nguyen I'm not going to bet anything because Doug Edwards was likely the first and last liberal arts major who could write a book AND write the "yada yada" text that cared about customer privacy. All that's gone now since Google's turn to the dark side. Oh, I realize you may technically have 17 1/2 liberal arts majors out of the total number of 30,000 Google employees (BTW, a number that you cleverly hide on a quest game where you have to beat like two bosses to get the link). But even those liberal arts majors have probably been converted to Binary Thinking (TM) and have lost the ability to think philosophically. Did you all realize that when you harp all the time about "data-driven decisions" that in fact you are dumbing down thought? I don't think there's any hope for you, in fact.
 
+Emma Puls Oh, yeah, because people who disagree with your smug and arrogant Googlian engineer culture are of course conspiracy nuts and watch Fox TV, read Sarah Palin, and drive their SUVs to Walmart. And if someone criticizes your binary data-driven idiocy, why, they are urging you to "give up all education," yes, of course, that's exactly right.

"Although reason is common to all, most men behave as if they have their own private understanding. Heroclitus." Especially at Google!
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick: (BTW, a number that you cleverly hide on a quest game where you have to beat like two bosses to get the link).

You mean like... https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:GOOG
or
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=GOOG+Profile

C'mon now. Up til now, you've been my kind of crazy -- unforgiving, unrelenting, and just wrong enough to be right. But c'mon. Link quest? From a seasoned web pro like yourself? I expected better and am sorely disappointed I've lost yet another role model. First Ron Paul, now you. If George Lucas stops making good movies, I think that might push me over the ege.
 
Cat, may I just remind you, your argument previously was that they "eat baby gazelles", now I tried arguing with you reasonably, you never did. You accept no new evidence and take the first information you post as the truth. The difference is engineers are specifically taught the scientific method of obtaining truth. You get a hypothesis (your idea), then you test if your idea is false.

Alternatively your method is that you have a hypothesis and test to see if it's true, which is a fundamentally flawed outlook.

The scientific method also requires that you submit your work to people who have studied as much, if not more, than you in your field; they then test your hypothesis and come back to report if the outcome was the same. You however submit your hypothesis and ignore people who know equal or more about technology and Google.

Now I have no doubt that there are bad people in Google, there are bad people everywhere, but it is also evident that there are other companies (even in the technology space) who have far worse practices. Facebook, commercial news sites, Xilinx, Hewlett-Packard, NVIDIA, Dell, are examples of some of the companies in the technology industry alone, who have some of the worst practices.

Your final quote, points to you my dear. You are the person who believes they have some private understanding of a company that you have never worked for (Google) and a profession you have never studied (engineering).
 
@Tim Nyugen No, dear. Let's walk you through the way the normals would do it. So normally you would go to a corporate website and it would say "about us" and have that information right under that tab. But Google doesn't have a corporate website like normal companies, it just has all these geeky pages with all kinds of wacky stuff on it. So you click around for 15 minutes and finally you find this:

http://investor.google.com/corporate/faq.html#toc-employees

That sounds like it would contain the number of employees, right? Wrong.

In classic "data-driven" binary-thinking geeky logic, this is what -- astoundingly -- Google puts on this page:

"How many employees does Google have?

Our employee headcount can be found on our Financial Tables page"

Now why on earth would Google just not tell you what their employee head count is *right there on that page underneath the question "How many employees does Google have?" What's wrong with them?!

Instead, you have to click again and go on a page that has bunches of distractive numbers, percentages, blah blah -- the financials.

http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html

So WAAAAAAAYY past all that crap WAAAAY down at the bottom left hand of the page if you look long enough, in tiny little print, there is a WHO WE ARE. Click on that, and you get this:

http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/

There, you learn there are "30,000 Googlers" etc.

Now why the hell were you led on this RIDICULOUS WILD GOOSE CHASE, I ask you???? Please don't tell me that clicking on YOUR links is the normal thing to do. It's not. And now that I've "surfaced" this idiocy for your perusal, I hope you will be covered in shame.

PS I hate Ron Paul. He's a sectarian creep. I'm liberal, not libertarian. What are you? An ass? Link quest is EXACTLY and I mean EXACTLY what this is. Confess.
 
+Emma Puls Spare me the faux science. Lysenkoism lives at Google. If you really believed in hypotheses and testing and whatnot, there would be no gmail because Doug Edward got it right the first time -- it's creepy, full stop.

If you REAAALY believed in looking at data and testing hypotheses, Google Wave wouldn't have been rolled out. You would realize that nobody likes having their posts erased by another person in real time or asynchronously. That's what people hate about Quora, too. Not everyone wants to be collectivized by your technocommunism. And now there's soc.ly which does some of that real-time better, and you will gnash your teeth.

I don't think those other companies have worst practices. Oh, no, not on your life. I have had excellent experiences with all those companies except maybe a bad NVIDIA now and then when its drivers worsen instead of improve the view. Many of those companies have been in Second Life, for example, with nice and pleasant and interesting islands. Google was always too haughty to come to Second Life. Instead, you shipped Linden Lab your GSA, which utterly destroyed search and destroyed the virtual economy. I bet that was a test, however, to see if people could bear it, and to gather data for your own roll-out of semantic search. I hope you are happy. You even killed the virtual pets market, and that was nearly indestructable.

I don't have a private understanding of Google, dear. I have a public understanding because what you do is public and inflicted on the public. Ouch. You are in a cocoon. You don't feel it. Why would I have to study engineering to have an opinion about the awfulness of engineering culture?! I have only to see it manifested on G+, where it is a particular kind of concentrated awful. Do you know, my father was an engineer, but a real engineer. Every time I hear you guys use the word "engineer" about the silly pixel stuff you do, I laugh out loud. You don't get your hands dirty. You don't make real stuff. How can you really call yourselves engineers?

It doesn't matter if you "know more" about Google or technology. Google isn't good for the country.

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2012/05/google-and-social-media-are-bad-for-the-country-because-they-dont-create-jobs.html

"Pride goeth before a fall, a haughty spirit before destruction."
 
Point me to an engineer working in a first world country that builds stuff. The job description has changed dramatically since your dad was an engineer. Engineers now design things, I've studied civil engineering, computer systems engineering and process engineering.

The engineering you're talking about has probably evolved the least of all disciplines, but it has still dramatically changed. Jesus, what do you want us to do? Stand still in a spot some 50 years ago, get real. Now we have communication between, civil engineers, architects, draftspeople, builders and the client; that's the complexity of just the civil disipline. It's no longer just client wants this, engineer builds that.

There is too much information available for one person to do all of these tasks now. So engineering became specialized, incredibly specialized. My Dad was also an engineer in those times, and you know what, he's impressed with how the job has changed with the times. Because guess what, things change, huge shock I know.

Now stand back, I'm going to do science; and it's not going to move the Earth because the Earth is in a tight rotation around the sun.
 
I get all that. But you need to be a little bit more respectful of people who made Xerox machines and built up companies when all you do is enable a Big Ad Agency for people to click on, and ship your revenue to Ireland to avoid taxes. I want you to have more humility. And PS I am not Brad's mom.
 
I know you're not, it's a joke, I apologize if you were insulted by it. And I do respect those people. I have learnt a huge amount of history of the engineering and science industry, we are taught it in university.

However I'm also interested in the past achievements myself; I purchased three books on the history of architecture, a book on the history of particle physics, I know of the work that Galileo did in astrophysics, but I'm more interested in his work in mathematics (such as his approach to the idea of infinity).

More recently I am very interested in the rise of the personal computer (it's a pretty interesting story to be sure). I admire printer drivers (even if the mechanics confuse me so), and I know that the work we're doing on 3D printers is built upon the knowledge of others.

It is very insulting that you assume that I don't have respect for those who came before me. I would imagine most engineers do (certainly I know the people I study with do), everything we learn today was concluded through their research, we can all only hope that we further this body of knowledge and pass it on to the generations after us. I know that is a goal for many people studying science and engineering today, to produce work that provides others with an understanding such that they can further their work.

This is what the "open source" movement was originally, the passing of knowledge onto other so that they can learn, understand and build upon it. This is why so many people fought to get their works published and spread about, even if it meant death to do it. The reason many engineers admire Google is because they themselves help to emobdy this, they allow nearly everything that they make to be examined from the inside out, allowing others to see how it works, build upon it and create new things from what they've learnt.
 
I've long ceased being "insulted" by anything you geeks do, get over yourselves. You're the ones with the thin skins. Mmm maybe you respect, maybe not. I think it's a bit creepy to imagine that you can only work in "collectives" now and that work is so complex you "have" to be in a collective. Baloney. Much of the world's innovation is done alone by solitary souls.
 
Give me an example of innovation from the past 10 years and I will show you the team behind it. There are generally great people who are recognized for the work by their name, which is what everyone remembers. But their work will have been done in a team.

They will also have based their work on findings of previous people. Yes there are those solitary genius's who show up and ignite the world with their ideas, but the majority of innovation comes through hard work with teams of people, based off of information gathered from peoples previous research.

And even the solitary people have to look at what other people are doing to come up with the better idea.
 
The following seem clear to me from this thread:

- Some day in the far future, some distant and empyrean Herodotus will squint back across the ages and find Cory's posts. He will be lauded as our age's greatest troll.

- Catherine: The tears streaming from eyes reading your posts are because I feel young again; like when the internet was new. In your writings, I see Alexander Abian come again, only married to Ayn Rand totally with a swirl of the Time Cube thrown in. How long has it been since someone has denounced Tesla as a madman because of the Tunguska blast with one hand, and then defended Edison from electro-elephanticide with the other. And probably shouted paens to the Invisible Hand as you did so.

In this, I see God.

- I think there is hope for G+ as long as I see epic threads like this one. Where else can I go to get brief glimpses of forgotten and eerie snatches of Usenetian splendor like this? How can we read threads like this and NOT conclude...

that Brian is the werewolf!
 
On this thread, I think it's pretty clear that Cory's the werewolf.

Reason #1,238 that I love the internet: This thread.
 
I like how +Brian Fitzpatrick 's comment to introduce the original page applies equally well to the resulting thread. How prescient.
 
+Emma Puls The reality is, only individuals have great ideas and innovate, not teams. Facebook, Twitter, even your Google were conceived by individuals. Sure, maybe they later implemented the idea with a partnership or a team. But only an individual can have inspiration. You don't give teams a 20 percent day at Google, you give individuals.You don't have round tables with collectives sitting at them, you have individual cubbies.

+Brandon Downey I don't like Ayn Rand. She is merely the mirror image of the Bolsheviks she opposed. She is a godless capitalist. Randian is not kind. As for Time Cube, why would a normal person writing sensibly be anything like Time Cube?

I simply called out that sillyness of interpolating modern values on to Tesla. Tesla was a genius, but a loon. There is no need to trash Edison to appreciate Tesla. The original poster with the Tesla hagiography was in fact invovled in mining distorted history to make some point about modern life.
 
+Emma Puls May I remind you that freedom and specifically freedom of intellectual inquiry involves the right to mount a false hypothesis.
 
@Tim Nyugen you must confess that Google put in a quest there, and vexed users, on purpose.
 
I'm just a lowly liberal arts major, I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
+Tim Nguyen well here's a thought, try to return to your liberal arts major roots, if you really have them, by reading an actual book and turning off the Internet for a day and going outside. Then come back and look at that UX/UI disaster I documented up there, and admit that I'm right.
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick I'll bet if Tesla had had access to the internet, he would have built a laser that could have leveled a forest. I'm glad that he only had access to books.
 
You almost spilled the beans about Project More Heads On Fewer Bodies. :(
 
Almost only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and serbians.
 
Does it matter that I have two liberal arts degrees?
 
+Rick Klau your International Affairs and French are about as useful as my Political Theory and History.
 
+Brian Fitzpatrick I'm glad you've come around to my narrative on Tesla. He was destructive and surely would have flattened a forest had he had Internet access. Fortunately, he could only jack into whatever primitive grid there was in New York City in his era and only blow out a few blocks on the West side. And perhaps by engaging in this historical interpolation, you're realizing now just how preposterous it is to ascribe to Edison cruelty to elephants, because in his day, people hunted elephants and it wasn't considered cruel by most. Also, I should mention that my father was a ceramic engineer, but that kind of ceramics isn't making dwarfs for your lawn.

+Rick Klau two liberal arts degrees cannot save you from the binary thinking disease you have been infected with at Google.

+Tim Nguyen mountain lion/gazelle/fail. This link doesn't have the number of employees -- it should:

http://investor.google.com/corporate/faq.html#toc-employees

Again, to replicate the bug here so you can admit your failure, if you click on that, you get this:

http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html

What sort of wacky place would send you from a page called "employees" to "financial tables" to find NUMBER of employees? I mean, that's just insane.

What sort of wacky place would make you fight through tables of numbers, go ALLLL the way down to the left hand side to figure out that you shoud likely click this:

http://www.google.com/about/company/facts/

Where it tells you "about 30,000?"

Why are you hiding the number of employees? Are you trying to keep a light footprint in some communities and not let people realize you have invaded, and not hired local workers?
What's up?

Something's up.

Google doesn't want people to know its engineers are heading for the exits and making other stuff elsewhere.
 
+Tim Nguyen you aren't confessing that you are obviously wrong on an obvious bug on your description pages about your employee numbers. This is tiresome. This contains the seeds of your doom.
 
Oh man. Speaking of Doom, I found my old game disks and was just playing Doom the other night. It's cheesy as hell, but still all kinds of awesome. I then moved on to Doom II, Quake, and Quake II.

Now if Tesla had had the internet and Doom, holy shit he would have f*cked some sh*t up.
 
I was beginning to worry we wouldn't hit a centithread.
 
+Tim Nguyen Anybody can photoshop numbers into a web page. Puh-lease.

+Rick Klau there will be much dancing on June 15th over in the Fitzpatrick household, I can tell you that right now.
 
+Brian Fitzpatrick Dude, not cool. You know damned well that there's no credible research linking video game play to violence.
 
I know what you're trying to do, +Brian Fitzpatrick. And I told you last time, it won't work. You were a violent psychopath long before you started playing any video games.

It was the Latin that did it. Everybody knows learning Latin makes you violent and bloodthirsty.
 
Oh man. I knew this thread would eventually descend into insanity. Oh well, at least we got this far before Brian crazied it up.
 
When's the dancing start?
 
You guys left out that Tesla also invented cheese, the internet, and puppy tears.
 
+Matthew Inman There you go again, overstating his contributions. Tesla only discovered puppy tears, and it was only after the work of many pioneering researchers into mammal lacrimation.
 
+Dan Morrill I thought it was mammal lactation, not lacrimation.

And was that before or after he leveled forests?
 
+Rick Klau suggested to follow this post.. and well Nikola Tesla++ is all I had to see!! Thx Rick :)
 
Who's up for Antelope sliders at Charlie's tomorrow?
Topped with authentic Tesla-recipe cheese, of course.
 
+Brian Fitzpatrick You mentioned Doom, you are clearly a brilliant man. Check this out if you wish to waste more of your time: http://dengine.net/

High quality textures/ sounds and support for particle effects and 1080p resolution. It's almost as scary as it originally was. Lol, still not beautiful though.
 
+Rick Klau Awesome, we can combine up with my history degree. I guess there's the biology degree too.
 
Oh good, I was afraid I missed the baby antelope sliders.

I bet Tesla was building a mass antelope microwave gun, but liberal arts major assistants miscalibrated it, resulting in both the Tunguska explosion and Ayn Rand.

 
+John Panzer If someone isn't making a movie about "Tesla was building a mass antelope microwave gun, but liberal arts major assistants miscalibrated it, resulting in both the Tunguska explosion and Ayn Rand." then they damn well should be.
 
This is the best discussion on the Internet. I feel smarter, richer, and more attractive to potential suitors just by having read it. I will definitely recommend this to all my friends, both online and in real life.

God bless us, everyone.
 
This goes to show that TL;DR is a matter of quality of content rather than quantity.
 
Can someone tell me when Charlies is serving antelope and/or gazelle sliders? Thanks!
 
tesla! is that all true? i didn't know a lot of it! lightening is a lot of power they say new york can be power for 8 hours by a lightening storm! someone pitched this idea of storing the lightening don't know who or when but it came up, what sort of a conductor do we need? super? lesser the resistance the better it is! idea is to take down all of the power or a part of it? well a capacitor a very big one with dielectric that can boost it up multi times!
 
What an awesome post. Glad I'm not the only one to have a secret love for Tesla. And thank goodness he won the AC/DC debate.
Wish someone would figure the wireless transmission of power though, I hate power lines.
 
This morning I woke up,made coffee and then sat down so that I might contemplate some not so good things I am experiencing in my life. But first I thought to check my stream and I happen upon this thread. I would like to thank you all for the wonderful laughter and the better day which I shall have because of it.

( Graciously Bows )
 
Made me late(r) for work, crying with laughter. Thanks
 
+Jack Mason so you were willing to blow up the West side, just to light all of New York for 8 hours? See, that was Tesla.
 
+Emma Puls So there's a typo on my profile?! I fixed it. Would that you show as much detailed accuracy about the actual historic facts of Tesla's life instead of interpolating ahistorical legends into the history of a century ago. I realize you have to write "the Internet" -- it's always "the Internet" with you.
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick maám you are the most active in this thread! glad! but no idea is not to immediately or directly connect all of new york to the source converter but store it maybe on some sort of a sphere held high up in the sky maybe then big step down transformers for transmission! you have a russian connection why are you on edison's side? him on navy's RD board, also director, how could he downplay tesla's proposals, having power isn't everything, i don't want to say that a person with little education can't judge an engineer's models and design, but still... i am on edison's side when his education is cited as something inferior to others who were professionally trained, i now know how people with phd's are no good evaluators or even good teachers, there have been times when i wondered how they reached this stage, how come phd's, patent, research papers? there is difference between true genius and academic genius!
 
@Jack Mason it's not about "being on Edison's side". That's ridiculous. These are historical figures located in their historical context of more than 100 years ago. I don't impose the values of today's culture on them, that's ahistorical and merely tendentious use of history. The portrayal of Tesla as the genius geek and Tragically Misunderstood Artist exploited by The Man, and the portrayal of Edison as corporate hack and unethical murderer of elephants and colluder with the US Navy -- these are exaggerated stereotypes ported from a cultural battle today back into the past. And that's not scientific.Those trying to deify Tesla are also willing to cut corners on things like his Siberian blast, and willing to subject that to doubt, yet unwilling to subject to doubt any of their emotional beliefs about evil Edison.

Last year Google honoured Edison's 164th birthday with a Google doodle, and celebrated Tesla's 153rd birthday with a doodle in 2009.
 
yeah sure i read that part where you said about hunting and today's context that's right, i understand that part but all i am asking is whether what is listed in that infographic is all true Q is whether edison did that dog show just to prove a/c was bad and dc not and his tech be used rather than tesla's were there differences between them? these are the real questions! i might not agree to all that is written in that tesla vs edison thing! i had a great respect for edison, him not going to school much, and still being a good inventor but now my mind tries to wander off that point because that thing put some opposing views in me!
 
+Jack Mason Yes, Edison did electrocute animals for that purpose. However, Tesla did not cause a blast in Siberia; that is a myth.

(It's pretty well established that the Tunguska blast was caused by a comet superheating on reentry into the atmosphere and then exploding somewhat above the surface when it reached a threshold temperature and pressure.)
 
+Dan Morrill No it's not "pretty well established." It's merely the conventional wisdom that has now become the official version for some. But accepting such establishment stories is what leads to things like Edison electrocuting elephants, not to put too fine a point on it. There's no blast crater -- and so scientists then have to backdate that into an explanation that everything burned up before impact. Really, guys? The trees are stripped of their branches in the way they were at Hiroshima. So that's a meteor, really, the only one in the modern era? And outer space is full of them. At least journalists, unlike some scientists, keep a curious and open mind about this, and actually report that "no one is closer" to understanding the mystery.

It's a lot like the Sverdlovsk/Ekaterinburg anthrax plant explosion that proved the Soviets had biological warfare capacity despite signing a treaty against it. Several American scientists who had convinced the Pentagon to give up this capacity kept endlessly trying to rationalize the facts of the massive deaths in Sverdlovsk as attributable to other reasons -- sick cows were falling down wells, polluting drinking water, whatever. They insisted and insisted on this version for years despite all the eyewitness testimony that it was weaponized anthrax. Finally decades later, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, scientists were allowed to investigate the area thoroughly. And despite their pro-Soviet prejudices which were part of their anti-American contrarianism common in scientists, they were forced to concede that in fact the Soviets had a biological weapons factor that did blow up and kill thousands of people.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-07-04/tech/tunguska.anniversary_1_tunguska-river-blast-mysterious-explosion?_s=PM:TECH
 
Hey Cat, notice how none of the "alternativists" were interviewed for the story? Is a conspiracy? Or could it be that the reporters were just too intimidated by their supreme intelligence to go near them? We may never know.
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick maám you yourself said that "not proved wrong" isn't the best argument! proving one to be wrong doesn't mean we should accept the other theory! please consider other things too tesla's tower could transmit only 10 kw to other end of the earth! it is said/estimated to be 300 kw by Dr. James Corum radio transmitters are in two digit wattage while goliath transmitter (german) was 1800kw other radio transmission towers are: http://forums.qrz.com/archive/index.php/t-263762.html

please note that the tunguska explosion energy is estimated around 10-15 M tonnes TNT, second largest unexplained explosions is comes was the brazil one with 1 M tonne TNT equivalent this one is professed/postulated to be caused by three meteors!
note: tesla tower wasn't as powerful as the shockwave that hit tunguska not even in scale to it!
also note: largest bomb star bomba is estimated at 50 MT TNT and note it was nuclear!

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_2.htm
read Vasiliev's hypothesis and the other mention of a high speed meteor missing earth!

as for the meteorites found on site tunguska, their content if fission related would have come to the fore and would have been the primary factor in explaining the phenomenon but hydrogen or some other higher element can be hypothesized as fusion related!

please note: the transmitter with high power is difficult to handle because the air around the transmitter would ionize and eventually leaking power to the ground!
tesla's work or experiment is documented by some! please read these references

another interesting hypothesis is natural gas release well for that there should have been passage and having natural gas in one place doesn't mean it would explode because it is governed by combustion and for an explosion or even a flash to occur air/fuel ratio with LEL and HEL should be there!
for more documentation on the event:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_ciencia_tunguska.htm
 
why i am a fool? a big one! i kept drawing relations between +Catherine Fitzpatrick and +Marshall Kirkpatrick because that was what i saw when i was navigating the g+ page of +Catherine Fitzpatrick and well 2 friends mutual marshall one of them! thought about asking whether you guys are from same community etc or related somehow! but never noticed the similarity +Brian Fitzpatrick and +Catherine Fitzpatrick or age from the look of their photos! until i saw both names in the same comment authored by brian!

just below that was written something about brian your mother..continued
well i would say +Brian Fitzpatrick you have a great mother who knows things well!
and arguing with your work buddies too about lack of things in your work system!

well as for me my mother is plain old one! who to blame right? her best one isn't good even! it's been long but now she can operate a phone and computer somewhat!
 
:-o

My maiden name is Fitzpatrick, too - we're through the looking glass people.
 
hahaha you are a guy right? well the g+ profile photo says otherwise, not that women aren't capable but i wondered who this girl is who is working in forensics, visited your twitter and blogger
 
Hey guys, I just got here. Anybody interested in hearing about how Nikola Tesla and Google Engineers were responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs? And JFK?
 
Time for me to switch to trn, and stop using rn. This newsgroup is too hard to read without threading.
 
I never realized that an 80s rock band could cause so much controversy.
 
I am, BTW, truly unsurprised that Second Life was eventually invoked here. I tremble in anticipation of the first flying penises on G+.
 
Did you guys hear that Hitler only had one Tesla-coil? BOOM

#Godwinning #AmazingPuns #PattingMyselfOnTheBackSoHardIMightPullAMuscle
 
Well I heard that Bon Jovi is both a band AND a person. What. The. Fuck.
 
tired still there is compilation work pending! guess that would be put to tomm,
 
Wow. Thanks to +Rachel Blum for sending me down this particular rabbit hole.

I can't help but think that the smart folk on this thread have entirely missed something important. +Catherine Fitzpatrick is an interpreter. That means that she tells people what she thinks she hears others say. And she lays claim to doing just that for five Politburo members. Does anybody else smell new Cold War?

PS - Tesla was cool.
 
+Andy Dillon I'm a translator. I don't know if you know the distinction between translator and interpreter. You don't translate (or for that matter interpret) what you "think people say" -- you translate/interpret what they say. I don't "lay claim" to this, go on Amazon and search my name and find the books I've translated. As for Cold War, we're already in a Cold War, of Russia's making, and we should change some of the ways we behave with Russia.
 
+Emma Puls I would say it was likely a word count limit or space reasons, that's usually the reason these days, the Internet/Google have dumbed down a lot of things and reduced attention spans.

Still waiting to hear what a Google award is and how that relates to a government weapons R&D program.
 
Word count limits right about now would be proof of a loving and merciful god.
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick Damnit! You're too much, I concede.

There's no such thing as a Google award. It's actually my doing. You see, I used to work for GE, which as I'm sure someone as informed as you are will recognize to be the source of most of what's wrong with the world today. It is, after all, the company founded by Edison himself, hijacked in the 80s by Jack Welch. (I assume you know about his communist predilections -- the whole capitalist thing was a smokescreen. They called him Neutron Jack for a reason...)

Anyway, I never really left GE behind. But your example has inspired me, and I repent my communist ways. I repent! And I confess: I've been on GE's payroll the whole time. As you probably know, GE has an extensive weapons system program, and my job has been to clandestinely acquire Google technology for use in that program.

I won't lie. I got a little careless. Maybe a little arrogant. That "Google award" was just a front to cover the technology transfer. But it's all true! GE's building a death ray, on Google's dime! But nobody at Google knows, because I'm just that clever.

Well, nobody except Sergey, but he's actually more or less Batman so you'd expect that.
 
What I got out of this article was this:

Nikola Tesla, pigeon-fucker.

I have no idea what the rest of you are arguing about.
 
Google Awards are a "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" thing. If you haven't heard of them, then you obviously don't need. Seriously.
 
So... after reading all of that, I feel the need to throw my BS in philosophy into the ring of liberal arts degrees.

I'm also feeling a mild hunger for gazelle veal, but I can't decide whether that should be sauteed in it's mother's milk, just carved straight off a spit cooked over a fire made from a forrest leveled by an energy weapon, or maybe served a la Topsy by hooking it up to an AC power line.
 
@Dan Morrill I don't see any reason to bang on GE. GE brings good things to life, no? I have nothing to do with GE, but it's a company that provides lots of jobs to people and investment in the community -- so unlike Google, which hides its revenues abroad to avoid taxes and barely hires 30,000 people, and even hides that figure from you through obfuscation of its "about" pages.

Um, derr, I found what the Google Awards were -- herr!
http://research.google.com/university/relations/research_awards.html

But the question is why Google, which claims its mission is to "Organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (a mission I find hugely annoying for its breath-taking hubris and one-worldist hegemony as well as its faux altruism) is involved in weapons research. How does working on electro-magnetic zapping advance knowledge?!

+Brian Fitzpatrick is not my son but I am still disappoint.
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick If you're going to defend GE by talking about companies not bringing their revenues earned outside of the US into the US ... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/general-electric-tax-rate_n_1305196.html

As to the number of employees - most of GE's employees and revenue are outside of the US. http://www.gecitizenship.com/metrics/employee-data/ge-employees/

As for hiding the number of employees - If you asked me how many employees a publicly traded company had, I'd go to my nearest investment research site (whether that's http://edgar.sec.gov/ or even the broker of your choice) and look up the company's most recent 10-Q - For Google, you can find it here http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312512182401/d307179d10q.htm . Of course, not all companies report their headcount in their 10-Q, if it's not there, it should be in the 10-K. My first thought wouldn't be their web site. Those have a habit of not being updated in as timely a manner as the SEC filings.
 
+Tim Nguyen The philosophy department at CMU awards a BS in Logic & Computation. Key differences from the CS side would be things like a class in AI starting out with the questions "what is intelligence" and "why can you argue that this system is intelligent" instead of saying "we think things are intelligent when they solve problems -- here's some algorithms that find solutions to different classes of problem"
 
+Charles Ballowe -- if it can be demonstrated other than a "progressive" source like Huffpo that GE hides its revenues abroad in some questionable way, I'm happy to add them to the list of Big IT corporations I condemn for this. But two wrongs don't make a right, and I never saw you or your likeminded cadres condemning Google for this practice. Thank you.

As for number of employees, even so, GE produces more jobs for this country, as does AT&T and other big old companies you hate, than ALL OF SOCIAL MEDIA together. Instagram, valued at $1 billion? A grand total of only 11 employees. Facebook, a company now IPOing at $104 billion or whatever? A grand total of 3,500 employees. Even double or triple that, it is completely anemic.

Funny that you open-source one-worlder freaks at Google and cronies are suddenly worried about jobs shipped abroad. You are the shipper of the jobs shipped abroad, big guy.

You didn't read my bug report obviously regarding Google's deliberate hiding of this number to keep it out of the view from the average reader.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/117083928035294679057/posts/7u9VrAtZf3e

I am still awaiting +Tim Nguyen to man up and confess that I am absolutely correct about this bug and stop declaring it "a feature" ahem.
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick Why does number of employees matter? What should matter is the impact of the work on the human condition, not how much busy work is required to get there. I might disagree with the valuation of instagram, or even facebook, but it wouldn't be because they have very few employees relative to their price. It'd be on more fundamental grounds.

Suppose that one person cured cancer and was able to produce sufficient quantities of the cure working alone. Would you argue that the company formed by this person shouldn't be worth billions?

My point about GE wasn't that they were evil in some way - I wouldn't use HuffPo to make that argument. It was simply that you can't condemn Google and praise GE for essentially the same practice. Either praise both or condemn both. Personally, I leave it to the finance people, the accountants, and the IRS to determine if the practices are sound. Public outrage on tax matters is usually over blown ("Joe the Plumber") and not worth reading.
 
To summarize:

"... Not worth reading."
 
The number of employees matters because Google is claiming in this month's propaganda fest that "the Internet creates jobs" and that there are even 466,000 app jobs -- a total concoction. They are doing that to counter Hollywood's point that the Internet kills content jobs -- which is true. No, I sure can condemn Google for the same practice because there are already hordes of OWS Marxists and all kinds of lefty geeks hammering on GE or ATT, but not a single one of them ever, ever questions their beloved Google -- so I'm a good corrective. I will go right on doing what I'm doing because it's necessary. It isn't about the practice being legal; technically it is. It's about whether it is moral -- and it isn't. We constantly have to read Paul Krugman and all kinds of socialists about the evils of American corporations getting corporate warfare or avoiding taxes, but they never, ever mention Google and other "cool" IT companies. That's wrong.

Yes, to Google engineers with fat salaries, stock options, 3 free squares a day, massages, etc. etc. sure, the lack of contribution of your greedy company to the public weal isn't of concern. It will be your downfall.
 
Counter-point: you are emotionally invested in Second Life
 
Dear Catherine,

Ma'am, I'm your huckleberry.

Regards,
Tim Nugronguuyent
 
+Tim Nguyen screenshots or it didn't happen. Plus, the job of +Cory Altheide isn't to handle the public-facing web pages "about us" which is probably something marketing or brand management or even higher management would have to sign off on, since it involves the financials page.

Her job is to do this: "Digital Forensics Practitioner. Incident Responser" whatever that is.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it involved mopping up evidence of Tesla nuking that forest, and anything else that Google Award team is doing with the electro-magnetics.
 
Only one of us is old enough to have been involved in the Tunguska blast.
 
I think Cory means in their current body.
 
The Tunguska blast -- whatever it was -- could only have occurred given a source of energy of sufficient magnitude and power output. Since the only terrestrial source of power this large is clearly that which drives +Catherine Fitzpatrick's erudition, it seems obvious to me that she was herself the energy source for the blast. All Tesla would have had to do was find a way to convert her output into a mechanical or electrical form of energy, which of course would not have been a problem for a man of his varied talents, as he sort of specialized in energy transformations. QED.

You had us going there for a while, +Catherine Fitzpatrick. Well done.

I must confess to being curious about what that was like, though. Were you even tired afterward?
 
Somehow I knew you'd say that.
 
How many patents do Google and Oracle have? What about GE?
 
I'm pretty sure that you can find the number of patents Google has on our financial tables.
 
I saw what you did there, +Brian Fitzpatrick You answered a question with a literalist question. That's how geeks think - see this excellent poster on literalist thinking:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/117083928035294679057/posts/J5YX9Ari8z2

But I asked how many patents Edison had versus Tesla. Because patents -- companies, commerce, you know, making a living, building a company -- that matters. It matters as much or more than just geeky wonky zaniness that might make an interesting product or invention -- but might not. That's what thread is about. Google is being dragged kicking and screaming into the modern post web 1.0 age to behave like a real company, like Microsoft or HP, which make products that people actually use (you know, like Windows and PCs, as distinct from Linux and whatever you build off Newegg).

Of course, this cultural shift is disrupting the people who think only they should get to disrupt everyone else, and they are clinging to their guns and religion -- the death ray and Tesla god.

Google has patents, it even buys them or goes to court over them. Edison had patents, too. Did Tesla have a patent?
 
If Microsoft and HP are your model companies, then I hope you understand why we're kicking and screaming.
 
I fear I must confess that +Catherine Fitzpatrick is a fictitious entity I created in a misguided attempt to determine first-hand my reputation in this community.

It has gone on for too long. Please accept my sincerest apologies; my creation has got the better of me, it seems. In my defense, I had just suffered a particularly strong jolt of electricity, temporarily addling my brain.

To answer my own poorly-worded question, "Did Tesla have a patent?", I leave you with this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Tesla_patents
 
+Nikola Tesla okay, fine, but how many employees do you have? Why are you hiding this information?
 
Watching +Cory Altheide and +Tim Nguyen work their magic is just a beautiful, beautiful sight. All that Google funded training has really paid off.

+Catherine Fitzpatrick
"But the question is why Google, which claims its mission is to "Organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" (a mission I find hugely annoying for its breath-taking hubris and one-worldist hegemony as well as its faux altruism) is involved in weapons research. How does working on electro-magnetic zapping advance knowledge?!"

When you run out of information to organize the next logical step is to make more information to organize. That's the real reason Google bought YouTube - to organize information about cats. Computers love cats.
 
+Nikola Tesla you are a fake account and I'm going to abuse-report you because Google+ does not allow pseudonyms, you have to use real names. And you're dead in real life.

Sure, you have a few patents, but not as many as Edison. Or Google, for that matter.

+Brian Fitzpatrick How many people do Microsoft and HP employ? And how many (hidden) employees are there at Google? OK then, I rest my case. No company is perfect.
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick We are all fake accounts in the eyes of God. Fake accounts, that is, with real souls.

I would also like to take this opportunity to note that the phrase "dead in real life" is poetic to the point of bordering on the sublime. I believe it will do nicely as the name of my new album.

Tesla and the Alternating Currents: Dead in Real Life
 
+Nikola Tesla is my hero. Also, you can't prove he's not real. Who knows? Maybe when Tesla "died" he really just used an awesome invention of his to transport his consciousness into the future to fuel epic Web Scale troll wars.
 
It's Arm Chair Psychoanalytics Hour, with +Dan Morrill! Today's guest is +Catherine Fitzpatrick. Say hello to our studio audience, Catherine!

It's actually quite simple, I think. You are afraid of altruism.

For whatever reason, you don't quite understand it. Perhaps it was your upbringing, perhaps you had a dearth of female role models and Ayn Rand was all you had, perhaps you are a fire-and-brimstone "we are all sinners" fundamentalist, maybe the Sally Struthers commercials psychically traumatized you back in the day, maybe you're just a Calvinist... who can say? But your experience is that you don't or can't believe people might actually do something for the common good.

To the extent that someone is cynically altruistic (i.e. actually acting in their own interests while pretending to be acting in the common good), you either laud this or simply use it to reinforce your worldview. To the extent that someone is legitimately altruistic, you can't quite comprehend it. You don't quite believe it. You don't understand why they would be. So you are skeptical.

But you are also threatened. If someone actually is altruistic, it is evidence that contradicts your worldview. To the extent that you can find an evil motive, you ascribe it -- and you're (demonstrably) willing to go to moderately elaborate lengths to find an evil motive. But when you can't credibly find an evil motive, you instead ascribe it to a weakness: it's foolish, or lazy, or naive.

What you can't do is accept it.

You can't accept that engineers might willingly share their labor with the world; when presented with evidence that they do, you call it communist. For that matter, you can't accept that the fundamental ideal of communism (however despotic its actual implementation, and naive its hypothetical ones) is at least a pleasant dream of universal altruism.

You can't accept that Google and Internet companies in general actually do want to improve the world and not just make money; so you hunt for absurd evidence of ill-will (death rays! LOL) and where it's obvious nobody's falling for it, you play the lazy, indulgent, and un-American card. (You must really have a love/hate thing going on with Benjamin Franklin, BTW.)

You couldn't accept that Second Life had run its course and the in-game economy got rocky in the absence of malice, so you invented malice (and where people didn't buy that, incompetence.)

Some people would brand you crazy, although I don't. People throw that word around too much, especially of non-conformist women (even today.) I mean, it's not like you are wandering the streets muttering incoherences, and you clearly are functional enough that you have extensive leisure time to pursue the endorphin rush you get from proving yourself right over and over. But that clearly isn't insanity.

I think you are simply driven to continually reinforce your own worldview, because on some level you do know it's a house of cards built on a premise of declaiming something you are incapable of understanding, and without constant refutation of the stream of evidence, it will come down. And hell, it's fun to always be right.



Or maybe you're just a troll. The applicability of Occam's Razor is left as an exercise for the reader.
 
Established "not a troll" like 600 posts ago mang.
 
Why are we feeding the troll?? It's just a stubborn, close-minded, cynical troll. Just leave it alone. It'll stray back to its cave eventually.
 
Hey Joe you got something else you'd rather be doing, go on ahead then.
 
Those of you who have read my previous comment may have written me off as a lunatic or a troll, and I see now that you were right to question the truth of the words that I set down. I was foolish, and I'd like to apologize for my fanciful imaginings. I see now that my wild speculation about Tesla, JFK, and Google Engineering were a mistake I made due to being manipulated by certain sources of information. These certain sources have deliberately and maliciously misled me (and many others who work tirelessly to expose the workings of so called "altruists") on this issue in order to obscure the real events of concern about to transpire. You see, I've been doing some soul-searching, and after some research, I've discovered an astounding "coincidence": The upcoming "World IPv6 Day" is going to happen on the same exact day as the transit of Venus. Some of you may challenge my by questioning whether there is any apparent connection between the two events. This is because you are "sheeple" (a term I have coined whose meaning (I hope) is self-evident) that only see what you want to see. Think about all of the terminology surrounding these two seemingly unrelated events. One the one hand, a "transit" is a surveying tool -- a visual level, if you will, evoking the tools of masonry. Venus, the Roman goddess of love bringing to mind a love of world spanning empire and hegemony. No two connotations more perfect for the New World Order lackeys! On the other, we have the "language" of IPv6; if there are two concepts more perfectly representing the nefarious goals of the Anarcho-Communist syndicates than "stateless autoconfiguration" and the promise of limitless network (espionage!) endpoints for every human being on the planet, then I have not heard them. The conclusion that must be drawn should be apparent to any child versed in the methods of Stalinist/Maoist anarchic subversives. So apparent, in fact, that I shall leave enumerating them as a trivial exercise to readers.
 
Um, no, +Dan Morrill. Utter, literal, geeky "fail.

I'm not afraid of altruism, having worked altruistically in nonprofit organizations for some 30 years of my life, and worked in various volunteer unpaid causes all my life since I2. How about you, big guy? You work for Evgle, and make tons of money and stock options and get free lunch, and I bet you don't even have $30 for MSF, DO YOU.

I'm not afraid of altruism; I dislike the fake altruism of the open source cult movement which pretends there are all these happy geeks all happily coding for free when really a) they are collectivized and coercive; b) they will only be subsumed into the Borg of Big IT anyway and be monetarized anyway. It is the fakest thing on two legs.

I don't care for Ayn Rand at all -- I find her quite loathsome. She is a mirror image of the Bolsheviks, and incorporates many of their traits of "Marxist internal contradictions," rigidity of ideology, cult of personality, etc. and of course godlessness.

Like a lot of narrow-minded coders, you've absorbed this meme that anyone who criticizes communism, socialism, collectivism, open source cultism, etc. "must be" a Randist. It's your own fearfulness of anybody breaking your group-think.

I'm a Catholic, and that is different than a Calvinist. I'm trying to remember the Sally Struthers commercials. Um...she was in a sit com, and then...what was it? Did she get born again? I don't recall. In any event, I had plenty of female role models. But I bet you didn't, or you wouldn't be a literalist geek and a hater.

I've had plenty of experiences of people doing things for the common good, and I've done them myself. And Rand's sectarian notion that we should all be selfish and not pay taxes for social welfare or care for the poor is destructive -- it's like Google not paying its taxes because it can and shipping its revenue to Ireland. THAT is what it's like, you know? Speaking of the common good and all.

I certainly haven't lauded any cynical altruism or fake altruism, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. In fact, you have an automatic trip-wire in your over-coded brain which has been adapted to machines, and you hear "criticism of Google" or "criticism of collectivism" and you go into overdrive "OMGODZORZ!!! AYN RAND ATLAS SHRUGGED WHERE'S JOHN GAULT!" without even perceiving reality.

Google is most certainly NOT altruistic. Believe me, I know a lot about not only Soviet culture, but anti-Soviet culture that replicates some of the same notions. Google has always been in it for the vanity and the power over people, and then the money. And now it's addicted to the ads. It's sad. Google is not the great Academy of Science and Library of All Humankind's Knowledge that it imagined itself to be. It's just a box on a page on the Internet, hooked up to a lot of trucks.

Google and Internet companies want to serve their shareholders first, then their employees and then as an abstract, distant third, possibly their customers. But their customers are really an abstraction, and in fact, the users of the free service aren't the customers, as we know; they are the product. They are the flywheel of the Big Ad Agency. The real customers are the ad buyers.

Where you are absolutely dead wrong is that communism is a pleasant dream of universal altruism that merely "had bad implementation" like somebody's app. Ugh, that is deadly stuff. You evidently can't see how the actual principles of communism contain within them all the deadly outcomes of the so-called "implementation". Communism is, above all, crime. It is coercion in the belief that some act is "better" for people. It is "the ends justifies the means," which means it is terror. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work" contains the deadly system in a nutshell. That you think communism is "just a good idea gone bad" -- an idea that no doubt you imbibed from Sergey Brin himself -- is why you inevitably tend toward evil.

Engineers doing "volunteer open source work" or various "Better World" projects primarily do things for vanity and "the need to be needed". The need to be needed should not be mistaken for altruism.

I didn't have to "hunt" for the death rays, dude. The death ray thing came up on searches related to Tesla, and it showed the Google award being given to research that involves zapping human beings, in the end. See why I say "Still Alive" is your anthem!

Second Life didn't run its course. Second Life was deliberately vandalized by Google engineers in collusion with some open source cultists of Linden Lab to destroy the search/places+traffic economy and replace it with the prototype of something that could sell ads on key words some day. That's all. Pretty obvious stuff. Malice in worlds and on the Internet is endless.

I don't have extensive leisure time, I work for a living. I don't get any "endorphin rush" from publishing my convictions. Do you?  

I don't think my worldview is any house of cards whatsoever. I think it's pretty sane, logical, and normal. What's not sane is the sectarian worldview of you technocommunists, utterly devoid of common sense and truth, and imposing itself as "science". That's what's creepy.  Like all purveyors of the open source cult, you imagine that critics of your cult are "imposing their views on you" when in fact, they merely refuse to be rounded up in your cult. It's one of the biggest tell-tale signs of your cult -- the inability to accept the existence of a plurality of views and inability to tolerate anyone else sticking to their views without calling them crazy cat ladies, etc.

What will come down in my lifetime will be Google, and it will be for the arrogant attitudes and technocommunist cult, which is like lead in the Romans' drinking cups.
 
+Emma Puls um, I know that, dear. Stop your silly condescension it only makes you look stupid. Since the context of this conversation is the Internet and Big IT companies that always get a pass even from people critical of capitalism, I stressed Internet companies. And in fact, I stress this is a good thing. If you couldn't realize that I was in fact praising Google for at least conforming to the traditions of capitalism, whatever its technocommunist motivations, then you, too, are suffering from the literalist engineering disorder.

It's more than fine for companies to put their shareholders' first, and that was my point. Duh! They have to, since they are, well, um, share holders, you know? They put money into the stock of the company. If you don't want to serve those people who paid you money, don't get into the business.

Sure, you have to care for customers, too, and if you shaft them at the expense of shareholders, you lose the company entirely in the end, or so it is supposed (it doesn't always work that way, and Facebook could be a good example of a company with lots of shareholders being pursued first, lots and lots of unhappy customers who grump a lot, but lots and lots of growth and users and ad revenue and long existence).

Altruism has its roots in the idea of Christianity and other religions that ask you to put others first, or put God first, and to sacrifice for others. It doesn't tell you that you do this to feel good, or that you will feel good if you do it; it's a religious mandate for the good of the soul. Modern ideologies like technoutopianism and technocommunism pervert these initial religious impulses and strip them of context, and then add feel-goods. You're supposed to feel good while helping others -- which of course, is selfishness then, and not really altruism.
 
+Brian Fitzpatrick As I said in my review of G+ at the prompt, "G+ -- where Google engineers go to heckle the public, and where gifs go to die."

Gifs apparently appeal to that dysfunctional behavioural syndrome in coders where they have to have things repeated again and again and again, and where they like in particular to see people humiliated or injured, over and over and over again. For the rest of us, they're stupid and annoying.

I see that the insertion of gif links into dialogue is also a compensation for not being able to upload photos in line to the dialogue.
 
Awww yeah, I think I just nailed that boss battle, if I do say so myself.

All right guys, I think that's enough for me for now. GG y'all, I'm out.
 
+Emma Puls No, of course not. Everybody knows Facebook is better than G+. This conversation was never about Facebook -- until now -- so I don't know what you're doing claiming that "everyone was trying to tell me" from the start that Facebook was not that great. My point there was to say that despite people grumping about Facebook, privacy this, they changed that, game notifications the next thing, the reality is, everybody goes on there way more than they admit and it keeps growing. Because it's simple and easy and it has your friends on it already, instead of your enemies, like G+.

In fact, we all pay with Google, Facebook -- all of them -- just like the old Soviet joke, "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." This joke is something that Sergey Brin has brought to life! We all toil away in the content mills, producing posts and information and pictures and whatnot, and it is all diligently scraped to be resold to ad buyers and marketers. As has been noted many times before, if you are not paying for a service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT. But more to the point, under technocommunism, you are slaving away for free in the collective farm.

I should think they would have high employee satisfaction ratings when they supply free food, massages, and everything else on the job. And yet, people leave Google, and they leave Google because they can't make their cool thing at Google, like Uber Conference, you know? I covered them at TechCrunch on my blog. They won! And they are not in Google. Google of course may buy them out...

As for your "Also screw your bull shite "Altruism is Christian" (everyone puts their own religion first"  -- say, are you turning out to be one of those British secularist socialist haters of Americans? This is SOOOO common as to be mundane, and the Internet brings out the worst of it.

If you read what I wrote, you'd see I put this: "Altruism has its roots in the idea of Christianity and other religions that ask you to put others first." I certainly didn't say Christianity is the ONLY religion -- as you are implying -- but I put it first because hell YEAH you get to put your religion first. You certainly put your secular/socialist/paganist/whatever religion first with your faux meta take on the world that typifies the geek keyhole. I'll bet you're one of those geeks who doesn't believe in God, but who believes karma is a bitch -- without ever wondering who that master of the universe would be who could keep track of -- and dish out -- bad karma, if there were no God.

Christianity has a simple idea, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If Google engineers practiced this even in a secular kind of way, G+ wouldn't be a place of heckling and harassment of those not in your insular culture, but more of a normal place, the way Facebook is.

Er, historically violent? This lovely Confucian religion produced the culture of China, which went on to accept Maoism and communism where millions were massacred. Or will you tell us this is a departure from Confucianism? As for India -- Buddhism -- and things like bride-burning -- where do they come from? Every country has a background of religion that produces culture, and that culture's negative traits can be traced back to religion at times. There's no such thing as some "better, more perfect, less violent" religion -- it's a utopia in itself. It's an implication that somewhere, there is this "better human nature" that is produced by man's efforts alone. But that is a fallacy.

Perhaps you could cite your documented cases of paganistic altruism denounced by Christianity -- or at least, some Christian leader at some specific time. This has nothing to do with me. I'm not denouncing paganistic altruism. This is something you've made up in your head -- like my alleged following of Ayn Rand, or shopping at Wal-mart's, or driving an SUV, or whatever hate-marker you can dream up.

My problem with the fake altruism of open source is that it does not serve the public, it serves the vanity of coders, and it serves Big IT just to extract more revenue.

It really is the heighth of secularist piety to claim that people engage in altruism because "it feels good". That is not what altruism is. Altruism is in fact doing someone a kindness even when you don't feel like it, and it gives you no particular joy. You imply that it is merely some brain chemistry, some endorphin triggered by vanity and self-love -- which is in fact antithetical to real altruism.

BTW, I noticed that you failed to mention Islam. Most terrorist acts are committed by fundamentalist Islamists. But you didn't dare to mention that religion in any sentence about violence, now, did you.

Where is the idea of Europe? It is gone. Google helped to kill it.
 
"As has been noted many times before, if you are not paying for a service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT."

You are paying for the service, though. Ad supported services only work because people are actually influenced by them. And you being influenced by the ad and giving your money to company A instead of company B is how you are paying for your ad supported services.

"If you read what I wrote, you'd see I put this: "Altruism has its roots in the idea of Christianity and other religions that ask you to put others first.""

Altruism isn't rooted in the idea of Christianity or other religions. Altruism is the basic instinct to preserve the species. Organized religion is about controlling others for personal power and/or wealth. Two very different things.

"My problem with the fake altruism of open source is that it does not serve the public, it serves the vanity of coders"

Those two are not mutually exclusive, and you keep treating that as truth when it isn't. Most open source has nothing to do with vanity whatsoever. Do some do it for the vanity? Probably. Do all do it for the vanity? Absolutely not, that's just ridiculous. No, open source is much simpler than that. The code is already written due to other motivations - from a personal, "for fun" project to solving a problem the developer had. The reasons are many. The only question left is what to do with the code after it has been written and served its initial goals. There are basically 3 options - do nothing, open source it, or try and sell it. The first two are extremely low effort - which I don't think you quite understand. Trying to sell it is a considerable amount of work. You might need to clear it with your employer, you need to setup a store, etc... No, open source results from "why not?". If I write a program to solve a problem I have, why would I not open source it? I have no motivation to try and start a business from it, so I could either sit on the code or open source it.
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick "This joke is something that Sergey Brin has brought to life!" – actually, I am something Sergey Brin has brought to life.

And re: "We all toil away in the content mills", my uncle suffered the excruciating death of content lung; I know first-hand it is not something to be taken lightly. His last words, tragically, were an SEO-friendly Top 14 Reasons to Leave Your Content-Mining Job and they have remained with me to this day. Bully for you for bettering awareness of this tragic affliction.
 
+John Reck I can't remember the last time I clicked on an Internet ad in the Google-verse. Um...a  year ago? Two years ago? I do occasionally click "like" on the companies that Facebook serves up, but that's not really like clicking through to an ad. You're trying to apply the theory of advertising from the television age to Google, and it doesn't apply. Presumably, the companies that buy Google ads can show somehow that enough people buy their products in a way that suggests they are related to the Internet ad so as to justify it. But I wonder if it isn't all an elaborate hoax. That many people stampeded to it out of fear -- fear that they would miss out as the age of television was waning and this other age of technocommunism was beginning.

The notion that altruism is rooted in the species as an animal instinct is only a notion of self-serving altruism that gets a "feel good" if the human displays altruism that is ultimately in his self-interest, the way a cat grooms another cat instinctively because it is groomed back. But the altruism of Christianity is doing a good turn even when you don't feel good, and even when it doesn't give you anything at all, feeling or otherwise.

The open source altruism is part of a vanity-based "reputation bank". People try to accrue reputational credits for being "good coders" and "helping humankind". That humankind would rather have the customer service agent of a paid software company who shows up on time for work and answers the phone, instead of a goofus who doesn't come to work but just works on it "whenever" is beyond him.

Of course coding is for vanity. The overwhelming majority of coding projects are for vanity. The idea that it is being done "because it's fun" or "cool" is the cover story, the myth that programmers tell themselves. But it's really a pissing contest to see who is more cool and can build up more street cred doing the cooler thing. It's a tight-knit brotherhood of sectarians.

A simple test to prove my point: criticize any feature of the open source software from the outside, and watch what happens:

1. Screeches of thin-skinned rage that you dare to do that about somebody's beautiful code.

2. Rants that you aren't technical and can't possibly get it.

3. Bellows that you should "patch or GTFO" with lectures that you aren't "contributing" -- social Darwinism.

4. Smug assertions that you are criticizing open source on a blog that is run on open source code somewhere, or the Internet's Apache servers or whatever.

If open source projects were the lovely, giving altruistic community things you claim, NONE of these reactions would pertain. NONE. Instead, helpful, thoughtful people would say, oh, may I help you with that? Where did you see that? Oh, I hadn't realized it had that annoyance. They would expect that their code had users who weren't simply more people than themselves. They wouldn't expect these users to patch the code and "contribute" themselves. And so on.

But the narrow-minded cultists show none of these features. They display prickly disdain and arrogance and tell people to fuck off as if they are building a manifestly divine cathedral.

They are in the cathedral, and think they are in the bazaar.
It's really awful.

Open source=closed society of coders.
 
+Emma Puls I think you are poorly informed about Christianity. People are altruistic in Christian upbringing not out of fear of fire and brimstone, but out of love and a sense of duty. I really can't think of any of the Christians or for that matter believers of other religions who are caring for others out of a "fear for their immortal soul". It's something you're projecting on them based on a caricature. Most of your information seems to come "from the Internet," I've noticed.

Whether someone commits good deeds out of a sense of love, a sense of duty, or out of fear, I hardly think that constitutes some notion of "I'm better than all of you because of my religion." Again, you're projecting. It's out of fear. You hate and fear and loathe religious believers because you think they are going to take something away from you, diminish your sense of self or your freedom. It's ludicrous. Give it up.

As for online ads, I'm quite aware that people click on the ads because even my little blogs make Google Ad Sense money. Imagine that! And I marvel at the stuff people click on. And let them! I can't complain. It's a fairly good system, although it has some fundamental flaws (like outrageous lack of due process). But let's face it. The Google ad game is not getting better. Google is forced to grab more and more data and is getting more and more desperate. Hence this entire G+ scrape and linking all the accounts and trying to keep people logged in with their real identity while searching Google so they can scrape even MORE data. Its hunger is insatiable. There is a sense of diminishing returns.  Google even has to send workers out in its Street View truck to scrape even wireless connections, not part of the ostensible Street View mission, because apparently that's the only way they can scrape EVEN MORE data they don't have access to.

If clicky ads were all that and really the growing powerhouse that they once were when you all got started on this, you wouldn't be growing more and more desperate to create more and more scraping products and sell more and more ads. And the ad makers themselves wouldn't be more and more desperate, now creating interruptive ad, now creating ads with movies and whatnot right in them, getting more and more in your face. If they could reach out a hand and grab you by the neck, they would do that, and that may be coming soon when they can get you to wear Google goggles.

Again, I wonder where you get this asinine idea that "I think I'm better than others" merely because I...criticize Google and the lefty technocommie belief systems of Google engineers. It's just a legitimate criticism. Deal with it. Sure, ads can influence your buying patterns even if you don't click. I just mentioned a Seagate ad I saw for years and years on Scoble's blog and finally bought a Seagate product. But the 100 other things I bought this week didn't relate to ads. They were off brands, brands that were never in my face on Facebook, things that never appeared on G+, things that occur in the still-secret world of real life that Google STILL CAN'T TOUCH thank God.
 
Keep going, I think you've almost convinced her!

{Sentence subject intentionally vague}
 
Apologies for the rampage. Exam week? Heh, interneting while tired.
 
+Catherine Fitzpatrick "The Google ad game is not getting better."

Google is a publicly traded company. You can go look at the financial statements, and you can easily see that revenue continues to grow. As such, you are simply wrong. Flat out, completely wrong.

Also, nice touch with the self contradiction on whether or not people click on ads. I guess you need a liberal arts degree to pull off that level of hypocrisy?

"Again, I wonder where you get this asinine idea that "I think I'm better than others" merely because I...criticize Google and the lefty technocommie belief systems of Google engineers."

Probably because you are telling a group of engineers what their motives are - and you are completely wrong about it. You literally said that my hobby is a lie I tell myself for the sake of "vanity" - which is horseshit.
 
+John Reck So what if the revenue is increasing? It's like empty calories. Google has to work harder and harder to scrape more and more data and hustle more and more people to buy ads.

As it happens, I don't click on ads as a rule. The reason is this: most of the ads I see come in my Yahoo mail box. I refuse to use gmail.com because I want to split my privacy erosion differences among a number of the big companies and don't want all the eggs in one basket. On Yahoo, there are these odd, ugly people they keep serving in your face who can tell you about various things like cheaper car insurance, moms going back to school, wrinkles, belly fat. So I just don't have any desire or need to click on those most-seen ads.

Then on Facebook, there are all these "customized" ads. But they are almost always uniformly lame. They consist of diploma mills and correspondence schools; dating with men in the 55 plus age group; Nordstroms (I haven't shopped at Nordstroms in 25 years -- we don't even have a Nordstroms near where I live; it's insane); and now goofy stuff like "God" or "music" or "horses". I'm definitely not going to click on the like for the page for the apartment complex where I live, as that will geolocate me mercilessly to stalkers.

So let me think. The New York Times has Tiffany ads and expensive cars and jewelry I don't want and couldn't afford. TechCrunch has all these servers and cloud services and whatnot -- not for us. To be sure, I did byuy the external hard drive from Seagate on account of Scoble's blog, but that's about it.

I'd be happy to click on a Wal-mart ad even without a coupon -- I suppose it against the haters. I am not a high-brow and I don't tell you about my failure to click on ads as some sort of "I'm better than you" gambit. It's just a report.

You're going to hate this, but you know which ads work better to actually make me buy something more than Google search ads (which I also simply ignore -- it's like white noise, I cease to see it). Those actual hard-copy shoppers that the mailman brings with actual coupons in the local pharmacy, or an actual hard-copy catalogue in the mailbox. Boy, that sure goes against your religion I bet.

The reality is, a lot of people click on ads, however, as I know from my own Google Adsense on my blog. But hey, I'm not going to be taking a sea cruise any time soon on these pennies, so not to worry.

No, I'm not completely wrong about the group of engineers and their motives. Not at all. There is nothing more deeply, deeply rooted that than the horseshit myths of the open source cult. This utterly fake altruism. This horribly thin-skinned neuralgic attitude toward criticism. This collectivized group-think. It's all awful stuff.

I think it's great you have a hobby. I am puzzled why you would have the hobby of open source coding after being a Google engineer at work all day, but to each his own. However, the story of the open source cult -- your hobby -- is endlessly one of swagger and show and tell. Otherwise, the IRC channels would not exist.
 
"I don't get any 'endorphin rush' from publishing my convictions. Do you?"

Actually, I'm getting a bit of an endorphin rush from you publishing your convictions.
 
* diploma mills and correspondence schools;
* dating with men in the 55 plus age group;
* goofy stuff like "God" or "music" or "horses"

Sounds targeted as hell, Catz Fitz.
 
Probably used Communist funding from Kerplakistan.
 
+Tim Nguyen but they didn't ask the people farther downtown on Hudson Street, now, did they. They wouldn't have dared to put a Tesla corner sign there. Those are the people whose entire neighbourhood was shorted out because of Tesla's experiments. Also, I think you wanted to spell that Karakalpakstan.
 
Without Tesla's AC wouldn't we, perhaps, have advanced DC power now, including amazing batteries for solar applications?
 
So catfishing is when you convince someone online that you are a cute girl and become their internet girlfriend.

It stands to follow then that catfitzing is when you accidentally convince an audience that you are the original poster's crazy mom.
 
+Evan Charlton That's exactly what a Silicon Valley groupthinking open-source cult member would say.
 
+Evan Charlton   Tesla could have made it look like a meteor. Plus, how do you know the Russians didn't steal Lonsdaleite from an Arizona impact site and scatter it around to fool people?
 
I told you all it was HAARP at the beginning. Wake up sheeple before it's too late!
 
You're really going to resurrect me a second time?
 
The NSA probably has the canonical records on this. #PRISM  
 
How did I miss this a year ago? Pure brilliance.

We know the Russians didn't get the lonsdaleite from Arizona because a True American like John McCain would have personally stopped them at the borders and sent them packing.
 
+Brian Fitzpatrick Look, let me break it down to you how sneaky Russian works! Do you know where Edward Snowden  has been all this time? It turns out he wasn't in the Capsule Hotel. Did you get a picture of him? No, your Google face recognition is trying its hardest to make something out of those grainy cell phone pics taken at SVO but so far -- nothing. Do you know where Edward Snowden is right now, despite the fact that he found out about practically the entire scooped up data of the NSA which in fact they got from Google? No, you don't. So sure, go ahead, say [citation needed] but you and I know that there isn't any citation needed because it's all plain as day. You don't know that Tesla didn't get the lonsdaleite from Arizona. Post factum. Well, then.

You want to talk sneaky. Go ahead, find me a) proof of life of Edward Snowden b) proof of life that those four laptops weren't scanned by the GRU c) before and after estimates of the content of lonsdaleite in Arizona before the Tunguska incident. Go ahead, I'll wait.
 
P.S. I realize c) is a challenge, especially as back then you didn't have your Google satellite maps and such to make these measurements of before and after that you would make today. But on the other hand, by now you've slurped up into your Big Data maw all the mining records from all the companies from all the last centuries and so it should be just a matter of writing a script and just checking the "before" and "after" content -- see if you could be a honest broker on this matter.
 
ġőť ýőúŕ pŕőőf őf lífé ŕíġĥť ĥéŕé
 
+Edward Snowden Hey!  How's the airport treating you?  I sure hope someone brings you a good meal, cause airport food tends to be kinda gross.

+Catherine Fitzpatrick What four laptops? I'm not sure what you're talking about.

As for the burden of proof, I'm uncertain why I need to prove what is commonly accepted as truth (and documented as such by historians). You're making allegations, and allegations are usually backed up by facts or proof (that I'm assuming I've just not seen).  So I assumed that since you were making allegations, I thought you'd have some sort of references to back them up.  I never really studied astronomy in school, so I'm especially uncertain about the lonsdaleite thing.
 
So +Brian Fitzpatrick you think that just like that you can just G+ Edward Snowden and that's enough? That's proof? You think he's reading that?!

What have you done with the four laptops???!!!

My statement of fact is that Russians are sneaky. They're sneaky enough to come in and scatter that stuff around to make it look like it was a meteor when it wasn't. Don't forget that Serbs and Russians are like this. They are all Slav brothers. This was a caper. I shouldn't have to point out the obvious. And a fresh example is the geolocation of Edward Snowden. I realize that if Edward has an Android, and he would, being a geek, that you may have already geolocated him and you're perfectly fine. I realize that maybe you can geolocate him and even the Russians can't geolocate him. Or maybe they can. And maybe they'd never tell you if they could, see.
 
I'm fairly sure Gru is the villain in Despicable Me.
 
I knew it!  Edward Snowden was eaten by a GRU.
 
Four laptops? Man, getting one laptop through airport security is enough of a PITA.
 
+Mike Knell I'm unsure why he needed four laptops... poor planning?  Seems like 1 laptop + a bunch of USB keys would be easier to deal with...
 
Kids today have forgotten how to just read a book. I understand that he refuses to fly on airlines with AC power outlets that would let him recharge his laptop in flight because Tesla once electrocuted his pet elephant with an AC-powered mind control ray on a trip to Tunguska. It's a weird phobia, I know.
 
+Brian Fitzpatrick the four laptops thing could be a) a three-card monte sort of idea where some of them are decoys and he keeps juggling them b) all those secrets he stole wouldn't fit on one, so he needed three, and he was afraid of losing those little USB things, and it would be easier not to lose laptops c) the documents are broken up into parts and no one of them can be accessed without the other parts in the other places d) redundancy, as he knew that at any minute, the US could zap any one of those laptops using technology that Google is now perfecting in a not-even-secret zapping program in a university. You know the one I mean. It's a lot like Tesla. Which is why you are so protective of him.
 
Maybe he has four laptops because he can, I know I would.
Add a comment...