Fort Boyard would definitely be nice, especially since it has been the set for game shows for the last 20 years, so there would be plenty to keep you entertained.
Unless there are zombie-contestants, in which case you may have to joust with them in order to retrieve the key to the tiger-filled treasure room before the clepsydra runs out.

We may not be smarter than the people who believed in these hoaxes, but we have easy access to tons and tons of information through the internet.
In a way, believing in this sort of things now requires more gullibility than it did before.
I don't think anybody today would believe that a machine can transform dirt into food, because the general public is better informed than ever before.

"lookin' stable, lookin' good, flying, flying!"
Yep looks reaaaally stable to me too.

Was he Homer Simpson?

Nice entertaining article, thanks for the link!

I'm may not be a scientist (unless engineering counts as science), but I also get frustrated sometimes with the style of language that we get told to use when writing reports. And then professors use these conventions in their lecture notes, which doesn't help students understand better.

However, I can understand the need to keep the vocabulary a bit basic. The idea is to convey unbiased facts, and given how easily manipulated the human brain is, making lyrical metaphors could be used to make the reader tend toward a certain point of view.

@some fat flyer:
I'll gloss over the space issue, as I can't imagine the idea of selling two seats to fat people being applied at any point. I just want to concentrate on the point made in the post.

Yes, weight is the major issue when it comes to air travel, so charging "by the pound" would be fair from an economic standpoint. Kids and old people may give the cabin crew more work, but that doesn't increase their salary, hence the cost to the airline is the same.
So the question is: should everybody pay for the increase in cost due to the increase in the average weight of the population, or should the compensation be proportional to a person's weight?

Then please don't blame airlines for things they have no relation to! Airport security is there because of governments, and the rest of your complaints (parking, fast food, airport construction) are clearly not the airlines' fault.

"And then with luck, you get where you are going on time and with your luggage intact." How often has it happened to you, say in the past decade, that you:
A) Didn't get to your destination?
B) didn't get your luggage?
I don't think the problem is as bad as you make it sound.

Finally, airlines are a notoriously bad business if you want to make profits. Most major airlines only still exist because of governmental help. Putting them in the same basket as banks and oil companies is preposterous, just compare their revenues!

If they ever implement such a policy (which by the way none of them have even proposed, only a philosopher), it won't be to screw you over, it will be to stay afloat.

I like the explanation offered by an "anonymous tipster" at the link:
"The tags were in his backseat because he couldn't get the poor people screws to work on his $800k car."

To which they reply "Rich people have different screws? Also, $800K? Is this Eric Clapton's Lambo?", which are good points, but they missed one:
Where is his backseat?

Nice!

And given that a fair few people are still nervous about flying, I think that sort of thing is a good way to make some of the stress go away. Unlike all the (arguably superfluous) safety precautions that just make it worse.

It's always nice to see unarguable benefits emerge from what some people see as pointless research.

Although, I wouldn't hope to see the shuttle back in service even if we threw billions at NASA. Which is too bad for spectators because shuttle launches were certainly brilliant to watch, but it doesn't seem to be worth the effort (and money).

But I would really like to see manned space exploration back on the agenda of NASA. Sure, the current scientific missions are important, but they're not really as inspiring as putting people on Mars.

Why go there? Well, does that matter? People have given several reasons to go to Mars, but I don't think we really even need one. It's just an objective, which will require technological innovation to attain, which in turn will be beneficial to everyone.
It's just a good investment.

Wow. I will go to more funeral home expos in the future!
By the way, this is in Italy; I can't wait to see what Ferrari will offer in response. ;)

I propose building a space station out of dead leaves. That would be awesome! Would it work? Who cares!

@Wes: Yes, I have trouble believing that someone would run directly towards the camera and obstruct the view of the very thing being filmed, especially when there is no reason to distance himself from it.

I must say I was taken in at first, but then I watched it again and there's no doubt in my mind that this isn't real.
The wing doesn't look like it's loaded in any way when it's flying, which doesn't make sense; the guy running towards the camera is a bit convenient (and who the hell does that?), and the shadows on the wing 17 seconds in look very dodgy.
What a pity.

Hmmm... not sure about that.

People who don't care about their bald patch won't be affected that much, and people who do care are probably going to be embarrassed. I don't know, but I imagine that if someone exposes something I'm ashamed of, I won't feel very eager to associate with them.

How about putting mirrors at chest-height with the address of a plastic surgeon for insecure women?

I'd pay money to have that