You criticize the optimists for so-called magical thinking and a "If you build it, It will come" attitude, but isn't that what's worked so far?

The internet (and personal computers in general) was mostly built by pioneering engineers/hobbyists/geeks who didn't have any kind of greater plan or grand design. They just thought it would be cool if computers could talk to each other, and they were smart enough to realize that packet-switching was the best way to do that.

Twenty, fifteen, hell, even ten years ago nobody could really have predicted what the internet would look like today. I remember reading an article (I wish I could find it now) back around 1996 predicting that the internet would fall victim to its own labyrinthine complexity, that one by one the search engines would sputter and die. Other articles predicted that there would be nobody willing to produce content for this new network. That the media giants would ignore it because it didn't fit their business model (ok, that part sort of has happened). But we've seen instead the rise of the indivdual as content-producer.

In light of everything that's happened, you don't think it makes sense to keep building and see what happens?

Several commenters here have noted that Patrick Smith was quite stingy with his praise of the captain of this flight. Some have even suggested it's because he's a bit jealous.

I disagree. One trend in Smith's writing is that again and again he emphasizes that ALL pilots are highly trained professionals. Even in this article, he makes special note to highlight the fact that the first officer is also a pilot fully qualified to operate the aircraft "in all regimes of flight".

Ignoring for the moment that floating on its belly in the Hudson river hardly qualifies as a "regime of flight" for a jetliner, I think Smith goes too far in this case. Yes, all pilots are qualified, highly trained professionals. That does not mean all pilots are of equal experience or ability. By all accounts, C. B. Sullenberger is an exceptionally skilled and experienced pilot with over 19,000 hours of flying time, and somebody who has worked with NASA and the NTSB to develop flight safety procedures. Recognizing this should not be a slight against other pilots.

"Not considered as worthy of mention as zygotes in a proclamation on the Sanctity of Human Life: civilian and military casualties of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, victims of Hurricane Katrina, victims of torture by the U.S. military, hundreds of dead Palestinians, or Americans executed under the death penalty, to name just a few. Feel free to add to that list in comments"

Ding-ding! Just because Bush is an asshole and a hypocrite, doesn't automatically make him wrong about everything. You'll have to do better if you want a reason why no human beings in utero are people.

"I'll believe you are all really pro-life the day you can admit that the "sanctity of life" principle applies to all people, not just the people you think it should apply to - so the day you all come out as anti-war and anti-death penalty be sure to let us know and then we can have a serious conversation about the treatment of human fetuses/potential people."

Hey look, you managed to read my post, apparently understand it, and then reply with the EXACT SAME IDIOTIC ARGUMENT I CALLED OUT THE FIRST TIME.

For the record, I'm not "pro-life" in the sense of being strongly anti-abortion. I'm really more agnostic on the abortion question, because I don't actually know when personhood begins (except that it's obviously later than conception and earlier than birth--something neither side of the abortion debate is willing to concede).

It does piss me off that neither side in this debate will put forth intellectually honest arguments. They always respond with over-the-top rhetoric, totally fallacious logic and emotional arguments. Thank you for providing an example, by the way.

By your logic, somebody's opposition to abortion is invalid if they are not also anti-war and anti-death penalty, yes? What if somebody is anti-war but pro-death penalty? By your logic, their opposition to war is invalid and they're a horrible hypocrite, right? Also, does somebody have to be against ALL wars, or just the Iraq war in order to satisfy you?

Further, you have exactly zero evidence about the stances of the posters you responded to on war or capital punishment, you just shot your keyboard off based on some hated conservative stereotype in your head.

"The promises of transparency were undercut, just a little, by the fact that the orders Obama had signed weren't posted on the White House Web site by the close of business Wednesday. In fact, the text of Tuesday's inaugural address didn't show up until sometime after lunch Wednesday."

Jesus, really? After 8 years of an administration who didn't want anyone to know what they were really up to, ever, you're going to give the Obama team a hard time because they couldn't get their website updated quickly enough ON THE FIRST FREAKING DAY?

Can we all chill out and wait like, a week, before we decide whether we're satisfied with the Obama administration or not?

Another chance for Salon readers to feel morally and intellectually superior and sit around patting themselves on the back. Don't forget to mention how horrible the army is and how all soldiers are violent thugs that don't appreciate wine and jazz like you do.

If you want to be treated like a big girl, it's time to start writing like one, alright?

Let's practice:

You say "yucky," but we can try some grown-up words like "objectionable," "obnoxious," "insulting," or "unfortunate."

Now you try some exercised at home!