I was living in Brooklyn during 9/11 and working on the 60th floor of the WTC building 2. I never went to work that day due to a dentist's appointment. Nothing will make me want to relive those 4 hours when I thought that everyone I worked with was dead (thankfully, the vast majority escaped unharmed).

Seeing this movie will not give me closure; it will not make events more clear to me; it will not be enjoyable; it will not make me learn more about myself or that day. That day was a personal loss for me, and I want it to remain just that---personal. Therefore, I will not see the movie.

The few times I have seen trailers for this movie in the theater, I have had to leave until it was over.

Is it too early for this movie to be made? I don't know, but I know that I will never see it.

As previous posters have mentioned, this is a very different movie, with different objectives from Hotel Rwanda, but I would imagine that those personally affected by the situation in Rwanda would not want to see the movie either.

But since there are so many more people in the US who have been personally affected by 9/11, I imagine that many more people feel the way I do.

Say what you will about mislabelling the article, but Moore does have a point. We need to seriously reconsider nuclear power. That little accident on the Island in the 70s has made public acceptance of nuclear power fall through the floor. But if you compare the number of deaths and the damage to the environment of coal to nuclear, what wins out?

I'm not saying it's definitely a good idea, but I think nuclear's bad press is based on fear, not science.

Something is wierd with all of those cuts and camera angles. If Oscar could really throw, why keep cutting to a new angle when the ball leaves his mouth?

I'll need a better video than this.

...but this "sport" is disgusting. Ms. Goldstein's article has not convinced me that competitive eating is anything more than a bunch of carny freaks showing off.

I could read the book, but I don't think I could stomache it...

I have not read Mearsheimer and Walt's article, but I have read Salon's commentary on it.

It is sad that we cannot have a healthy discussion regarding the US's relationship to Israel without someone screaming anti-semitism, or anti-zionism (thanks, Dayenu).

Regardless of the scholarship and over-generalizations of Mearsheimer and Walt's article, we should and need to be having this discussion. This is what we should be doing in an open, free and liberal society. It's unfortunate that the original article seems to be of shoddy quality because it may just have the effect of entrenching those who can't say a single negative thing about Israel.

Is someone racist for questioning affirmative action?

Network neutrality (or the lack of it) is an extremely important issue. I applaud Farhad Manjoo for finally writing an article about it for Salon.com.

Imagine an internet with only 3 real websites, and a handful of tiny, unimportant ones. Is this where we are heading?

Keeping the internet neutral is extremely important for the average user, for the innovators, and for small businesses. One of the major reasons why the internet has become such an important part of our lives is exactly because it is a dumb network.

Most people don't know or don't care about how important it is because understanding what neutrality means is complicated and technical, but word must get out and people must understand how it can affect their lives.

For those of you living North of the Border, in British Columbia, SPEC has a good website summarizing the ways to recycle techno-trash in the area:

http://www.spec.bc.ca/greenpages/question.php?questID=45

I often take my stuff to PC Galore:

http://www.pcgalore.com/recycle.asp

I prefer the term "humanure".

One of the reasons why processing human waste is so difficult and expensive is that we are flushing it down the toilet. One pound of waste can contaminate hundreds of gallons of water. And all that water needs to be extracted before the waste can be composted.

I'm not saying that we should all be pooing in a bucket and taking it out back, but there are alternatives.

I just finished reading "Garbage Land" by Elizabeth Royte, which had an interesting perspective on how to handle this waste.

The researchers working with the sharks probably want their ideas to actually be used for war about as much as I do (which is to say, not at all). They also know that the likelyhood of this actually happening is quite small.

I would bet that the researchers working on this project are much more interested in solving deep questions on how the brain and body work together.

As a phd student in a large research university, I know many researchers funded by DARPA or organizations with military leanings. These researchers would prefer not to get money from these places, but in some sense, as long as they can spin their research in terms of benefit to the military, there are no strings attached. That's a good thing for science. This is exactly how the internet was created.

I think you are doing the right thing by thinking hard about what you will and will not publish. It shows a moral responsibility that many other news agencies do not have.

I applaud the New York Time's recent move to a paid online subscription for some its content (columnists, editorials, etc). Although, it bothered me at first, I do believe now that this is the only way they can continue to make money in the long term.

The 20 somethings that I know (myself included) simply feel more comfortable sitting in front of a computer to read news rather than with a clunky newspaper getting your fingers dirty.