I can't think of a decent title for this one.
If I made a movie, one of the protagonists would be a pure-blooded, born-and-raised, completely devout Subgenius. This would be entirely to try and fool the audience into thinking that the Church of the Subgenius is fictional, and to surprise them when one or two of their fellow theater-goers stands and cries, "Hail Bob!"

Now. From Techdirt, we have the latest email scam going around, which tries to con people into paying copyright license for the use of the '@' symbol. The thought that people out there will believe it and cough up the dough for an "unlimited year-long blanket license" makes my head hurt.

We also have the Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11. Any sane American would agree that all the items presented there must be simply the result of random events that just happen to fall together just so. To think otherwise would be un-patriotic, right? I'm so glad I'm Canadian.

Deep Thought: When you read the ingredients for your food and it says something like "Modified X" (X being something like Milk Ingredients, for example), how liberal is "modified"? Does modified mean that you can "modify" the milk ingredients by dehydrating them slightly? Or what if some of the milk sugars were taken out and replaced with straight up glucose to make it easier for the lactose intolerant? Or how about instead of milk proteins, they contain artificially synthesized chickenesque proteins? Because really, you could apply the title "modified" to just about anything after it has been through a process of some sort. I would be interested to see the legislation that defined this sort of thing.
  ¶ 11:10 a.m.