If we embrace the fact that no one can or should ever care about the health of our passions as much as we do, the practical decisions that help ensure Our Good Thing stays alive can become as “simple” as a handful of proven patterns—work hard, stay awake, fail well, hang with smart people, shed bullshit, say “maybe,” focus on action, and always always commit yourself to a bracing daily mixture of all the courage, honesty, and information you need to do something awesome—discover whatever it’ll take to keep your nose on the side of the ocean where the fresh air lives. This is huge.

Google Maps led her to a four-lane boulevard without sidewalks that was “not reasonably safe for pedestrians,” according to the lawsuit filed by the Northridge, Calif., resident.

The plaintiff then proceeded down the street and claims she was subsequently hit by a vehicle. And that, obviously, is Google’s fault.

Is the human race now so dependent on augmented reality that we can’t think on our own? The last time I looked down a street without adequate walking paths, I made my own decisions. This is called “risk management” by those the know. Before such fancy terms came along, it was just common sense: Should I avoid the dangerous looking forest, or walk into it?

Then again, maybe it just means people in the United States will sue their own mother for a few minutes of fame.

Thankfully, there’s the Interphone study, launched 10 years ago and studying 10,000 participants spread across 13 different countries. Those concerned with The Answer have been waiting for the results with increased anticipation. And, here it is, summed up by Dr. Elisabeth Cardis, leader of the Interphone study:

Until stronger conclusions can be drawn one way or another, it may be reasonable to reduce one’s exposure [to cellular radiation]. It can’t hurt. — Dr. Elisabeth Cardis

“It can’t hurt?” So, it turns out that the long awaited report, published in the Internal Journal of Epidemiology on May 17, according to Time Magazine’s May 31 issue, “is by far the most comprehensive look at the issue to date and was meant to provide a possible conclusion to the debate.” Unfortunately, the real facts of the matter: 10 years isn’t that long to study something as subtly insidious as cancer poisoning from a radiation source such as cell phones. Even so, the study does give us interesting new data to ponder, discuss and argue over while another 10 or 20 year study is pulled together:

1. The study did not find any obvious connection between cell phone use and cancer, but it did find some seemingly conflicting data that muddies the discussion even further.
2. Of the study’s subjects, the 10% that used their cell phones most often did exhibit a 40% higher risk of developing some form of brain cancer, as compared to those who don’t use cell phones.
3. On the other hand, participants in the study that used their cell phones infrequently demonstrated a lower likelihood of developing brain cancer over people who use corded phones exclusively.

Unfortunately, even some of the data the defined the study is already out of date. 15 years ago (when the study was originally designed), using a cell phone for 30 minutes a day was considered “heavy” use. By today’s standards, 30 minutes a day might be considered moderate, particularly as people are starting to forego land-lines in favor of simply having a cell phone.

So what’s our take-away? Probably that the Interphone study is too dated and flawed. When you hear the mobile phone industry trumpeting it’s positive findings, or when you hear consumer advocates talking about it’s negative discoveries, keep in mind: They’re both quoting from the same study, a study which seems to equally support either position.

We need a new study. Unfortunately, that means we’ll be waiting another 15 or 20 years before “significant” evidence has a chance to answer this question once and for all.

I know all the arguments for tolerance: AT&T’s network was slammed with unexpected adoption levels; they are trying to roll out more coverage; they are upgrading their networks. But that doesn’t change the fact that when I bought my iPhone 3Gs, I cancelled my data card and plan and have been waiting for over a year listening to promises of “real soon now.” In the meantime, I’m inconvenienced on every business trip. Dishonesty is at the heart of the matter: AT&T needs to deliver on their promise, or tell us what’s really going on.

So, for the record: If a class action suit gets off the ground, I’m in.

Unemployment figures are largely calculated from claims against unemployment insurance, for example, when you file a claim with the EDD. But this is a narrow view, avoiding the overall “employment health” of the country. Even so, we must recognize that unemployment figures have been calculated in this way for a very long time. This means it is a sound relative measure — that is, since we are calculating it essentially the same way we did in years past, we can measure overall health as a comparison to other years. We know that 10% is horrible. The last time we saw unemployment this high was entering into the great depression, when it rose to 23.6% in 1933. So while it may not be accurate, it does give us a solid indication that our economy is in very, very bad shape.

Here’s a really great, well presented pro- and con- on climate change (or try this image on white, it’s more legible).

For some really in-depth analysis on climate change (not to mention a bit of exposé on some disappointing and underhanded misinformation from the skeptics) take a look at The Temperature of Science by James Hansen (PDF). James cites a few examples where corrections to data were argued to be “cooking the books.” And yet, critics could only argue about the fact a correction was made — they couldn’t find any flaw in the corrections themselves (let alone, apply their faculties to discover the original flaws in the first place).

13.9 billion — minutes facebook users spent on the site in April, a 700% increase from April 2008.

95% — of business decision-makers worldwide use social networks to some extent.

35% — of Americans 18 and over used a social-networking service in 2008.

8% — of Americans 18 and over used a social-networking service in 2005.

87% — of adults said they prefer dealing with others i person instead of via computers or smartphones.

Anyhow, buy The Oatmeal a cup of coffee. (Coffee gives me amazing powers too!)

But today an email with the subject line “Is Email Marketing Still a Viable Marketing Channel?” caught my eye. No, I didn’t bother opening it. And I’d say the answer is… no, it’s not.