People who want to know the "who", "what" & "where', but also the "why" and the "how". E.g. people who are interested in news as something other than a race amongst their "friends" to post "OMG!: [link]" on their whatever-feed.

That's resonable and all, but you miss the point that when people talk about "fanboys" of a brand, it is usually implied that all patrons of that brand are "fanboys", and that the fanboy mentality that you describe is primarily responsible for that brands success.

Those that don't flat out refuse to acknowledge it, can't stop chewing it away.

When I want something stopped, period, I don't request that it be "limited". Weasel words like this rarely appear by accident. They are usually, ahem, limited to strategic implementations.

People act like the jury is still out on Nazism in Germany, and the best thing to do is allow it to compete in the marketplace of ideas. Neo-nazi's do not want to participate in a competition for hearts and minds. They want to incite hatred and violence towards minorities. They don't want to set up a stall in some metaphorical marketplace. They want to burn the marketplace down.

You don't need a physical presence to provide all kinds of goods and services in a country. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be subject to that country's laws when doing so.

Germany has every right to ban neo-nazi speech. If neo-nazi's (or anyone else) doesn't like it, they can leave. I am sure Germany is more than fine with these people leaving.

Sorry, not buying the slippery slope argument. Punishing internet bullies is no more likely to lead to totalitarianism than enforcing speed limits.

What far more people need to understand is that the American (or Australian) government is a democracy. You can point to several ways in which it is not functioning optimally, but they all boil down to the same problem -- a willfully ignorant and/or apathetic electorate. All the gripes about corporate influence, religious agendas etc., while valid criticisms of the status quo, reflect the same basic dichotomy -- either people don't bother to assess their own interests and vote accordingly, or they are and you (or I) belong to a political minority.

In a democracy, if you dislike or fear your government, you dislike and fear your fellow citizen. If you dislike or fear the very concept of government, you dislike or fear the very concept of human civilization. That's fine, but waving your arms and trying to convince those same citizens that they should fear themselves as much as you fear them, is a tough row to hoe.

That depends very much on what systems of control and accountability are in place, in either instance.

E.g., I know that either an anonymous stranger or government agents can invade my home or remove my access to my own property. That said, I also know which is more likely to happen. I also know my chances of having such a wrong (if it is indeed a wrong) being redressed in either instance.

Bonus, I know which is going to help me right any wrong committed by the other.

I notice you specify "ill-intentioned individuals" and "governments". Perhaps you think all governments are "ill intentioned"? (Honest question). Personally, I don't.

Drake's equation involves terms like "civilization" and "intelligent". "Some form of pond scum" is a whole 'nuther ball of wax.

IMO, the notion that more exoplanets means more certainty that intelligent life exists somewhere is specious. The total lack of evidence found amidst this abundance of opportunity suggests to me that the evolution of life of any kind is, in fact, exceedingly rare (perhaps a single event).

This is what MozeeToby's equation seems to be getting at.

Farmers probably know the difference between how vegetables convert nutrients into energy and growth and how animals convert nutrients into energy and growth, and why that makes a huge difference to this issue.

What kind of shit? How is that shit metabolized? The devil remains in the details.

But they don't ingest it, which makes a huge difference.

You aren't going to slice open a tomato and find actual manure in it. Pathogens found in manure, and in the guts and bloodstreams of animals fed manure, are less likely to survive the process of their original host being synthesized in to vegetable matter.

Comparing manure used to fertilize plants and manure fed to animals is specious.

I don't think that this behavior in dogs in necessarily symptomatic of anything other than their natural garbage-gut nature. Dogs will try to eat almost anything, and if it tastes good to them they will continue to eat it unless it makes them ill enough, fast enough that they can connect the dots and learn that it should be avoided.

As a liberal, I think that is overstating it a bit. However, I will concede that he has gotten a pass on a lot of broken promises and has underperformed in many ways (even considering the massive, mostly spite-based push-back he has recieved from Republicans).

That said, the media has been up to its ears in far more entertaining conspiracy theories promoted by Republicans.

What attracts more eyeballs? Obama being blocked by Republicans from doing things, often things that Republicans wanted done before he was elected? Or supposedly serious people frothing about the absense of his mega-long-form-ultra-100%-no-foolin'-this-time birth certificate?