Every day is some man hate article in the local rag, and there's never any counter argument exposing the holes in the logic (ie women on average earn less, because women on average choose lower paying careers AND take more time off, not because they are paid less for identical jobs).

Before bitching about someone not "pointing out the holes in the logic" - you need to to be able to discern those holes. Given your circular logic based on a groundless assumption, you lack the qualifications to do so.

Obviously, you can say that the amount of interest by the two sexes is not the same, but apparently there was more interest by girls back in the 1980s. Why is it different now? That seems to be the question that no one is asking.

If you read the highly moderated posts by the sexist morons that seem to make up the majority of Slashdot posters and moderators - the problem isn't that they're not asking or interested in asking that question. It's that even when confronted with the evidence, they're denying that its a valid question in the first place - the sociological equivalent of dividing by zero.

Yet the same crowd shouts for blood whenever a climate change denier or young earth creationist pops up.

Completely agree [with the grandparent] in the case of books. A new review is absolutely worth more, especially e.g. haiku translations or biographies. What was once a classic is now sliding into deserved obscurity as we now know the translator was wrong in his assumptions. Or new information has come to light on the subject.

Doubly so since non-Amazon reviews tend to review a book on publication and except in egregious cases forget it's existence thereafter.

In the case of books of the type you cite, I suspect the same is true - new reviews confirm their continuing status as a classic and valuable to the new reader or researcher as opposed to being a classic only in golden memory.

I think most reasonable people would say that the citizens of the country that kills them the most often are the most heavily oppressed.

Only by comparison. In reality, the oppression is hardly noticeable to the vast majority of the populace. In reality, the "oppression" is largely the creation of hype and tinfoil hat nuttery.

Not saying we couldn't do better, we certainly can. But the general population of the US can in no reasonable way be described as being oppressed. (I specify general population and the majority because if you're a minority in the US, the situation is quite different indeed - they can be reasonably described as being oppressed.)

"in recent years we've also seen a return to the racers of old with checkpoints, a ticking countdown, little in the way of AI and banging chiptune soundtracks."

As much as people bitch about Hollywood and it's endless sequels, remakes, reboots, and re-imagings... the reality is, that's what sells.

First they have to have enough bodies - which is actually a more complicated problem than you might think. First you have to have the manpower, which is both a recruiting problem and an allocation problem (Congress only authorizes the services to have so many personnel). You've also increased the load on your training and support facilities, the latter includes everything from barracks to the gym to the clerks over in Personnel (if the base is big enough, it may be able to absorb this load without undue stress though). Etc... etc...

I'm not saying it's impossible (after all, the SSBN force and prairie dogs have been doing it for fifty plus years) mind you, just that it's not a "just add water" solution.

Next, they need to hire GAMERS who are used to strapping on a war face for 10 hours at a time every day.

They think they are. They aren't.

was a clue zooming far above your head.

And alcohol!

The agricultural megacorporation lobby is very powerful in the US. Very powerful indeed. They are not easily crossed.

There, fixed that for you... your original looked very odd to those of us old enough remember when the agricultural lobby was the farm lobby.

Nearby communities are not far behind in bringing broadband to their residents; they see high-speed Internet as an economic boon akin to rural electrification in the 1930s, one that could bring higher home values, better business climates, and easier access to the modern economy.

I've been saying that for a while. First was electrification, then telephonication, now internetification. High speed internet has become a basic service and necessary baseline for habitability.

Bullshit. What the quoted paragraph says, and what you claim to have said are two very different things. Rural electrification didn't make rural areas habitable (your claim) - it completely changed the face of rural living by dragging them out of essentially medieval conditions and into the modern era. (Refrigerators, lighting, etc... etc... and this included towns (and thus commerce) as well as individual residences.) That being said, I don't completely buy they hype of the quoted paragraph - because, if nothing else, America was still a largely rural country in the 1930's and it's almost entirely urban today.
 

As the rest of my generation retires in large numbers (in 20 years or so), those areas are going to continue to get passed over if they haven't got decent communications infrastructure in place.

This might come as a surprise to you - but most people don't actually want to retire to an isolated cabin in the butt end of nowhere.

Nevertheless, a bunch of fearful and uninformed people vigorously protested Cassini and it's RTG.

For Christ's sake, Cassini was fifteen years ago - and in that time we've launched Curiosity and New Horizons with essentially nary a peep. Even at the time of it's launch, protests and lawsuits against Cassini were marked by how few there were as compared to years past. (Though they loom large in the view of the ill informed because of the amount of attention it got on the 'net at the time.)

The fearful and uninformed here are those who keep citing an event fifteen years ago as some kind of 'proof' of opposition to spaceborne nuclear power - while completely ignoring facts that fail to support their hypothesis.

In other words, it's perfect for the attention span and depth of engagement of the 'net generation' Falkvinge wishes to reach out to. If it can't be summed up in an image meme/slogan - they aren't interested.

Moving water to where people live is a simple engineering problem. Why not solve it instead of being a victim of the weather?

Because there isn't any water to move - California long ago outstripped it's natural supplies and has also already taken all the water they can from adjacent areas.

Based on my experience, it's certainly worth considering.

Well... not knowing where you live, or pretty much any other salient facts (such as the costs of the battery package and the measures you've taken to reduce consumption such that you "have no other utility costs")... your anecdata is pretty much useless. Nice cheerleading, but useless.