I don't think this is at all special. There have been tons of space-matter-abiogenesis experiments that have been done, with similar results. For example, it's been shown that Titan's atmosphere can produce at least 16 amino acids and all five nucleotide bases, and we've already detected organic molecules over 10000 daltons there.

Nature likes to produce rather complex mixtures of organic chemicals without any help from life, nobody should doubt this any more, there's been way too much evidence that it happens. Nature is more than happy to continously rain down vast amounts of varied, complex organics given the right situation, providing both potential organic catalysts to develop into early life and "food" that they can scavenge. The question that needs to be answered next is, from a random diverse mix of organics, how does a hypercycle get started, wherein some chemicals / mixtures of chemicals / families of chemicals begin to encourage the creation of more chemicals "like" them, increasing the odds that there will be more produced of whatever is needed to keep the cycle going. Once you get to that point, you have the potential for evolution to take hold - first by a simple race to produce the most exact copies of the most efficiently-catalyzing chemicals and the poisoning of competing chemicals, up to the development of membranes to provide defense/hoarde resources/survive adverse situations/etc (the first "ur-cells").

Why does it matter? Alcohol and nicotin are both still way more harmful than weed, but we don't ban them outright.

I pick up spam calls only when I'm overseas.

"Nej, det är lite för dyrt till mig just nu... Så jag önskar dig Gott Kineskiskt Nytt År från Guangzhou och en jättebra kväll! Tack för att du spelar!"

That's a part of "space-like conditions".

That part is to guarantee success and have a thorough measurement of the process. For the natural process, it is reasonable to assume that it took many hundreds of millions of years before some place (and maybe more than one, over those years) happened to have all those conditions in it at the same time. The point here is that all the things that they've done and all the input materials are the kind that occur naturally. From there it's all statistics.

God may have created life (directly or indirectly) all over the universe.

True, we know that there is nowhere in the universe that His noodly appendages doesn't grace.

Counter to your psychology, perhaps. Some of us don't own cars, and should we want to take a 100 mile jaunt into the mountains, we'd use public transport. I use taxis occasionally, and I never get upset that I don't have a flat-rate taxi pass, or that I don't own the taxi. I do, however, enjoy not having to pay to buy, maintain, tax & insure a car. That's pretty awesome. You are not everyone else, and everyone else is not you. Which is a good thing, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Not full. And it happens in the morning. And eclipses can be predicted. I think Germans should just turn off their TVs and computers and whatever and just go watch the astronomical wonder.

Synthetic gas? Not to mention that night has traditionally been the less-demanding period.

The recent trend where Microsoft is lowering the prices of their most-used products, and offers well-priced subscriptions for some, and outright ownership for others? Wow.

They're not defacing the banknotes, they're rehairing them.

It doesn't seem like it. We have cars which can start, drive through cities and down highways, and navigate to a destination and park. They dodge obstacles on the way, and so forth. What part of autonomy is missing?

This argument is getting ever more pointless, but in case you hadn't read it I suggest you read The Selfish Gene. Many species of animal, including our direct ancestors (apes) and what we know of early humans, follow this model. It's well established science, you can read all about it yourself instead of just speculating.

Nah, they most likely just read about how to do it.

The special demands of finding materials that work adequately in enthusiastically radioactive environments don't help. Some are worse than others; but I don't think that there is anything that appreciates prolonged neutron bombardment. Can make for some very expensive repairs inside the reactor assembly.

Right. Having the government cover all of your major liabilities, getting to write off massive debts, pass all of your cost overruns onto local consumers without them having a say in the manner, and so on, that's all "paying their own way", right? In nuclear power, the gains have always been privatized while the costs and risks socialized. And it's *still* been very difficult to find investors. Nuclear has always been more popular on K-Street than Wall Street.

Here's a paper going into the various massive ways nuclear has been subsidies. And they still can't bloody manage to stay afloat. It's one of the few industries with a negative growth curve - where technology gets more expensive with time, not cheaper.