I'm not equating all religions as equally bad. I think that most religions are a tool to exert power. That power can be used for good or for bad. The decision is up to the people who wield that power.
At the moment western societies are doing well also thanks to the comparatively little power that religion has over the people living in those countries. Power that unfortunately has historically mostly been used to oppress and control rather than to support people.
In the middle east, religion still plays a large role, and many people look towards a bleak, uncertain future. That makes it easy for madmen and hate preachers to abuse religion for manipulating people to further their own goals.

The teachings of Christ may be about Love. That didn't stop the Spanish Inquisition from exiling, torturing and burning heretics and unbelievers at the stake, all with the blessings of the catholic monarchs and the pope. The teachings of love didn't help Galileo and other scientists and deviants in the course of christian history.
It is only thanks to the Age of Enlightenment and the departure and emancipation from religious doctrines that western societies have earned the freedoms they enjoy today. It is certainly not thanks to any teachings of Jesus.

That's why, again, it's not so much about what is written in the books. It's about the people and how they choose to interpret them to further their own goals.

Remember that in the middle, and late middle ages, the Islamic world was the advanced, progressive, cultured and tolerant civilization, far ahead of western Europe. Christian Europe was a place of endless war and bickering and of religious zealots.

Especially in Al-Andalus, under moorish rule, muslims, christians and jews lived peacefully together in what was perhaps the most advanced, safe and free place to live in the world, at the time.

It's not really about Islam or Christianity. Both holy books contain a lot of questionable, self-justifying violence. It's about the human beings who interpret and lay out the words. This, in my opinion, is one of the greatest problems with the abrahamic religions. The holy books contain so many contradictions and inconsistencies, you can justify just about anything by picking out the relevant parts that serve your cause.

Because it has a catchier name.

I mean, "JPEG 2000"? Seriously? That is -so- 20th century.

Could you please enlighten me as to how the radioactive nuclear waste created by nuclear power is "sustainable"?

Or how the risks of a nuclear meltdown due to unforseen disasters or intentional sabotage are even worth it?

Yeah. Especially in the U.S. "foreign aid" == military subsidies

I've observed this myself. Quite baffling that those who would profit most from social reforms mostly advocated by the left are very often politically oriented towards the right.

And then you have the super rich, who are strongly favored by right-leaning policies, asking the government to tax them more...

Crazy world.

They are too busy playing GTA on the XBOX.

Everybody is joking, but this news update on fusion energy coming from an established, well known corporation is pretty serious. Isn't this the first time a respected company is claiming a breakthrough, a working prototype of fusion energy?
Do you realize what implications this has, if it is really fusion energy as they claim? It's a world changer.
I got goose bumps just from reading "Lokheed, breakthrough, fusion energy"....

So it seems we have the following actors:
Shell: Lawful Evil, Lord of the Dark Resource
Greenpeace: Chaotic Good, Sea Ranger
LEGO: Lawful Neutral, Merchant

And what you're saying is:
Good > Evil
But!
Lawful > Chaotic

So it follows that:

2x Lawful - 1x Evil > 1x Good - 1x Chaotic
= 2x Lawful - 1x Good > 1x Evil - 1x Chaotic

Meaning
Lawful > (Good + Evil - Chaotic) / 2
Good Good - Chaotic - 2x Lawful

So for your assumption to be true, assuming a neutral moral stance of Good == Evil, it would have to be that:

Law = Moral - Chaos / 2
Moral = Law + Chaos * 2
Chaos = 2x (Law + Moral)

Which doesn't make any sense at all, so I strongly believe you have no freaking idea what the hell you are talking about.

Wrong. The original intention of the Nobel Prize was to spur human progress through innovation and development. That's one of the main reasons why it is not awarded posthumously - it's too late to motivate someone who is already dead.

The Nobel Peace prize for Obama was in this spirit. It should not be understood as a reward for anything he did, but as a motivational calling to deliver. And a moral message to the President, a reminder of the impact his decisions can have on the whole world.

Nobel prizes are only awarded to living people. Your argument is invalid.

I think what people mean is that daytrading has much in common with gambling. And there are a lot of gamblers. One of them is bound to win the lottery at some point, thanks to pure chance and luck. The difference is, if you win at the stock market, people think you are smart, and write articles about you.

I tend to see it both ways. If you are smart and know what you're doing, you can give your luck some nudges in the right direction, but you will still need to be lucky to succeed.

I have been a Warcraft fan from day one, when my small, young and eager hands got hold of a copy of Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. Back then I didn't have so many games to choose from, so I guess I played it at least three times (Demon/Water Elemental spam 4 teh win!). Warcraft 2 I played at least two times, and Warcraft 3 three times again.

Yet I never touched World of Warcraft, at all. I was intrigued at first, but when I started hearing about how the MMO mechanics work, my interest faded fast. I much prefer enjoying a tailored single player experience to the streamlined multiplayer questgrinding typical of MMOs. Also I like to play games in my own sweet time and not have to make appointments or reserve a regular time slot for that. This creates a pressure to play, which completely sucks out the fun for me.
Also, I don't like how MMO's "feel". Recently I tried the Elder Scrolls Online Beta, and movement and combat in it is so "floaty", it makes everything feel fake. You can walk through NPC's and most of the items and objects in the world are static, as if glued in place. In single player Skyrim dishing out and receiving blows actually feels physical, NPC's get in your way, items can be moved around... the game experience is just vastly superior.

The only MMO I spent some considerable time with was The Old Republic, because I heard that you can essentially play it as a single player game and that it has a very good plot. Both of these are true, but the technical shortcomings of being an MMO persist. I also don't like the monthly subscription model. I wish companies would charge me for the amount of time I actually play. Sometimes I can only play a game for a couple of days a month, because I'm on business trips or have other assignments. Then the subscription I just bought is almost wasted, discouraging me from buying the next.

I guess MMO's are not ready for me yet

It may be Chinese law, but at the same time, isn't it protectionism? Some Chinese search engines out there will certainly be profiting from the Google ban, where as Google is being blocked from doing business in China.

Why isn't there a lawsuit against this practice? No complaint in the WTO (where China is member)? In the age of information technology, censorship and free market don't really work with each other.