My big concern is that in the future someone will abuse the system and use the data gathered to for their own advantage. It is a huge temptation. Think of a future president running for reelection getting the best of his opponent by using this data to his advantage. Or a federal employee using the data to get even with his or her Ex.

The "Do Nothing" Congress did something by asking the ITU meeting to do nothing. I think they found their niche.

Because we and our science is limitted to this universe, do you have any ideas of what to expect if we could somehow see outside our universe? And how time and being outside of time affects things?

NIST statistics show that over half the agencies have made "no progress" in their IPv6 deployment. It is good that the government is doing this, but too many agencies are asleep at the wheel. It does no good when the agencies will not do what they are required to do.

You can legislate education, however. And as people become more educated, they become less religious. Win-win!

That is not true in the USA. The more educated you are the more likely you are to be religious. A recent survey states

According to the study, in the 1970s, 51 percent of college-educated whites attended religious services monthly or more, compared to 50 percent of moderately educated whites and 38 percent of the least educated whites. In the 2000s, 46 percent of college-educated whites attended on at least a monthly basis, compared to 37 percent of moderately educated whites and 23 percent of the least educated. The study defines the "least educated" as people without high school degrees.

So the study says that people with more education are more likely to attend church than those with less education.

The last two months Firefox's browser share has increased according to netmarketshare.com. Now this article uses StatCounter stats and eyeballing the chart it looks like Firefox's share has been mostly flat since January according to StatCounter. The point being is the slide I believe has stopped or at the worse lessened to next to nothing. The article talks blames the slide on communication and execution. The author likely has a point there, but I think things are no longer as dire as he makes them out to be. Another reason for the slide is Google advertising the Chrome Browser. I think that also has hurt Firefox and there is not much they can do about it. I believe the slide has ended or is ending.

This is HP saying you are on your own. It looks like HP has decided to have nothing more to do with WebOS. This is HP cutting its losses, and I think it hurts HP's standing with the WebOS community and with open source in general.

Our basic cell phones track us and that gives others a lot of information about our habits. With a cell phone turned on the company knows where you are, when you get home at night, that you made a late night trip to the drug store, and much more. Then you add the smart phone apps and the personal details that the company knows get even more specific? Are we willing to let companies know the personal details of our life so that we can have a personal digital assistant? Is it worth the cost?

True, Chrome (19.0 points) regains the lead from Firefox (18.5 points). Firefox was the last winner of Tom's Hardware Web Browser Grand Prix, and Firefox has been good with memory for several versions now. The improvement that Tom's Hardware talks about is Chrome now has HTML5 hardware acceleration for Windows (since Chrome 18). That is the news, not Firefox's low memory usage.

I think is could be unethical at times. If the company takes from the community (using city services, etc) and does not put back much of anything, it harms the community. In the short term it looks good on the books, but in the long term, I believe it can harm the company, by harming the community. For an example, the students in town have a substandard education because of a lack of revenue. After several years of substandard education the word gets out and the company has trouble filling positions in that town. Maximizing revenue can be short sighted and unethical. Companies should support the cities, states, and countries where they do business. In the long term, it hurts them if they don't support their communities.

One of the articles end with this paragraph that points out a limiting factor of the study, treating religion as "a literalist folk tradition".

This hints at the key problem, which is (or ought to be) as much a quandary for religion itself as for scientific studies of it. Almost all of the questions in Gervais and Norenzayan's study related to religion as a literalist folk tradition — an aspect of lifestyle. This is how it manifests in most cultures, but that barely touches on religion as articulated by its leading intellectuals: for Christianity, say, philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, Immanuel Kant and George Berkeley. The idea that the beliefs of those individuals would have vanished had they been more analytical is, if nothing else, amusing. Gervais and Norenzayan’s findings should help to combat religion as an indolent obstacle to better explanations of the natural world. But it can’t really engage with the rich tradition of religious thought.

There have been a lot of Christian analytical thinkers who rationally think about their faith. Another survey states

According to the study, in the 1970s, 51 percent of college-educated whites attended religious services monthly or more, compared to 50 percent of moderately educated whites and 38 percent of the least educated whites. In the 2000s, 46 percent of college-educated whites attended on at least a monthly basis, compared to 37 percent of moderately educated whites and 23 percent of the least educated. The study defines the "least educated" as people without high school degrees.

So people with more education are more likely to attend church than those with less education. I don't think one would want to argue that getting more education makes you less rational and analytical.

These publishers get a lot the work done for free. Here is how the process goes as I understand it.
1) Author submits his paper
2) Editor (working for free) checks it over and passes it to several reviewers.
3) The reviewers (working for free) accepts with corrections/clarifications for publication (or rejects it).
4) The author turns in the revised version and PAYS the publisher to publish it.
5) Libraries and people then PAY the publisher for their copies and/or online access.
The publishers do have some overhead cost of overseeing the process, the cost of materials, and the publishing the articles. It does not look to be that expensive with most of the time consuming work being done for free, yet the journals are quite expensive. So where does all the money go?

What you need to tell our representatives is that this would make a modern day Watergate legal. You need to point out how it could affect them.

BlueGriffon is another editor that does HTML5, CSS3, SVG, and MathML. It is also extendable. Not exactly what you are looking for but what you want may not exist. Anyway you might want to check out BlueGriffon too.