Are you joking, or are you really this obtuse? Bill Gates, for example, is one of many people concerned about this, and has talked at great length about uncontrolled population growth being bad for everything, not just the environment. It has nothing to do with racism - it has everything to do with you not paying attention to this particular field, and the discussions, studies, and findings which have come from it. That your mind instantly leaps to "racism" and guessing the motives of environmentalists is rather telling of how you see the world, and your place in it. Ouch.

Quick hint: The more developed a country, the lower the birthrate. To stop the population from exploding, the world should help less-developed countries develop. Access to education, healthcare, and security means population growth slows down massively.

Millions do prefer to drive, but (should automated driving become the only application of the road network) that does not stop the building of private roads/courses/race tracks for people who really like sitting in machines making "brrrm! brrrm!" noises while burning money through a tailpipe. Trying to call for an inherently dangerous and wasteful means of transportation because it happens to coincide with some people's notion of fun is ridiculously confused at best, and outright sociopathic at worst.

Wow - so you want to subject everyone to the risks of people driving because ... wait for it ... a straw-man ad hominem?? Brilliant work! You're so enlightened! Why aren't you running the world, what with your incredible insights and wonderful logical abilities?! WE NEED YOU!

People are not exactly "wackos" if they don't want pristine land to be ruined in some half-baked, short-sighted, last-gasp attempt to make the rest of the environment worse at the immediate expense of the land in question. The wildlife is just one part of the argument, which you should know if you feel knowledgeable enough to offer your two cents on this matter...

That's very true, but when a company starts making trash cans with superfluous 3 foot poles sticking out the sides which only fit in their cabinets, something's afoot.

Clearly not every device is bad for customers if what he/she said was true, as devices exist which don't require DRM to run, or will minimise any interoperability issues with DRM'd media.

Then don't go to that site. It's that simple. If you like the content, disable your AdBlocker. It costs them money to serve the content which you clearly appreciate.

People probably also complained in a similar fashion when talkies first appeared, and then when colour was introduced. Each one added more ways of immersing the audience, which is good. Imagine what a good story and this technology would be like. Your cynicism is holding you back.

And when you reached capacity on your mainframe you did what? Magically create a new mainframe in seconds? No, of course you didn't. That's the difference between mainframes and the cloud - "the cloud" gives you all the mainframes you could ever use. You either don't know about what using cloud services can provide, or are being intellectually dishonest. Neither is very becoming.

Those examples which don't exist, you mean. Cool. And if they did exist, you are claiming they're the reason anti-AGW researchers can't prove anything? You do realise you are insane, right?

Believing in the scientific method has nothing to do with being "tech savoy [sic]". It's quite easy for people to mash their fists on their keyboards in rage at the results of the scientific method, if they feel the results are criticising their lifestyles or people they respect, or are making them feel guilty for living their lifestyles. The science is in, regardless of what you want to believe. If you have the slightest respect for the scientific method you'd understand that people who deny climate change are denying the scientific method itself. The number of ill-thought-out posts parroting oft-debunked nonsense from WUWT doesn't challenge the underlying science, or re-shape reality, even if you agree with them whole-heatedly. If, indeed, their exclamations of fraud or trickery or illogical behaviour are in any way true, they can claim their Nobel prize next year, and be absolute heroes. The fact no-one has even come close to doing that for debunking climate change should be some indicator to you, but if you've come this far, it's not too much of a stretch for you to assume the Swedish are in on the conspiracy too, right?

The fact you're trying to reduce climatology and paleoclimatology into simple bite-size arguments kind of indicates people shouldn't listen to you, as you're either woefully ignorant of the topics, or are intentionally oversimplifying things to the point of absurdity. Using unqualified words such as "minor" and "much" really isn't helping your position. If you're trying to do an impression of someone arguing out of their depth, you're doing it really well!

Disney wouldn't be where it was today if the notion of public domain didn't exist - almost their entire early output was based on public domain texts. Using Disney as an argument for stronger copyright is fraught with issues as now they are a dominant player when it comes to stricter copyright, but wouldn't be in that position if lax attitudes towards copyright had not existed in the past.

The main people who would benefit from restricted copyright would be you and me, because unless an artist has the blessing of Disney or over $4bn, they will not stand a chance in hell of being able to publish works based on that universe, and we will never get to enjoy their art. Just imagine how much awesome work has already been missed because some judge told them they can't make it? Why do you prefer the bean-counters to the brush-wielders?

Endless studies show that pirating doesn't hurt the bottom line of movies. If anything, as pirates seem to spend more on media than non-pirates, there is a positive correlation between piracy and the money made by the studios. When it comes to music, artists can attract larger audiences as more people simply have a chance to listen to their work. Artists make the vast, vast majority of their money from live performances and merchandise, whereas nearly all money spent on records goes to the record company, which is almost entirely designed to minimise the amount of money it has to pay to artists, leading to the strange situation where a successful band can owe money to the record company. And that is just scratching the surface of a highly-complicated issue.

If you want to defend the status quo, that's fine, but when you try to condense this argument into a pithy one-liner, all you do is muddy the waters, and ensure no discussion can be had.

Some Muslims did indeed attack such groups, but only after the CIA used similar programs to engage in espionage... Religion wasn't the reason for the attacks, but perceived self-preservation.