Actually they don't have to explain it. That's why it's called faith.

I'm not a particularly religious sort, more agnostic than anything, and faith doesn't really enter into my daily life. That said, there's plenty of things about the universe we just can't explain, so I would think there's room left for faith if that's what a particular person finds to be fulfilling. It doesn't do much for me, but to each their own, and I certainly don't derive a sense of smug superiority from mocking the religious people among us.

Water and cookie dough are both made up of.... wait for it.... matter.

Ah, the obligatory /. cheap shot at religion, always good for a cheap +5 funny. You failed to complete the cliche though, there should have been a slam aimed at the GOP in there somewhere.

The theory of NN (at least before it was hijacked and made into a political cause celebre) was that network operators shouldn't be treating video traffic from Netflix any differently than video traffic from CBS, meaning that each got equal contention during times of congestion. NN was originally silent on the subject of usage based billing and exclusions therefrom.

The more NN proponents talk the more open I become to the arguments against it. The /. crowd usually makes reasonable arguments for it, but if you go to one of the less technically inclined websites (DSL Reports and Stop The Cap come to mind) you can now find people using NN to argue against everything from paid peering arrangements (a concept that hasn't changed much since the internet first went private) to QoS schemes that prioritize VoIP over bittorrent. I've started to think that NN is one of those ideas that sounds great on paper but will never be implemented fairly in the real world. Too many invested interests on both sides of the table, and the side with the most political clout at any given moment is going to be the side stacking the proverbial deck to the detriment of everybody else.

Maybe we should just remember that the internet became what it is today because it was largely free of burdensome regulations?

Which operators are doing that?

You doubtless used the deactivation feature, not the deletion feature. The former is the default, and Facebook doesn't go out of their way to advertise the existence of the latter, but it's there and you can take advantage of it. I've tried to log into my account with my old password, no dice, and "forgot password" doesn't work either when I provide my e-mail address.

Of course, that isn't to say that they don't still have copies of my data floating around, though their data use policy seems to suggest they really do delete most of it: When you delete your account, it is permanently deleted from Facebook. It typically takes about one month to delete an account, but some information may remain in backup copies and logs for up to 90 days. You should only delete your account if you are sure you never want to reactivate it. You can delete your account at: https://www.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account Certain information is needed to provide you with services, so we only delete this information after you delete your account. Some of the things you do on Facebook aren’t stored in your account, like posting to a group or sending someone a message (where your friend may still have a message you sent, even after you delete your account). That information remains after you delete your account.

I bill those directly to my Verizon Wireless account. :)

I left Facebook a few months ago and specifically requested deletion, not deactivation. There was a 14 day waiting period, during which time I could log back into my account and reset the clock, but supposedly at the end of those 14 days my account was gone for good. From what I can tell they still allow you to do this: "If you don't think you'll use Facebook again, you can request to have your account permanently deleted. Please keep in mind that you won't be able to reactivate your account or retrieve anything you've added."

Frankly leaving social media was the best thing I ever did. It's a bit of a PITA with regards to those friends who seemingly only know how to communicate via FB, but even they eventually came around and started calling, texting, or e-mailing me. Only one of my friends really whined about it, because she doesn't have a cell and can't text, but she eventually got used to e-mailing me.

You do know that Planet Earth has a finite future, right?

I just don't think B5 stands the test of time very well. The resolution to the Shadow War was one of the biggest deus ex machina endings ever, the Minbari were hard to swallow as a serious civilization (it would have been awesome to see humanity eclipse them in a spinoff series rather than continue to play second fiddle to a bunch of religious fanatics), the telepathy nonsense is annoying (as it is in Star Trek, but at least there it's not central to the entire series), and two of the lead characters (Sheridan and Deleen) were Messianic megalomaniacs that needed to brought back down to reality by their respective Governments but somehow managed to elevate themselves over and above their own people.

B5 wasn't the best military themed Sci-Fi series, that honor probably goes to Battlestar Galactica. It wasn't the best at exploring the human condition, that honor goes to Star Trek. It was cool in the beginning from a space geek standpoint when they paid heed to real world physics, but that aspect of the show was largely forgotten by the third season, and some of their tech ideas (like this crazy notion that we're all going to evolve into beings of energy, or that biological ships could be superior to conventional building methods) were as dumb as the particle-of-the-week technobabble laden Star Trek episode.

The best plot line was the Earth Civil War and that got short charged by JMS when he thought the show was going to get axed in Season 4. He was a one hit wonder in any case, just watch Season 5, Crusade, or (god help you) The Lost Tales. I still want my $12.00 back for that stupid two story disk.

No, it was perfectly consistent, did you read my other gripes about her character? Strong she was not. Which Star Trek female had PTSD? Which Star Trek female whined as much as Ivanova?

My issue with Ivanova and Sheridan was what they did after the Civil War, setting themselves up as a higher power, withholding advanced technology from humanity, and so on. Sheridan fancied himself a Messiah and drove me absolutely up the wall towards the end of the series. Ditto for Deleen. Ivanova was PTSD addled victim, Garibaldi and Franklin were both addicts, hell now that I think of it was there a single likeable human character on that show? There were some great alien characters (Mollari and G'Kar) but human ones? I guess JMS is a misanthrope, because I can't recall a recurring human character that I genuinely liked. Marcus maybe, he never had any illusions of godhood from what I recall, or let down people who trusted him with their lives on a regular basis.

So you've chosen to pick the character that turned to mush after her unconsummated lover sacrificed himself for her? Ivanova was cool, but Kira Neryes kicks her ass in the "strong female" department.

Ivanova turns to mush after her lover(s) dies, Kira keeps going. Ivanova has PTSD after watching her Mother get tortured to death by the Psi-Corps, while Kira picks up a phaser and starts fighting after her Father is tortured to death. Ivanova defers to the Minbari dominated Interstellar Alliance at the expense of Earth, Kira defends her people against everybody, including the Federation when necessary.

No comparison between those characters.

First Duty was a good episode, perhaps even a great one, easily in TNG's Top 20. Final Mission was good too. There were also some perfectly watchable Wesley episodes, like The Game, and the evolution of his character in Journey's End hinted at bigger things to come.

In fact, all of the bad Wesley episodes were in the first two seasons, which with few exceptions (Q Who, Measure of a Man) were filled with all sorts of suckitude that usually had nothing to do with Wil Wheaton or Wesley Crusher.

That's true, it takes a lot of backbone to order the torture and rape of a prisoner of war a few weeks after you shoot your XO in cold blood.... err, n/m, wrong series. :)

Useless Trek Trivia: Michelle Forbes was originally seen taking Nana Visitor's role on Deep Space Nine, in a continuation of the Ro character. She declined, because she didn't want the commitment of full time production, but it would have been interesting to see how different DS9 would have turned out if she had accepted the role. There's a throwaway line by O'Brien in the DS9 pilot, where he asks Sisko "Have you ever served with any Bajoran women?", hinting at Kira's (and Ro's) aggressive personality.

More Star Trek musing: Jean-Luc Picard was the best captain, and Patrick Stewart probably the best Actor out of all the Star Trek series, and TNG will always hold a special place in my heart. That said, DS9 had the richest set of characters, both regular and supporting. DS9 had more relatable characters (O'Brien), more ruthless ones (Garek), more tortured souls (Odo, Kira), all alongside the usual happy-go-lucky Federation types.

He was on the list because of someone with a similar name, not because DHS wanted to oppress him. Remember the old adage, "Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence."