Or maybe because humans are inventive animals. Things that do not work to our satisfaction we want to improve. That is why we have the phenomenon of progress.

This does not apply to everyone though, and if you are content to use what exists then you are perfectly within your rights to do so. I suspect/hope that would be a minority position on a site like slashdot which espouses tools, inventiveness and technology (although its promotion of simple consumption has increased greatly over the last few years, probably reflecting societal trends).

Maybe so, but why buy it, when 30 year-old NAD gear sounds fantastic and can be bought for pocket change?

Who said anything about "smarter"? There is not an established concrete relationship between brain size and intelligence in humans.

In fact, FTFA:
"The Oxford University team said bigger brains did not make people smarter."

...which is why the pro-nuclear lobby has been transparent in calling for upgrades to these reactors for years, citing the improved safety record of newer models.

Oh, wait...

I'm not going to descend into anti-nuclear hysteria, but

"Even chernobyl only killed around 50 people."
That is very naive/simplistic. What were the long-term effects of exposing 100M (or whatever it was) people to increased radiation dose?
According to Wikipedia:
"A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)

With regards to your final question: "given that the given arguments against nuclear power are bogus. The dang...."
There are so many "givens" there, that your question basically says:
"given that nuclear is the safest and best power source, why would anyone oppose it?"

Why can we not have a balanced discussion about nuclear power and concede that it has its disadvantages?

Google talk uses XMPP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Messaging_and_Presence_Protocol
Google video chat uses Jingle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)
Both are open, AFAIK.

"Who deserves more credit?"
Why does everything have to be a competition? Can't we accept that both groups have done a great job?

Many of the data published by Wikileaks have since also been published by various newspapers and other news organisations. I don't see anyone calling for _their_ heads! Double-standards?

Exactly. How long until Apple bans $MAGAZINE for $UNACCEPTABLE_POLITICAL_LEANING?

I'm not a Republican, but I don't think Palin is as stupid as she's portrayed. I think it's part of a shrewd campaign to make Democrats and their supporters look snobbish and elitist when they come out laughing at the stupid things she says. Palin is trying to make herself look ordinary and human so that people will identify with her (actually, I think GWB did the same thing, do an extent). Seems to be working for her...

You're joking right? Are you really saying that climate scientists are "greenie scam artists"? If not, then please elaborate - who exactly are these "greenie scam artists" to whom you refer?

"We need to lose about 3 billion people" -- is that really your suggestion? How do you suggest we "humanely" achieve this over the kind of time-scales necessary (say, 20 years)?

I totally agree with you. Renewable energy sources are great, but they can't compete with better efficiency (which is essentially energy for free) and simple consumption reduction. If we used energy more wisely, we could probably reduce consumption by 40% without many (if any) significant lifestyle changes.

I think you are wrong. I believe there is no god. But that is merely on the basis of lack of evidence for a god's existence, and I concede that I could be wrong. I also believe that even if a god did exist, it still would be unlikely to resemble the Judeo-Christian god. This makes me an atheist.

I could be convinced in the existence of a god if there was evidence.

I agree that some of Jesus' teachings are excellent. The problem is that churches are a human institution and are hence vulnerable to corruption - which is exactly what has happened over the centuries. Unfortunately, people are quick to form tribes, and difference religions are an excellent way to facilitate this. Partly, I think this is because many people have only a vague understanding of the religion in which they profess to believe. Churches also exploit their status as 'good' and 'holy'. While lots of religious charities do good work, there are also lots of secular charities that do equally good work. I agree that it is possible to have terrorists and atrocities without religion, but I think you get more of them with religion. Let's look at the worst conflicts in the last 30 years: Northern Ireland (catholics vs protestants), Iraq (christians vs shia muslims vs sunni muslims), Afghanistan (christians vs muslims), Somalia (muslims vs everyone else). In fact, I challenge you to name a significant terrorist attack in the last 30 years that has not involved some form of religious conflict!. I guess the Korean war (though it's older) is an example of a war that was driven by secular ideology, but I still think that religious conflict is the most common. conventionality is to convention as morality is to moral. Also, wrt your sig. Wanting to believe you're special doesn't make you special - the universe doesn't work that way. If you're just matter, but believe you're god's creation, it doesn't matter - you still don't matter!

the reason is that some religious people are trying to undermine logic and science in the vain hope that this will bolster both their arguments and their followers. For simplicity, let's say there are two positions here. One relies on evidence and experiment to draw conclusions about the world. The other, in the absence of evidence, relies on faith to believe in an invisible being while simultaneously trying to undermine the ideas of reason, logic and experimentation _in_general_. Who deserves our support? While I agree that religion doesn't make people evil, I do think that the conviction that one has the support of a deity, that one's friends are _good_ and one's enemies _evil_ is a very good way to get people to do terrible things. This is (in my opinion, incontrovertibly) one of the consequences of religious belief in some people, and the reason why I think the world would be better off without religion. In summary, religion encourages one more "them and us" style of thinking. One of my favourite quotes is by Charlotte Bronte: "conventionality is not morality".