It also doesn't mean that the structures they're setting up with withstand the pressures the real world will introduce into their nice, neat closed systems.

Essentially what you're talking about here is communism, but instead of just offering us the same old pig, you've put lipstick on it.

The two largest communist regimes on the planet?

Both born in revolution. Both of which cost millions of lives as things were reordered to align with a founder's world view.

Both eroded from within by social dynamics that communism simply isn't capable of addressing, and without by pressures of various and sundry neighbors who don't subscribe to their political rhetoric, yet ultimately live a visibly better existence.

Now neither is a communist regime anymore.

The Russians are trying to reinvent themselves as a western-style capitalist system.

The Chinese are essentially a despotic oligarchy of the same sort that the Soviets devolved into, and more, they've even made inroads into cursory capitalism. But, as their society stratifies, it is going to introduce greater and greater social pressure until their government collapses in the way the Soviets did. But, with a population that may exceed 2 billion at that time, the "interim" between the collapse and the emergence of a new government structure will probably be completely horrendous for them (an possibly dangerous to their neighbors).

Sorry, you jacking the known term "anarchy" around until it means something besides the destruction of government and a period of general lawlessness is like trying to classify rape as "free love".

Being against a form of government and wanting to replace it with another form of government is NOT anarchy or anarchism.

Usually what people start talking about when they do this is is Kropotkin. What they neglect to talk about is that Kropotkin was an anarcho-communist. Emphasis on "communist".

That's really what's being agitated for here. Not "anarchism". Communism under a different moniker.

I think it's already been shown that communism only works in the realm of social insects. The minute you introduce any smidgeon of enlightened self interest, the whole "share everything" ethos that makes communism seem so attractive goes right out the window.

I've had this same line of rhetoric spewed at me endlessly. I've actually READ Kropotkin. So please don't try to feed me another line of bullshit.

Actually, that's easy - to prove evolution false, all we have to do is find a modern creature preserved in a pit that dates back to long before they should have existed. That has never happened. The further back we go, the more distant the ancestors we find. The fact that we can witness evolution happening in real time with bacteria cultures also proves it exists, for it to prove otherwise then the bacteria would have to not change at all. We even have ideas and theories as to why this happens - genetic mutations that happen all the time.

Since this was directed specifically at me, I feel compelled to respond, so I will.

I disagree about science not answering "the question" - I presume the question you're referring to is that of "Why are we here?" or "Where did we all come from?". What came before the big bang? What caused the big bang? etc.

While it's true that Evolution doesn't disprove an intelligent creator, it's false to assume that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life. Evolution is the origin of species, the diversity of life. Evolution doesn't actually have anything to do with where life came from, rather it deals with the way life changes and diversifies as time goes on. The origin of life is a different field of science called Abiogenesis. This is a really common misconception, but I won't belittle your point by pretending that you're somehow ignorant of all this, I just wanted to make it clear what we're actually discussing.

While science doesn't disprove God, it doesn't aim to. No notable scientist has ever set out to deliberately disprove something but rather prove something. Science is all about coming up with ideas, theories and proving them somehow. We have a theory that there's a particle called the higgs hidden somewhere within the fabric of existence - all the maths points to its existence, but we still haven't proved it - which is why we spent billions building the LHC and smash billions of particles together trying to find it.

Science, by its literal definition, is knowledge. It's not opinion, it's not conjecture, it's raw fact that can be proven again and again. Sure, some things are harder to prove than others and the way we prove them isn't always fantastic, but the beauty of the scientific community is the sheer scepticism within it. If a scientist claims to have found something brilliant, the first thing the rest of the community does is look at their work, pick it apart at the finest detail and then get them to prove it if they can. Sometimes proving it takes decades, some things accepted still haven't been out and out proven by the literal observation of the effect in action, but we do the maths and we poke the theory apart until we can find no reason not to believe it. There's evidence there, perhaps not enough evidence, but enough to say "Hey this seems to be on the mark, lets run with it and see what we can find out".

The problem with religious points of view is that it's pretty much impossible to do any of this. People can read the bible and interpret it a million different ways - all of which can be seen as "Right" or "wrong". The very existance of God cannot be proven by any measurable means and its impossible to "disprove" it as much as it is to "prove" it. It's not possible to be sceptical and a believer at the same time. The two are simply incompatible.

Never underestimate the stubbornness of sheer ignorance.

Sorry, that may be what you, as an idealist, think of it.

But destroying "the state" isn't necessarily a desirable thing.

Anarchy is not a form of government, nor is it a self-perpetuating.

It's merely an interim state until a large enough coalition forms to impose their will on others and forms a new state.

Usually the entire process of teardown, chaos, and reformation involves lots and lots of people suffering and dying while people try to "get it right".

So please, take your bullshit rhetoric elsewhere.

OS RAM usage hasn't gone up in a while. From XP to Vista, there was a jump from about 128Min/1Gb recommended to 1GbMin/2Gb Recommended. Windows 7 has the same requirements as Vista (And tends to run better on the same hardware). Windows 8 is slated to have the same requirements again and Microsoft has actually reduced memory usage by the OS. This means that there's a very real chance that OS RAM requirements won't have changed in a decade.

Yes, I'm aware that I neglected to mention other OS's but we're talking about mr average here, who will likely be running a Windows machine. He may be running Mac OS, but he sure as hell isn't running Linux.

Can't argue with program requirements though, those are steadily rising but once again Mr Average doesn't run that many programs side by side. They'll have a web browser, possibly email and/or IM clients and perhaps a media player. They won't be running VM's and will only occasionally be doing any kind of video editing, if at all.

When I said "the cloud", I'm talking about streaming services such as netflix. Why should someone clutter up their hard drive with films when they can just steam what they want?

Well of course, but you're one of the many who could make use of such space - I'm talking about average only-does-email-and-facebook joe kind of person.

Ok, there's never going to be a hard drive big enough to suit everyone's needs - that's a given. But average joe consumer must have a limit of some kind - what is it?
I can't see how an average person will use more than about 1TB of space any time soon and even then that's probably overkill. At one point maybe it would have been to store music and films, but that's going to the cloud rather than local storage. Average joe doesn't rip his blu-rays.
In the same way that RAM has probably hit a peak with consumers who simply don't need more than 3 or 4Gb for what they want to do, I wonder how Hard drives will fare?

Now as for myself, I could definitely fill 60Tb of space with stuff I'd like to keep - sign me up, but with the price of SSD's seemingly halving over the last couple of months, it's only a matter of time before average joe customer starts to realise that for the same price of a 60Tb HDD, they could probably have a 1Tb SSD that's a lot faster.