On the other hand, all this "security" does force bad people to work a little harder to bypass it. And that extra work means more chances to foil plots before they hatch. Someone mentioned the possibility of combining many small containers of liquid explosive into a larger bomb. Which would probably work if they all made it through. But it would require several conspirators instead of a single one, leading to several more ways for the plan to fall apart, hopefully before it even got to the airport.

The question is not whether it's worse than standing next to a bunch of bananas. The question is whether it's worse than an alternative source of energy. Assuming the demand for power stays constant (and it's certainly not going down), shutting down a nuclear power plant requires additional power to be generated elsewhere.

Clearly, a nuclear power plant is less safe than an open field. But is it worse than a coal plant, or a natural gas plant, or the equivalent solar or windmill farm? And by what metrics are we measuring 'safety'? How do you compare the (fairly unlikely) danger of a radiation leak at a nuclear plant to the effects of toxic rain, deforestation, and other byproducts of coal?

I'm want to believe you, Mr Random Person on the Internet, because what you say strengthens my own position, but in the interest of lording my superiority over those other myth-believing heathens, can you direct me to some documentation that supports this claim?

Exactly. Right now, it'd be really hard to send 'humanity' out to colonize the galaxy. However, if we simply want to preserve 'life' (or 'life as we know it'), it should be technologically feasible to load up a bunch of probes with really simple micro-organisms and send them out to seed nearby solar systems. Perhaps not today, but in the near future.

A "highway" doesn't necessarily imply a limited access interstate-style multi-lane road. The article lists the road as "US Highway 18" which is probably a 2 or 4 lane road with no bicycle restrictions.

That actually sounds pretty nifty. I haven't been inside my semi-local B&N in quite a while, but I might check it out next time I'm in the area.

No, but you're missing the point. If you're quoting Shakespeare, you would do the following

"To be or not to be..." --Hamlet, Hamlet by William Shakespeare

and not

"To be or not to be..." --Hamlet, Prince of Denmark

The first identifies it as a line said by a fictional character, and includes the actual author. The second places the fictional character of Hamlet in a non-fictional context.

For the people that obviously didn't read the article, here's some additional context:

---
Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are among the 12 states in which all parties must consent for a recording to be legal unless, as with TV news crews, it is obvious to all that recording is underway. Since the police do not consent, the camera-wielder can be arrested. Most all-party-consent states also include an exception for recording in public places where "no expectation of privacy exists" (Illinois does not) but in practice this exception is not being recognized.
---

As much as the OP would like you to think so, these states don't have a law saying it's illegal to video the police. In fact, reading that last sentence would probably lead a reasonable person to conclude that in 11 or those 12 states, recording the police in public would be legal.

Bullshit.

Offer it in 1080p DRM free for $10 and people will pirate it because it's not $5. Offer it for $5 and people will complain that it's not $1. Offer it for $1 and you might as well just upload it to bittorrent sites yourself because you're not going to be able to recoup the cost of servers and bandwidth.

People who pirate movies want free stuff. As long as a free version is available, that's what they're going to take.

If a reputable scientist came out with a strongly researched paper saying that "hey, maybe this global warming thing won't be quite so bad", you know what I'd say?

"Stonking great!"

Contrary to what a lot of the anti-AGW crowd thinks, people in the AGW crowd aren't actually pleased by climate change. We don't want climate-inspired regulations because we have some weird regulation fetish. We want changes because we're actually worried that bad things are going to happen in our lifetimes if we don't change our behavior. We're not going to be sad if the bad things don't happen.