Partisan? Ofcourse, it's a politicised issue! Do you cry "partisan!" if i link to Dawkins in a creationism vs. evolution debate? No? Obviously what matters is if the arguments are valid not that some people are "partisan" to the arguments.
Hammer and sickle and the proletariat? please grow up beyond the mind of a cold war victim. ("overthrowing of the proletariat" made me laugh though, next time try "the proletariat overthrowing capitalism" or similar to avoid embarassment)
If you had spent half the time writing this drivel to actually research this issue, you would know that fossil and nuclear have been subsidized through the roof for half a decade now, right from R&D to purchasing guarantees to insurance. Subsidized renewables? On an absolute scale sure (and we should have more of that), on a scale relative to non-renewable energy, renewable subsidies are a joke.

This is a groundbreaking turn from the country already leading the world in renewable energy.
The question is now, what combination of sources will replace the nuclear piece of the energy pie.
Currently nuclear stands at 22% and renewables at 17% in Germany. I reccomend the literature here for anyone who doubts renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, small hydro, biomass) are up to the task of displacing fossil and nuclear. Especially check out Hermann Scheer's "Energy Autonomy".
As a bonus, this will be a chance to dispel illusions regarding the technical viability of thorium, fast breeder reactors, fusion and other nuclear chymeras.

What kind of calculation did you use to get at that 1000 miles of shoreline figure? Why quote 2MW turbines when we have 7.5MW turbines online and 10MW turbines in development? Furthermore, you assume turbines can only be lined up on the coast single file? Seriously?

Opposing solar on "desert habitat" or wind power on "the birds may die" arguments are indeed embarassingly idiotic. And there is indeed such foolishness displayed by some people who see themselves as environmentalists. However, the source of such bs can often be traced back to fossile-nuclear interests that are deliberately trying to derail renewables by ultra-environmentalist arguments like these. Many a naive environmentalist with no perspective simply buys into this stuff.

I recommend you read the book Energy Autonomy by recently deceased German MP and head of EuroSolar Hermann Scheer. It dispelled any doubts I held about the possibility that renewables -solar, wind, hydro and biomass- can deliver the world's energy needs.
It answers frequent misguided critiques of renewables, as well as laying out the dim prospect for any future for fossile and nuclear power.
Most revealingly, it argues that a decentralized renewables future, by coupling production sites with consumption sites, saves enormously on grid and fuel transportation costs. Such an economy would also break electricity network and fossil-nuclear monopolies (enjoying enormous subsidies in many, many forms) in favor of energy independence at the building, municipal and national levels. That is the most important political aspect one needs to grasp in the renewables issue.

Let me point out that the protest was against existing arbitrary censorship as much as it was about the new 4 "filter packages" (child, family, .tr only, standard - you have to pick 1) that are to be introduced in August.
Already there are estimates of 80000 websites censored - estimated because the list is not made public, nor the reason for censoring. Typically, the targetted sites are around : porn (ALL porn, though they like to wave around child porn as an excuse), atheism (dawkins banned), communism, homosexuality (gay dating sites banned), kurdish nationalism, streaming sites (especially if live streams of a large pay tv channel are infringed), gambling-betting (the state sanctioned sport betting service runs full force ofcourse) and many others. One offending blog or clip can get entire domains banned (wordpress, youtube, etc. were at some point banned too).

I think you equate "free market capitalism" with capitalism per se. Historically, the only immutable characteristic of capitalism has been not the free market but the fixation on the endless accumulation of capital.

Otherwise, capitalism has taken many dominant forms in different stages:
1. The competitive free market : 19th century infancy,
2. State Monopoly Capitalism : Around WW1, precisely the outcome of previous competition, ie. some competitors won,
3. State Capitalism (aka actually existing socialism) and Fascism (Post-WW1 and 30's crisis),
4. Regulated-Keynesian-Welfare forms, (post-WW2 to 1970's),
5. Neoliberalism : post-80's

Your definitions and concepts are stuck in stage 1, which is why they function as pure ideology to justify capitalism in any subsequent stages, but especially stage 5, and has no other currency. Copyrights may be "not capitalist" in your ideal sense but in the real historical sense of capitalism, they have been indispensable to capitalism for a century.

I was referring to 3D LCD monitors, not TV's. I'm not sure what the deal is with TV's. You need a dual-link-DVI or the latest HDMI 1.4a port on your graphics card for 120hz output.

Luckily, the LCD's are finally catching up. Look for models that advertise "3D", because these can do 120hz refresh rates in 2D mode. These are TN panels only so far. Samsung, Viewsonic, Acer (and some others) have such screens. I finally bought a Viewsonic 2265wm after holding on to a CRT all these years and I'm satisfied.

Yes, the *real* problems of Nuclear indeed. Which are practically unsolvable and are a curse on future generations. I'm referring ofcourse to the "spent fuel" waste. Before someone yells about them, your "breeder reactors" and such are non-viable chimeras - unless we miraculously achieve world peace and nuclear weapons are a sad memory. Nuclear power in a nutshell: barely competitive in cost, constant low level yet harmful radiation put out into the environment, small risk of catastrophic failure, insolvable waste problem. Why oh why do we not dump all that money into wind and solar (thermal preferably) yesterday, phase out coal and nukes simultaneously, and work from there.. Oh, because then massive investors or governments will not have a monopoly on our energy production. Wind and solar? Nah, too democratic..

Perhaps this is close to what you want:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox_Sync

The immediate problem with this article is that it uses the Sorenson encoder rather than the state-of-the-art x264 encoder for h.264. If x264 was used, the h.264 encodes would demonstrate higher quality and the quality conclusions would most likely be more in favor of h.264. Since x264 is both the best h.264 encoder, and FOSS, it is the ultimate benchmark for any new video codec implementations, and that should be used. The point of VP8 however is that it is now the best free video codec, replacing Theora in that category (which is still being improved and will probably remain relevant in some niche scenarios still). The quality of VP8 is likely not going to surpass h.264, even with open source tinkering, but it will still revolutionize the web through html5 video, it will achieve widespread software support in a matter of a few months, and your devices will pick up support in a year or so (the next generation hardware). VP8 is free, and good enough to be in the ballpark of h.264 even if it is not as good. And that is a huge win.

I agree that if Microsoft is Sauron, Adobe is Saruman. If the FOSS hobbits are going to take down Microsoft, we're gonna have to deal with Adobe first. Whenever someone comes to me with questions about whether they can/should switch to Linux, I ask them if they make heavy use of Adobe stuff and games. If they do, I tell them to hold out. In other news, VLMC (NLE from Videolan) will be released soon, shortly after VLC 1.1 makes it out the door, let's see if they can change the picture a little. Then later this year we're supposed to see GIMP with the new UI...