So, if I knowingly incite somebody to commit murder, I'm not to blame, right?

No, that's called Accessory to Murder.

In a sense, you're right, modern Philosophy doesn't have much immediate value; Philosophy has never even had tangible value, immediate or otherwise. The value that Philosophy has, and always has had, is in refining how we perceive--and thus subconsciously process--this strange realm we call reality. It's a subtle effect, but it's definitely there and quite pervasive. Take the study of ethics, for instance: I think we can agree that John Rawls is considerably more "modern" than most of Philosophy, but yet his arguments shed light on swath of ethical structures that had never been before categorized in such a way.

The fact is, philosophy is literally everywhere that there are living, thinking people: Politicians' worldviews dictate policy decisions. Mathematicians' worldviews direct and inspire new mathematical mechanisms. Scientists' worldviews drive paradigm shifts. Joe Nobody's worldview lets him eat pork and beans on a Friday night. There's nowhere you can go without running into it.

Our own cognitive abilities are far more malleable and prone to deception than it seems most people realize. The fruits of studying Philosophy, even if on the side, aren't found by merely understanding the arguments posited by philosophers, but in developing sane and contiguous perceptions of reality.

And I'd argue that the academia of which you speak are shooting themselves--and their students--in the foot. Of all my Physics professors, the best were the ones who clearly had thoroughly thought out their philosophical standpoint. Admittedly, it's not very public or advertized, but when it comes to the professor-pupil relationship, I'm convinced that teachers having gaping holes in their worldview paves the road to their student's failure. This is the case regardless of where they are on the educational totem pole, it just seems easier to spot when studying the hard sciences.

sounds a lot like...

which sounds a lot like...

...and you see where I'm going. It's called "boiling it down", in case you were wondering.

But, seriously, what do you have against Philosophy? I'm willing to bet you weren't very appreciative of History class, either.

And it remains a descendent: Science research eventually relies upon arguments set forth by Mathematics, which relies upon arguments set forth by Philosophy.

Heck, even the fact that you can have a logical argument relies upon the work of Philosophers. The biggest reason why modern Philosophers are not typically proficient Scientists boils down to the fact that they likely occupy their time reading different books, and thus aren't well-versed in the necessary esoterica.

This is exactly how it works. The only difference is, at longer wavelength/lower frequencies, the size/density of objects that are considered opaque is higher (a person is roughly large/dense enough to block RF, a toothbrush is not), while each photon is less easily scattered or refracted.

You could even go so far as to say the perceived color also depends upon the channel within the Wi-Fi spectrum, much like the false-colored images of non-visible astronomical imagery (e.g.: Cosmic Microwave Background radiation).

I'm a physicist and software engineer, and although I agree that the idea is fantastic, I'm skeptical of the execution. Photovoltaics, as I understand, are economically less viable than concentrated solar power (even Concentrated Photovoltaics, which are more efficient than your run-of-the-mill solar panel, aren't quite there yet), particularly in the form of Solar Power Towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower). I'm not sure what the obsession is with solar panels: they're not only resource-intensive, but they're still quite inefficient (commercial units now have ~20% efficiency, only recently has research broken the 30% limit). They require materials that are more difficult to obtain (rare earths) than what's require to build Solar power towers (steel, lots of steel, and water).

Please, somebody tell me what the obsession with photovoltaic solar power is...

So, I'm just going to go with the assumption you mean to search torrent trackers for scans of print textbooks: this in no way adheres to the qualification "without a textbook". If you've ever tried to actually use a DjVu or PDF textbook in any reasonably advanced field (senior year Physics classes are painful, proper textbook regardless), you quickly realize that a lot is lost in translation. That, and the chances of bringing your digital textbook in for an open-book exam are nil.

Oh, and never mind the ethical conflict.

Now where's an off-topic mod when you need it?

Just to add to the endless litany of "...zeroes and ones..." comments:

So, we should be able to ask Rogers to read off his medical history to a full audience and not expect him to care, right?

I might as well bite the low-hanging fruit: do you think said publisher would react in the manner as above if their intent was not to antagonize? Do you think they would have not redacted said publication as soon as they realized how it was perceived? You don't have to be a mind-reader to read peoples' reactions. Instead, you apparently claim to be the reactionary mind-reader, considering I stated that I was not prepared to argue any position but the very singular one of ethics that I made, but yet you prattle about things completely unrelated to my argument. Additionally, another post mentioned this, but it bears reiteration: anonymity is powerful. By my observation, those threats don't necessarily originate from gun owners. Unless you're privy to information unbeknownst to the rest of us, I think you might have some soothsayers in your ancestry.

I believe somebody famous once said that the pen is mightier than the sword. Therefore, would it not be salient that anyone who wields a "pen" (in the sense of public visibility) be even wiser than anyone who wields a "sword"? That's all my query asks, nothing more.

Go study some ethics. Or maybe just watch how people act, because that equivalency is very much not false. If we take wisdom and restraint out of the picture, no self-respecting person would ever allow their ego to survive aggression or humiliation without some equal or greater response of force. It's human nature.

Similarly, we could turn this around...

This is not to say I'm prepared to argue either point, but I think people are a bit obsessed with "rights" when we should be thinking about "obligation". Should one aggregate and publish with intent to criminalize law-abiding citizens in the eyes of the public? Is it proper to threaten people with force? Neither of these things are criminal, but they're both aggressive and provoke a response of equal or greater force.

Details appreciated, but the point still stands: the "assault" classification has more to do with image and form than mechanics or function. Exact instances of weaponry is irrelevant; nobody said a rifle with a four-position selector can't exist.

So, chill a bit on splitting those hairs, I hear they're getting thinner these days...