Modern large digital TVs make for great monitors, throw in pc + a good wireless keyboard and a gaming mouse and you've got a gaming system that also good for browsing the web, watching youtube etc etc, beats the socks off of any console. Throw in some good speakers and you've got the ultimately configurable sound system that's better than any hifi.

re: the memory, if you start using lots of other apps does firefox reduce it's usage and does it affect your computers performance?

I read the article you linked carefully and it said using recycled paper is less toxic. The main thrust of the article was not that recycling is bad, but that it is more important to reduce consumption and re-use where possible, recycling is still better than not recycling.

http://thegogreenblog.com/is-recycling-good-for-the-environment/

There seems to be a lot of religious intolerance on Slashdot, I'm not religious myself but respect the right of other to believe what they wish as long as it causes no harm (admittedly debatable).

I have a good doctor, intelligent and always concentrating about what I put into my body and how I treat it before suggesting any drugs (he has never suggested drugs yet!), I don't know if he is Muslim but I would definitely stick with him regardless as he is the best out of the half a dozen doctors I've had.

If these Muslims can pass the exams and understand the necessary sciences and practice good doctorship (!'good medicine' - a chemical for every ail?), then fair enough that they don't wish to see the lecture of a self-proclaimed 'militant atheist' who said "let's all stop being so damned respectful" [of religion] and that is in context.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html

This:
"Evolution is not scientific fact... that is a fact. Stop treating it as such."

does not agree with this:
"I believe that being religious has no practical impact on my interpretation of the world.." - it most certainly does.

That's an absurd figure approx 20+ times too high. Have a look at your electricity bill. The figure doesn't need to be estimated, the energy Co's & gov't will know exact figures.

see:
http://www.carbonindependent.org/sources_home_energy.htm

source:
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43304.pdf

Also see:
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/01-02/RE_info/hec.htm

The above show the average house using approx 14KWh per day (UK), by switching to more energy efficient products, this could be closer to 10kWh per day. So by your figure of 5KWh/day per person we could be running Britain from solar power completely.... WOW!!!!!

Can't register, doesn't apply to myself but I find it shocking that in (some?) American states people convicted of crimes can't vote.

If you believe this is right then you must by extension believe that everybody was convicted fairly and every law they were convicted by was morally right (copyright?). ..Anyone else not allowed to vote? immigrants?

Did I say that? I said look at my previous posts on this because I can't be arsed to repeat myself and there are many links and sources and I've already posted > dozen times with substantial arguments.

Wow, look at your sources, the anti-wind organisation and a nuclear worker, not biased at!!!!!!!!!!

I have savings, I'd happily invest in wind power, I already invest my money in an ecological fund and it's beaten the market.

Read my other posts, storage is not a problem it's an oversight, there are many energy storage solutions, they just need investment and implementation.

Any new technology costs more to begin with, the costs are dropping and in a decade or two and the right investment, renewables will be as cheap as coal.

The costs of nuclear in the UK are heavily subsidised, perhaps more than wind.

You quoted a blog which has figures pulled from some guys arse, seriously he excludes many potential deaths including mining deaths for nuclear, I'll bet yellow-cake isn't mined safely everywhere.

Wind power does not cause more deaths than nuclear and if you include the psychological harm done to the victims of cancer and those victims families it is far far worse.

See:
http://www.inquisitr.com/18588/wind-power-causes-more-deaths-than-nuclear-power/

and

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/hazmat/articles/chernobyl1.html

And read my other posts, it's not just about money and it's not just about numbers of people dying. It's about not having millions of people have to worry about the nasty shit that is nuclear power and the waste from it. Humans have shown time and time again they can't handle this stuff responsibly, Italian crooks were recently found to have been dumping nuclear waste illegally since the 1980s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste_dumping_by_the_'Ndrangheta

Whilst we may not be able to replace all non-renewables within 20 years, we can certainly phase out some of the nuclear power during that time and don't need any more, renewables can take up the slack and more.

Renewables are approaching price parity with other energy supply methods, many of the figures thrown around are out of date.

I guarantee you it meant something to those millions of people (including myself and my family) who had the nuclear crap falling on there heads and having to avoid foods because some country > thousand miles away fucked up.