With Windows now forcing every user to use the exact same UI for every purpose and device, even Apple allows more variety with offering the choice between iOS and OSX. On Linux, KDE alone allows you to choose between the normal Plasma Desktop and Plasma Active (which would be my personal choice for larger touch screen devices, where portability is not the main focus). So if anything, the OS no longer matters because the greatest difference will soon be the (G)UI you choose to go along with it, since most users' needs will be satisfied with a web browser to begin with.

If solar-powered cars remain fiction because their surface area is insufficient to harness the power needed to perform in a way comparable to your current average car, I doubt very much that commercially viable air travel would be possible for the exact same reason. Also, for any moving object, realining the panels needs to be a little quicker than one rotation in twenty-four hours, unless you're perfectly satisfied with about half of them not being exposed to the sun at any given time, depending on the way you're traveling.

Isn't the 'not enough data' argument exactly what's driving people to oppose science with religion and vise-versa?

More importantly, how much data do you need to have a true disagreement? And why would that data not automatically end the disagreement because the data could be assumed to be fact?

I guess since we do not have sufficient data any agnostic is simply wrong. Also, biology cannot be a science. Gregor Mendel is considered the founder of genetics as a 'science' and he was a friar. That must mean anything he contributed to the so called 'science' of biology must be wrong and this whole 'evolution' meme was just a plot by the catholic church to root out heretics.

I might just about agree on psychology not being a science, though. I mean, there's a whole religion devoted to that, right?

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Psychology, Politics, Economics to name a few - and most importantly which school/academy/university/nation should be the highest authority on any given subject.

Even better, let's just lobotomize anyone who disagrees with current academic knowledge, because clearly they are mentally unfit to be part of society. In case two people are disagreeable on a topic where currently there is no scientific consensus simply jail them until one of them can be lobotomized.

"They will become popular when we get away from the word insects and use something like mini-livestock" Carlin saw it coming, I guess: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY