That's too absolute. If it's illegal to threaten someone's life or to incite racial violence, that is clearly an exercise of power. But it is also clearly aimed at preventing harm. The real debate is not "power versus harm", it is how much power society should be allowed to use in the name of preventing harm.

Good grief, when did that happen?
It used to be "real programmers use assembly"!

Yes, very annoy.ing...

Welcome to the world of research! The gap between physical possibilities and economical viability is large, but without sufficient breakthroughs on physical possibilities we will never find one that is economically viable.So, regardless of the chances being slim that we will reap the benefits of all these breakthroughs anytime soon, I am still happy to see such breakthroughs happen.

Not only that, but reading that they used asphalt for this makes me think I'm driving on the biggest darn battery everyday (I know, it's not true... still...;)

To me, that's not really the reason why it's so annoying. People talking on the phone tend to TALK MORE LOUDLY. That's what makes it hard to tune out...

Since your assumption is that you're forgetting things you must assume you'll forget everything, including the fact that you have something to access with a password or the means with which to recover the password. Therefore someone has to come to you with the information without any action from your side, judge that you're enough "yourself" to give you access to your own passwords, and then give the information.
If you do not trust a single person with this information the question becomes:

How can you give multiple people parts of the information such that the chance that they can reconstruct it is minimal?

You have a very good point and I'm sorry for you that you will not be able to join, but I think you misunderstand their goal. Their goal is to actually send a small group of people that can work in harmony and succeed in getting and living there. In that view I think their selection criteria would not be based on possibilities of romance, how people look, and ethnicities. Unlike other reality shows they will strive to reduce disharmony and conflict among the group, that will only lead to failure.
I think the only limitations that would hold them back from selecting you are practical. You can probably not be too picky on your diet overthere, and also any special equipment you might need (eg wheel chair) will be a big problem.

I can think of a few more reasons why it's BS:
1) it assumes that there is such a thing as universal evil. The real world is not so black and white. It's not even shades of grey.
2) it shows an utter unwillingness to see things from another perspective. (My evil is not your evil)
3) It's a bully statement. Negotiation is not domination.
4) It induces a weapons race (communists are evil!)

That one was old the first time I read it.

It's hard to imagine some saying this without trying to be funny:
“Not in a million years. Not in two million years. Six months, nine months or a year from now, that may happen, but it will not happen in the current circumstances.”

Don't worry, they have good karma: they came from India.

Does this mean that we need more than 64 bit to address every atom in the universe?

Could you please explain which particular set of freedoms are required to make a country "free"?
Every country needs restrictions on freedom, otherwise everybody could do anything, there'd be no crime.
Whether you can live with those restrictions mostly depends on you and your values.
But don't forget that a lot of restrictions are desirable. Would you care to live in country where you are allowed to steal?

You can't throw "freedom" around without explaining what you actually mean. Freedom means different things in different cultures.