Actually there is quite a big demand in the "non-geek" space for smart TVs/Blu-ray players/etc., for basically anything video or movie related.

When my laptop died, I bought an Xbox Live Gold subscription so I could - play and download games? No. Interact with my friends online? No. Watch Netflix, not just in stereo but HD 5.1, without Silverlight clipping the video? Yes.

Why? Because it's easy. I still haven't replaced the laptop. Most people don't care about vendor lock-in or long-term support and frankly, I don't either. In 5 years, there'll be some other must-have video device which will have apps on it and I can just use that instead of the TV directly. It's not a gadget, it's an appliance. My computer doesn't do my laundry, and now, it doesn't stream Netflix either.

"What if we could" instead of "Why would they want it". Sometimes it works out really great. I don't think this will be one of those times.

Perhaps Microsoft anticipated this and the images will be digitally signed.

Actually, from a biblical perspective, Earth is essentially as opposite from a "Chosen Planet" as you can get. As the story goes, we crucified the last visiting alien 2,000 years ago.

I'm not saying that the "landlord" (which is an assumption of narrow perspective) can't be possibly understood (although the level of understanding is relatively small vs the potential), but that the cause of the current situation (i.e., the crappy apartments) can't be understood, which simply stated, is the origin of evil. Western thought has a particularly difficult time with this, since we tend to believe exclusively in discrete truths and "God created everything" and "God is completely good" are at logical odds with the reality of evil.

Another assumption in the original analogy is that humanity doesn't fall into the category of things that need to be fixed. To put it plainly, if we aren't as good as God, and He fixes everything to be perfectly good, then we either have to be transformed or destroyed.

There is no real argument for or against the existence of God other than personal belief, because there can be no objective proof either way. My point was not to argue whether there is a God, but to argue that it isn't logical to frame the discussion in a realm limited to human logic when a real God would vastly supersede that. That is where I believe both mainstream Christians and anti-Christians have it wrong.

If God isn't personal, then what's the point? How do I know which set of rules (religions) will appease Them? And if God was quantifiable, how would you quantify Them? What would it take for God to prove They aren't some alien race having fun with Earth for a day?

Your analogy doesn't work because it assumes a closed system about which we (humanity) have a fairly comprehensive perspective on. The "Christian" (or should I say, biblical) notion of God involves a universal scenario in which temporal quality of life is not the benchmark of "fixing everything" and humanity is completely unable to understand the origin of the situation we are currently in. A better analogy might be that we are screaming babies who don't actually know what we need and have no concept of time, so the 2 minutes it takes to feed/clean/coddle us feels like an eternity that we spend on Slashdot mocking the 99% who aren't the intellectual chosen ones.

True faith in a benevolent, personal God coexists perfectly fine with science, because God exists outside our physical senses and so the progress of science serves only to incrementally increase our understanding of what God created. Unfortunately, Christians have got it in their heads that we have a closed system about which we (humanity) have a fairly comprehensive perspective on, and so we try to apply the scientific method to spirituality, because we've got things all figured out courtesy of Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Thus debates about evolution and social morality which only serve to undermine our true purpose.

Perhaps if we had a God-like perspective on the universe, the idea of blaming God for anything wouldn't sound so incredibly pompous.

Environmentalism is to leftists what puritanical morality is to rightists - an emotional rallying cry.

This does not necessarily discount any inherent "truth" contained in either set of arguments, but it is far more effective at alienating the opposite "side" than it is at producing any sort of progress toward the desired goal. I happen to think that taking reasonable steps to preserve and protect the environment is quite simply in the realm of common sense, but whatever the real issues are, the climate change/AGW debate itself left that realm long ago. If I had to guess, I'd say Al Gore bears that responsibility, regardless of the correctness of his assertions.

As a habitual speeder (usually whatever I think I can get away with given my knowledge of area enforcement), I can personally attest to this. My speed is dependent on many environmental factors and numbers on a white sign are next to useless when you are trying to determine what's safe. If the road seems more dangerous (surface quality, camber of turns, lane width, visibility, elevation changes, population density, etc.) then I pay a lot more attention and slow down if necessary. I can immediately think of several roads in my area where I believe the posted speed limit is too fast for the average driver - and consequently on these roads people tend to drive even slower than normal (5-10mph under).

Speeding also gives you more "situational awareness" - if you are traveling faster than everyone else, the only objects you need to worry about are all in front of you and spend most of their time in your forward-looking field of view. In the same vein, speeding increases the likelihood that people will notice you (since you are moving relative to them) and decreases the amount of time you spend in dangerous positions (i.e., next to inattentive drivers). It also encourages you to do the most important thing you can do when driving - pay attention.

I think if the general public learned it was just a mild nuisance the incidents would probably go down. The kind of people who point lasers at planes are the kind that egg cars from bridges. If the eggs just bounced harmlessly off the windshield, it wouldn't be nearly as "fun".

It's too bad the moderation system here only goes up to 5. Telecom providers are as close to a monopoly as you can get. Trading a national/state monopoly for a regional one doesn't really change anything.

it is wholly reasonable that the governement does the high-risk stuff: it cannot fail.

TBTF?

One issue I have with the current unemployment benefit system is that it takes so long for benefits to start. I imagine by the time most people get them (for someone I know, it was six months), it can be too late.

I'm not rabidly for or against welfare programs - I think they are a lot more necessary than what most conservatives believe and cause a lot more negative side-effects than what liberals believe. But if it takes so long for benefits to kick in that most people would lose their home/get kicked out of their apartment/etc. then frankly that's too little too late.

It's hard to know what the balance is between proper oversight and efficiency but I dare to say the current system has very little of either.

I think that we are more qualified to design a moral system today than some bronze-age herders somewhere in the middle east.

Human nature hasn't changed since the bronze age. Don't confuse that with cultural religions. "Love others as yourself" is simple enough, but if humanity was capable of that as a collective (irrespective of individual success) we'd have done it already.