Hmm, I guess that means the world doesn't end in 2012, then. Or maybe it does end in 2012, and it took them 4 years to devise their time-traveling SMS, and are now desperately trying to let us know.

Much like with racism, people get too hung up over general categories. Its not whether a piece of software is open source, or if it is free. What matters is if the software satisfies the user. The method of distribution, the cost, the license, the openness of the code, the status and quality of documentation, the level of support, the usability, the name, the aesthetics of the user interface, and many other factors all play into a user's satisfaction, and different users will appreciate different things, depending on what they like and their predetermined biases. Anyone looking to choose a piece of software should look into the pros and cons of that software and their budget instead of looking at just its label, open source or commercial.

I'll agree that Greenpeace is not an idiotic organization, but thats because they are very good at capitalizing on people's fears and the general ignorance of the world. Using two simple figures as above illustrates this point, as it makes many unreasonable assumptions, and doesn't emphasize the proper conclusion.

Assuming that the above figures are correct and that half the solar panels will always be in the dark, we find the amount of surface area required to power mankind's average consumption. Searching google for:
((radius+of+earth)^2)*4*pi%2F2500+in+km^2

gives us a area of 204 481 km^2.

Then, for the sake of comparison, we grab a list of countries by total area, and compare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area

It turns out that just to meet current consumption would require covering an area the size of Romania with solar cells. Add on the fact that no solar cell is more than 50% efficient (i am rounding up from 41.1% http://dvice.com/archives/2009/01/germans_break_t.php ) and we end up covering at least all of Japan.

So while nuclear power may not be sustainable, and is therefore impractical in the longrun, solar power is already impractical.

Frighteningly enough, I have no problem reading that what so ever.

And beyond that, who wants to measure energy in Michael Jacksons?

The real problem with this, though, is cost sharing. Currently, all of the people who do not need anything better than wifi are helping to pay for the infrustructure needed to support all levels of internet service. If the people who, because of their numbers, provide more of the financial support needed by the ISPs to make it worthwile to maintain their infrustructure, decide to give up their service then the higher end service will have to increase in price. It depends on how many people leave, and how many people want the faster service, but I would venture to guess that the rate for this type of internet service would double or triple.