Today’s world is all about networking, meeting people, keeping in touch and so on. So we have social media to make it easier for us.
There is Facebook, the most popular, but also MySpace. There is Twitter, and there is Google Buzz. Then there is LinkedIn. Each of them connects you with different part of your life, some might be better to keep in touch with family and friends (like Facebook) and some would be more professional, like LinkedIn.
But, already, having a profile on all those, and keeping it updated and live, can take half of a day, everyday! And that is not all.
If you are a scientist, you might have/be required by your institution to have, a profile on COS and on Biomedical Experts, if you are working in those fields. They are more passive services, with weekly updates on grant founding opportunity (for COS) or publications from your network (from BiomedExperts), so they do not require that much time. I find the Biomed Experts really useful, personally.
And it is still not the end of the list. Recently, the professional organizations decided to add networking to their web sites. I am a member of American Chemical Society, and they came up with their own networking solutions, ACS network. And just last month, the Society of Toxicology, in which I just became a member, created their own ToXchange.
While I do understand why they do that, it is hard for me to believe that too many people will take full advantage of all those tools. It is just too many. Especially younger people, with Facebook profiles, and maybe present on LinkedIn, probably will not want to spend too much time on additional social media. It all takes just unnecessary time. After all, you can establish on for example Facebook closed, by invitation only groups, and that at least keeps the different conversations for a user in one place, rather than sending him all around the Internet. I would be happy to see some merging, different social media coming together for a more consolidated viewing. Even if only TweetDeck or similar clients having access to all of the above.

I am cleaning the shelves of my old collected magazines, including Chemical and Engineering News for last half a year or so. Reading the Letters to the Editor combined with Editorial for those issues provides some interesting observation. Rudy Baum is a very interesting person, and his editorials, clearly expressing his personal views (with disclaimer, of course ), are still within the scope of the magazine. Several issues especially resonated with the readers, in both positive and negative way. His opinions on the global warming and teaching of intelligent design polarized the readers for months. It was very interesting to read some statements from otherwise highly educated and trained in science professionals.
In case of intelligent design, the most negative opinions were mixing the scientific theory, which is based on a number of experimentally verified hypothesis, and by default not 100% sure, as no scientific data is provides absolute solution; with a faith based statement, which cannot be verified in any other way as by, well, believing in it. I think the opinions I could accept, although not agree, were of those, who were recognizing the limitations of evolution theory and filling in the blanks with their religious beliefs. I think the intelligent design has its place in Sunday school, but in the classroom.
The human input to global warming is a bit different story. It is not a matter of belief any more, but a fight of a large number of scientific evidence, supporting both sides. And although I personally think that there is more data supporting the human induced global warming, it might be high time the skeptics understand one thing. The rate of climate changes are so high right now, that regardless if human activity contributes 1, 50 or 99%, if by changing our habits we can reduce it, we should, before it is too late and changes are turning tragic. And that has nothing to do with your political preferences.