The belief that evolution requires "belief" to be factual is in itself a measure of science literacy.

"I don't want to live on this planet anymore."

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Clear of their intentions? I assume you are talking about word spoken by their leaders, verbatim? If so, I am curious how you got "we want to subjugate the entire world under our faith" from when they said "as long as you are invading our lands in Afghanistan and Iraq, we will kill you". Or do you own a secret jihadist dictionary that none of us hard-lefties aren't privy to? (and if that is the case, I am curious as to how you went about procuring such a text).

And one more question for you. Have you EVER, for even a minute took the time to think what our actions in these nations must look like to the average citizen living there. Put yourself in the average (non-militant) man's shoes - say a shop keeper in Iraq, pre-Desert Strike II. Think about how life has changed for this person since we arrived. If it had been the United States, I would HOPE that your first course of action would be to enlist with the US military to protect your people.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Generally, potty training one of the first more advanced skills a child has to aquire. So if dogs are that much smarter then cats, then why is it that my cats were house trainined within a day, where as my dog still can't even walk himself?

And to anyone who says cats are not social as dogs is comparing apples to oranges. Cats social skills are highly developed and they are geared towards keeping other members of the species off their turf/away from their food. While this is a smaller set of social skills then dogs (which will work together in packs, usually due to need), they seem to be more developed and focused. I would say that again, the advantage goes to the cat, that relies on no other member other then itself to provide for itself and its young.

And lastly, wasn't there a barbaric, outdated practice to judge how smart a person was by the size of their cranium? What happened to that again?

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Umm, you are talking about the Christian Science Monitor as if it is an outlet for Scientology (it isn't). While I will agree with you on anything and everything negative you have to say about Scientology, this isn't it.

In fact, the website publication has always made an effort to remain non-sensationalist and publish reliable information, rooted in science and not religion (IE you won't find articles about creationism in there). I wouldn't decry this article either - although it is not very well represented in the summary on this page. But at least check out the wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Christian_Science_Monitor.

Sooo, perhaps you'd like to remove that foot from its current location?

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

And not being allowed to do something has always prevented people from doing that thing. Yep. I've no examples at all from anywhere or anytime that would prove that statement wrong.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Social engeneering of course. Of course its harder to compromise the servers, not because they are Linux based, but because of their mission-critical nature automatically implies that they are sitting behind hardware firewalls and monitored by techs. Compared to the end users which usually use their kids name and birthday as their login password - assuming they set one at all. So yes, your statement is true, but not at all solely for the reason you presented.

And EVEN with the above in mind, do you really want me to start pulling up all the articles of various user data breaches we've seen over the last few years?

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

You don't enter a country you want to bomb and THEN try to board an airplane in that country. If you entered, you leave the bomb in a major intersection (times square). And if you want to use an airplane, you sneak on in a different country from which you fly to your target.

Think 2 steps ahead before you post? Fail.

Umm, immoral? I don't believe thats the reason we make murder illegal. I'm pretty sure it is because it is demonstratebly detrimental to society as a whole. Same for theft. And other major crimes. No such argument can be made for ESC research, beyond personal offense taken by some based on their morals. The rights of the few shall not be infringed upon by the wants of the many.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

While your last paragraph may be correct with respect to the reality of the groups you are describing, that same group has picked aweful spokesmen/women who are exactly like the ones Chris Tucker has described. This is as much the pro-lifer group's fault as it is the media, who loves to focus on the extreme members of the pro-life group. Sure, some are moderate, but in the end, it doesn't really matter if the mob mentality dictates the groups voice and direction, instead of logic and reasonable argument, such as the one you yourself presented.

Point being, while you can argue specifics and edge cases of religion, the over-arching trend has been to vilify anything to do with ESC research and use, and the masses have taken up the call. You accuse the OP of over-simplifying the argument, while the pro-life group has been doing the exact same thing - worse really because the argument wasn't just simplified, it was turned into an ultimatum of eternal damnation. And Lo and Behold, we had a president elected by the very same people who did exactly what was expected of him by the masses, not the few like yourself, and the research was severely limited.

Your argument is valid, but such reason is unfortunately an outlier amongst the rest. If you really want a reasonable discussion on the complex topics at hand, you need to look to taking the control of the argument away from the extreme members of the pro-life movement.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

This makes no sense. Why would the Vampires go for the town that only has 30 days of night when there is this gem?

Actually, this is probably their vacation spot and the whole 'wake up light' thing is just a cover-up attempt to distract people from the fact that a Vampire clan has made this their haven.

You read it here first!

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Because this man is not saying anything worth responding to? Obsession with any object will remove you from reality. Be it bookworms, slashdotters, MMO-ers, facebookers, drug addicts, and... wait for it... religious fanatics - whatever your fix, taken to the extreme, WILL take over your life and diminish your connection to 'reality'. It's kind of like, stop the presses, you know?

What is amusing/ironic is that the Pope picks technology *specifically* over all other extremes people can/do adopt - perhaps because technology is the biggest threat to the Catholic market-share over peoples minds. And yes, market share is the most appropriate term as the Vatican is a business first and has been for some time. What is further ironic is to rail against something that removes one from reality while being in charge of a corporation that specializes in JUST that practice.

So A) he is stating the obvious, but slanting it to fit his bias B) he is guilty of progating the very same behavior he is railing against and C) I just don't like the guy.

And even with ALL that said, what is 'reality'? Sure there is the tangible, physical world, but I think its far past time to realize that virtual reality is not separate or lesser, but is simply a subset/extension of the physical - nor is it going away - nor is it going to get smaller/less relevant. To remove yourself from this progress is thus, in itself, removal from reality.

Given that all of the above is, at least to me, self evident, the popes opinion is not even worthy of a debate, since to have a valid debate, the opposing side needs to put forward valid points.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

YEah, it is ur computer. Dual 2GHz here as well, except more like 70GB of music. Sure it takes about 5-10seconds to load up, but once it does, its good to go. Maybe you've got too much other bloatware? Library has been corrupted a few times, but system auto-saves these corrupted copies and I am able to re-import all myplaylists/ratings both times (only happened twice in 7 years). And I'm pretty sure this has to do with the brown-out shutdowns I used to have at my old place (before buying the UPS)

Now what I hate about iTunes is its inability to deal with an ipod sized less then your music collection. Sure, you can 'uncheck' songs, but that removes them from random play in iTunes as well (stupid). Makes it VERY annoying to manage music.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

I see a rather big barrier to adoption precisely for the reason y ou mentioned - these will replace both ram and storage devices - which means that these, if really pushed by manufacturers, would require a complete redesign of the modern computer system. Chipsets, motherboards, etc would all need to be redisgned with this memory in mind. Which isn't a big deal on its own, but people are still using Pentium 4s with Windows XP on them, and I suspect will be even more loathe to change over to a completely new generation of computing devices.

Enthusiasts of course will jump on this (and 3 years is good time frame since i'm building a new machine this winter, that will be just in time for my subsequent build :D ).

One possible workaround that I see is if the first generation of these were built into a DDR interface so you could drop the sticks in and run your system off what is essentially a RAM drive. I'm not familiar enough with the technical aspects of memory controllers and such to say weather this would be possible or not. anyone?

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

..I'd be a lot more excited about this. But as its HP, they'll probably kill the adoption of this tech with their subpar quality control. Thanks a lot of HP, but the best thing you can do is get your hands of this and hand it to someone who takes pride in the quality of their products. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."