Children shouldn't be allowed to play with dynamite, after they've demonstrated they're willing act irresponsibly.

Why isn't your comment behind a paywall? By your reasoning, if it had value, someone would want to profit from it.

I'm not a corporate douchebag, but I use my table to record meetings, then convert the recording to text, which is semantically analyzed. The content, in RDF is inserted into a graph database which is searchable using SPARQL. Data is presented in knowledge graphs, with voice and text annotations from the original meeting. Whiteboard drawings and text are also recorded, and similarly encoded. When creating documents, I mostly use voice input, which is converted to text, then fit into template defined document forms. Often, knowledge graphs are created as an intermediate representation, which are automatically converted into standard forms, through the tablet UI. This table-based technology helps me to be productive in the office. When producing programs I often define UML models, using the tablet drawing and voice interface. Most of the models are detailed enough to generate the code. When interacting with the code, I may elect to use a bluetooth keyboard. I often use a large format HD display, connected to the tablet, when I'm at my desk. Networks enable me to connect to a wide variety of computing resources, including the cloud, and supercomputers. Are the corporate douchebags, with whom you work, not using similar methods?

Even using today's technology, one can plug their tablet (nexus 10) into a large format display. I use a 52 inch display when I'm in workstation mode, and a bluetooth full sized keyboard. I can use the tablet's display surface as an input device for handwritten notes and drawings. The best voice interface I've experienced is with my tablet. When I take a crap or a bath, I read books I've downloaded. All of the input and output modalities of the tablet will continue to improve the content creation experience. This decade, tablets will have 64 or more cores. For most purposes, they will replace desktops, laptops, game consoles, dvd players, and hard copy books. Phones will be wearable, like watches or glasses.

Now you've made me sad. ;-(

I'm happy you appreciate my sense of humor -- people have an easy time taking offense. What's more you even got the point. You make a good case in your reply -- it would be even better if you offered a little evidence -- there's plenty of it around. As Christopher Hitchens has often remarked, "Religion is the original form of tyranny."

I was quite sincere in my reply -- I had to look back 60 years to have thoughts of the same resonance. For a moment, innocence and a sense of wonder were restored -- I felt the warmth of being wrapped in a blanket of security. I recalled Pinocchio singing "When you wish upon a star."

Perhaps it's simply that atheists are open to discussing all delusions, such as God, and computer simulations, on an equal footing. I entertain notions about God almost daily -- I'm fascinated by the breadth and depth of man's imagination.

Religions were invented to motivate fear, to shift the reasons for actions unknown, to a supreme being whom no one can see. Correctly applied, religion does help people construct psychological barriers. The way I see things, it's like in marriage -- if you talk to your spouse, then eventually a wall will develop between you, making the relationship colder and less meaningful. Just by abusing each other, you can feel much relieved. A belief in an abusive supreme being accomplishes the same thing, as He (always a he in most religions) supposedly always loves you. I'm a believer who finds no flaws in religion. But I always deny it's benefits, in some cases. After all, your body is much stronger than your mind. ;-)

I couldn't agree more -- excuse me while I pour another drink.

That's really interesting to know, I'd like to read the research which supports such a conclusion. What does cause mental illness -- Scientology.

Some people turn to God and other non-productive behaviors, but non-believers go help other people with their issues. Reason provides the tools to handle life -- what's done with the tools depends on the person.

Thank you for opening my eyes -- it never occurred to me to hold belief in faith and belief in hypothesis testing (proof), as equivalent. It also never occurred to me, given that faith and proof are given equal weight, fortune telling and magic, are as likely as testable physical reality. I like unicorns, who are magical creatures, so they may exist. In my old age, I can hold the same beliefs I did as a child. Santa Claus, and "The Giving Tree" are real once again. Perhaps I can regress back to my infancy, when I had my nice warm blanket, and all things are possible. Innocence and a sense of wonder is restored.

I find it interesting you know the community is filled with raging atheists, who think the universe is a computer simulation. Did I miss the slashdot poll which tests your thesis? Is this not a gross simplification and generalization? I thought the slashdot community was filled with angry theists. Then again, perhaps you're the only one.

Your definition of free market is literally, "free to do whatever they want." You do not exclude, bribery, fraud, extortion, child labor and slavery, as corporate freedoms, which have been practiced in the recent past, as well as currently. It is interesting to note how you feel free to speculate about what I think or desire, instead of asking. When you have asked, instead of questioning my motives, I've responded, in some detail, in answer. As it happens, to put it simply, I do mean a FREE, well REGULATED market, but not necessasarily unionization. Here is my thinking, in some detail. I agree with the following two quotes. "From Smith to Ricardo and Mill, classical liberalism was a revolutionary doctrine that attacked the privileges of the great landlords and the mercantile interests. Today, we see vulgar libertarians perverting ‘free market’ rhetoric to defend the contemporary institution that most closely resembles, in terms of power and privilege, the landed oligarchies and mercantilists of the Old Regime: the giant corporation." "While its supporters argue that only a free market can create healthy competition and therefore more business and reasonable prices, opponents say that a free market in its purest form may result in the opposite." I agree most with the view of Adam Smith. "Critics of laissez-faire capitolism since Adam Smith variously sees the unregulated market as an impractical ideal or as a rhetorical device that puts the concepts of freedom and anti-protectionism at the service of vested wealthy interests, allowing them to attack labor laws and other protections of the working classes." Unionization is a response to the government allowing vested wealthy interests to attack the working classes. I prefer unions not be necessary.