With lines like that I can't help but think he's going to say, "now imagine a beowulf cluster of Firefoxes."

I was still holding out for Narcoleptic Nightingale.

Dude, it's CIA. I severely doubt they're worried about appearances. :P

I can't say my own views are too far off but there's a critical distinction that needs to be made. "Science" does not require faith (though the scientific COMMUNITY usually does...any non-physicists here test every law of thermodynamics lately?). "Science" is observation and experimentation. If you cannot experiment, you cannot demonstrably repeat it, it's usually not science. This isn't a Bad Thing because there are most likely some things we will never be able to classify under science.

I DO agree that science/religion aren't at odds...but only because when done properly the two have nothing to do with each other. One's about the How of the world working and the other's about the Why.

It's important to understand the difference between Religion/Philosophy and Science. The communities and people may have issues (kinda like our "faith" in Open Source...I haven't personally inspected the Linux kernel, but I believe that others have and what they tell me about it. Until I test it for myself I can't claim I'm doing science with it) but they are very, very distinct.

No, I think you're still missing what the GP is talking about as it's all-encompassing with respect to your argument.

Yes, it's hard to do. Exactly when has that ever stopped us before? You seriously cannot look five feet from you and not see something that just a thousand years ago (and really short period of time) wasn't completely and totally impossible in every sense of the word. The only constant in our knowledge is that what we know today will someday be replaced by a greater understanding. To quote the oft-quoted line, "Imagine what you'll 'know' tomorrow."

As far as it being pointless to survive I not-so-humbly disagree. Part of the point OF being mortal is that we are supposed to survive. It's what we do. It's what we've done for centuries, millennium, and will continue to do until past the point where it would seem impossible to continue to (as we have before). We're wired that way and damned proud of it for better or for worse. The birthright of living things is to rage against the all-encompassing void. No creature and especially humans have ever achieved anything of value by sitting around and making ourselves comfortable and waiting for death. If you'd like to be the first I don't think anyone else will mind; we'll be too busy trying to make some sort of a difference for future generations, enjoy our current generation, and honor past generations.

But to summarize, yes, these things are hard. Moving off-world is a seemingly impossible task. But we were born to do impossible things. We have done impossible things. We like doing impossible things.

Yes, the photographer already was. To understand your argument properly I've modified your argument to fit the music industry:

The problem with this argument is that it makes the assumption that private, non-commercial use of a professional work (in this case the artwork or song clip...both of which ARE works made by professionals) is "okay," which it is not. If for some bizarre reason I made a database of all the clips on Amazon.com I'd *still* be sued because I didn't pay to use them. This is further complicated by the fact that the Police in most first-world countries are a PUBLIC organization, as in not private.

I think the claim is ridiculous but well-justified by the law. If the officers charged with upholding that law cannot abide by it how do you expect a lowly citizen to?

About two hours ago when I was at a stop light.

In my experience as a biker? Generally no. I cannot describe the number of times I've already had to save my skin rather narrowly because some asshole in a car isn't paying attention.

I'm with you on this. I seriously wanted a Jaguar JUST to play that game. Harsh, unforgiving, but lots of fun and very well-executed IMHO.

While it's a very small example it IS worth noting that not all serious blockbuster games, even on consoles, sell at $60. The new BlazBlue: Continuum Shift is being sold for $40 when released. Why? Well, they won't make quite as much money per unit sold, but they'll sell a HELL of a lot of units of a fabulous game (yes, we already know it's fabulous because of the arcade scene and the previous title that it builds upon). That's important when your competition is Super Street Fighter IV.

There's a few others over the years as well, like Phantom Dust on XBox. It was a critically acclaimed title, sold great, cost only $40. I'm not able to pull many others off the top of my head but there are others as well.

Not really. Here's a few that I'm thinking of off the top of my head I've paid $60 for and are perfectly finished (though some offer extras if you like, but the game itself is still complete): Crackdown 2, Halo 3: ODST, BlazBlue: Calamity Trigger, Super Street Fighter IV, Assassin's Creed II, Splinter Cell: Conviction, God of War III, GRID, Singularity, Uncharted 2, Gears of War 2... All of those for $60 offer a complete package, many of them with free updates and all of them with optional additional content that is unnecessary to "complete" the $60 game I bought. I can go back further if you like but that'd take more time. Interestingly every one of those is a massive blockbuster with the possible exception of Singularity (though I think it is).

That hasn't stopped Microsoft Windows being a resounding success.

Nah, I got a real vehicle. Carb for the win.

I didn't know the XBox 360 was released 15 years ago.