You might want to reread that quote from Adams. He did not express any of the erroneous formulas that you stipulate. Here's the full quote in all its glory:

So what he's actually saying is this:
X = # of worlds;
Y = # of inhabited Worlds;
X = infinite;
Y = finite;
infinite number >>> finite number (infinity has a higher magnitude than any finite number)
It follows: X/Y = 0 - epsilon, where epsilon approaches 0 infinitely close.
Thus: Average density of life per world so close to zero, that it functionally IS zero (remember, just like: 0.99999... = 1)

Summary: Any life one sees must be the product of a deranged mind. You could even go so far as calling it imaginary.

Actual summary: Expressing humorous quotes in terms of maths is exactly what it takes to take the humour out of them.

I would have given you a +1 funny, if I had not already posted here; AC or not. :)

The fact that such prime opportunities for jokes always escape my attention probably says a lot about me. Now, of course, whether it's saying something good or bad lies, as always, in the eye of the beholder. :D

Please mentally replace that part with "the ultimately defined value remains a pure unit of distance."

No. A parsec is "a distance corresponding to a parallax of one second". But here, "second" does not refer to the unit of time "second" but to an "arc-second", a specific angular value. If you have a circle, and you divide it into 360 parts, a single slice covers an angle of exactly one "degree" (do note that this in turn also does not refer to temperature). If you divide that slice into 60 parts, each slice covers an angle of 1 arc-minute. If you divide such a slice into another 60 parts, you get an angle that covers 1 arc-second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcsecond#Symbols_and_abbreviations

As for what a parallax is, please read the link provided by the grandparent.

But even if you had used a unit of time to define the parsec -- like in the light-year -- what you actually define is a pure length. Do note that you can define a light-year as both "the distance light crosses in an absolute vacuum in one solar year" or "9.4605284 x 10^15 meters". See how the latter does not include any reference to time? You could even express the light-year as the distance you can drive an object of a certain mass and shape when you accelerate it with a certain energy through a perfectly uniform medium of a certain density (thus slowing down the object eventually to a standstill).

You can define a length with the help of a unit of time, but you don't need to. That is also why the 1 astronomical unit distance used in the parsec is also not a unit of time; as the fact that it derives from the rotation of the earth around the sun is unimportant as long as the ultimately defined value remains a pure time.

You do know that you can run an Emulator with arbitrary speed? It is not the instruction set or register layout or memory model that is restricting performance. It's the hardware itself that puts a limit on that.

Heck, even if you use real hardware, you could produce a >1GHz 6502 CPU, if you wanted to do it. It will be identical to the 6502 in everything but the clock speed and some minor hardware layout alterations to cope with these speeds (even small bends in the wires start to act as an antenna at these speeds).

And if you use a software emulator (which this Minecraft Mod is for all intents and purposes), you can run it as fast as your host platform allows. This is why you can run a Nintendo Emulator at >200x the real speed of the original hardware.

Correct link for non-german speakers:
https://www.google.com/search?q=intel+medfield

Copy+Paste gives you great power, but with great power... :)

Ahem, your entire point disintegrates with a single Google search:

http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=intel+medfield

Intel is pushing HARD into the direction of getting x86 handsets, smartphones and tablets out into the open; that's pretty much one of the main reasons they bought Infineon Wireless for 1.4 Billion USD; the second biggest RF-chip producer in the world after Qualcomm. Intel wasn't in the smartphone/handset market and they wanted (and still want) to get into it.

And as soon as you have x86 on your smartphone, and Win8 on top of it, suddenly you can run ~95% of all Windows applications unmodified on your smartphone or tablet. That is a sales argument, if I've ever seen one.

I'd compare it more to cleaning your display.

You can live with not doing it, but taking a soft cloth greatly improves things. Using newspaper sheets is somewhat pointless for most displays. Taking sandpaper is pretty much the definition of a Pyrrhic victory. Taking a sandblaster, though, is quite generally considered the sign of a thoroughly confused mind.

Well, its probably telling that even the Russians have not yet found a way to permanently deal with radioactive waste that does not offend people. :P

Joking aside, why would you discard this stuff? Unless such biological samples are contaminated, completely decayed or have completely lost their essential and interesting properties, the cost of storing them is usually negligibly in contrast to the cost of recreating those samples if you need them.

After all, back then nobody much cared about irradiating 250k animals. Nowadays even the Russians would be up to their gills in activists and their local kind of PETA members if they did something like that even semi-publically.

Which sharks and crocodiles?

Hammerhead sharks? White sharks? Tiger Sharks? Or the exinct Megalodon that existed between 28-1.5 Million years ago?

Same with crocodiles, alligators, caimans and their numerous predecessors.

Saying that sharks and crocodiles do not change is equivalent to saying that fish do not change, because fish also existed billions of years ago. Or that bacteria do not change because the first bacteria don't look all that different from modern ones.

Yes, you are correct and I do not dispute the fact. My statements do not contradict your point.

Of course, it still kind of misses the point that Darwin himself could not have a theory of evolution, as this phrase was not yet coined.

For him, there was only the compound of natural selection of variances in nature. The former he had to show in detail as being well supported by physical evidence and with an easily understood mechanism -- things compete and the production of progeny will always at some point outpace the available resources leading to selection pressure and a large number of species dying out. The latter (variance) was already accepted by his peers, but Darwin needed to show that they understated the scope of possible variance; that variance could alter a species not only in its outward appearance, but also in its very nature and internal functions.

The third pillar you quote, that there are inheritable traits that are passed down generation by generation was to him just the mechanism through which individual variance is kept and ultimately propagated. This fact, to him, was already supported by every sentient being he knew, as it is was also believed by the most ardent critics of him. After all, they reasoned that a duck could not bring forth a pigeon, as ducks do and indeed can only create other ducks. What he pointed out as not being fully understood was the mechanism by which this inheritance works.

So, of the three pillars, one was universally accepted (inheritance), one accepted by almost all of his peers with the only reservation on its scope (variance) and one understood, but not accepted at all in its logical conclusion (selection). So he first had to show that selection works on variances, that these variances can affect the entire make-up of a species and that, through inheritance, these variations are kept, propagated and compounded with more variations to form completely new beings.

Do note that at no point did he need to have a concept of "evolution" per se. He defended selection and the scope of variance. All he had to show after that was that the Earth was actually old enough to allow those selected variances to actually lead to truly different species.

TL;DR: Evolution is indeed well supported by modern science. Yes, it is the logical conclusion of Darwin's train of thought. But if you wish to split hairs, it is not actually Darwin's theory, as he did not name or state it directly, only showing its foundations, mechanisms and possibility.

You seem to have heard that our improved understanding of genetics and other details of inheritance mean that Darwin's ideas have to be flawed because they did not yet contain this understanding; much like Newton's theories were supplanted by Einstein's and his in turn by parts of Quantum Theory.

But this is neither strictly not loosely true. Newton's theories are flawed, because they indeed overlooked an integral property of physical reality. Its formulas simply lead to values that are not correct in our universe. But, and here's the important difference to Darwin's theory of Natural Selection: Darwin never stated any formulas leading to precise predictions. He never explained the principle driving the changes needed by Natural Selection.

What he did was more subtle. He looked at the world and identified the obvious end-result: Species change, compete, cause their predecessors to perish (or change) and then finally perish themselves. Species are not static and unchanging. Instead, each organism is different from the one it sprung forth from. Given enough time, these subtle changes lead to large differences; so large that you'd not immediately see that they are related.

As such, Darwin's point was that Variations, Families, Races and Species are just "grouping terms". They fluidly flow into each other. Small individual changes lead to large cross-species differences.

This point is clearly not flawed. It is quite obviously true, if you look at the historical record and current progress. And that is his entire theory. He never stated what the principle behind the system was, as he could only suspect, not prove. This, he left for later generations. He freely admitted that, if no such system could be found, that his theory would have a huge problem. Thankfully, modern biological sciences has found this principle in all its differentiated glory from genetics, epigenetics, vertical and horizontal inheritance, retro-viral modification, genetic absorption, etc. pp. So instead of not accepting his model, they actually and knowingly vindicated it!

Of course, some of Darwin's larger speculations turned out to be wrong, but these were not the core of his theory of Natural Selection and clearly labeled by him as pretty much unsubstantiated speculation. Just go ahead and read "The Origin of Species" and you will see how careful Darwin was by stating exactly what could break his actual theories' back, which points he though could be proven beyond doubt and which are more doubtful.

So, tl;dr: His theory is actually vindicated by modern science; but it's not the theory of evolution but the theory of natural selection, as these two are quite distinct beasts.

Your point is absolutely correct.

But the idea of the parent posting was different. It did not ask whether evolution has a point itself, but instead pointed out that evolution itself is simply the consequence of alterations to successive organisms -- mostly via their genome. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that successive alterations of our genome were responsible for the lion's share of our intelligence.

Wait until someone decides to build an airport, chemical plant, garbage pail or pig farm directly next to your house.

You'd be surprised how fast one can become one of those dreaded "activists" you always read bad press about.

You seem to forget, that these are not necessarily the same activists. After all, there are also activists that are pro-choice and pro-life; pro-whaling and contra-whaling, etc. pp. -- but the activists on each side usually do not root for both sides at once -- unless they are paid to, of course.

So yes, pretty much everything a state, company or even individual will do will generate people that are against this venture. This does not mean that their objections are not valid, only that they need to be reviewed (and if feasible tested) as impartially and objectively as possible. Only then should you pass judgment -- and be also prepared to eventually change your opinion should new evidence be uncovered or new arguments brought forth.