Well, it's doing wonders for the local (Irish) economy.

To be fair, it's not the guns protecting Utah from terrorists, but the magic underpants.

Also, your use of Q.E.D. could use some work.

Well, since it's an upgrade, it's only fair that people should pay more, right?

...that was supposed to be "trademark". It's obvious, of course, but my pedantry wouldn't let it slide.

The rademark institution said that the smiley is an integral part of the "Superfone" logo, is not a trademark in and of itself, and is in fact incapable of being one.

Sorry to ruin everybody's party, but here is a source for those who can read Russian or are awesome enough for Babelfish.

Can we "keep images in our heads" at all? When I try to, it is more of a feeling than an image, and it's a fragmentary one at that. Wouldn't it make sense if our imagination worked a lot like our vision, i.e. we can only focus on small bits of the visual field at once, and so would only be able to imagine those pieces and attributes of an image pertinent to our needs or wants?

I'm free-balling here, mind. I can't seem to put coherent, complete images in my head, but others very well might.

An odd choice of words in the title. Is this really so unbelievable, considering the progress we've seen so far in brain-machine interfaces?

If it is simply scientific rigor, then why doesn't every title on a new discovery include the words "claim to"?

You just wait, that imperial system of measurement is catching on, too!

Europe counts more languages than one, and "milliard" or something similar to it means a "thousand million" in all but one, which itself is influenced by the US bastardisation of the term and is closer to being the 51st state than a part of Europe, really.

Is graphene-based circuitry based on silicon the same way mobile phones are based on computers, or are you just throwing a straw man out there for shits and giggles?

You're adorable!

Absolutely. Roaches are awesome, and may very well beat us at life. On the other hand, roaches will never get off this rock without hitch-hiking, whereas we might. The game isn't over yet.

From the article (in fact, it's right there in the summary):

Some scientists have suggested that PNAs or a very similar molecule may have formed the basis of an early kind of life at a time before proteins, DNA and RNA had evolved. Perhaps rather than creating novel life, artificial-life researchers will be re-creating our earliest ancestors.

So, to say that PNA functions "as well as or better than" DNA or RNA, full stop, end of story, is nonsense. Thanks. Exactly what I was driving at.

Technically, our genes did arise during an ice age, which started 2.6 million years ago and is still ongoing. We survived the last glacial period perfectly fine, as well; plenty of species did not. In fact, I would say that homo sapiens sapiens is very well equipped to survive glacial periods, and to claim that there would be no sticks around is silly.

How is "evolutionary progress" not "progress"? This is the only measuring stick I've used. If PNA had indeed existed before DNA or RNA (as the article seems to suggest), and was snuffed out, then clearly it didn't function better than RNA/DNA when it came to surviving in a particular environment, or evolving. What is the "functionality" of an organism if not survival and procreation?