They survived just fine (obviously), but humans have forced the evolution of cows and other animals so hard & fast that there are many species that quite literally could not survive outside of a farm. Chickens, turkeys, cows (I think) -- look it up.

I had a reply all ready to go about how that statement is wrong since I can quickly prove that pi or sqrt(2) are not rational numbers, but your two word reply is so much more elegant. Absolutely perfect. Bravo! :)

I have two kids, and no TV, and it really isn't so frighteningly difficult to get stuff done that I want to have a TV babysit them. I agree with the GP -- the thought of an 11 month old sitting in front of a TV or a tablet for extended periods really makes me sad.

You must be new here....

Zero mass particles don't have a rest frame. Boosting into different frames -- any frame you like -- will only alter their frequency, not their velocity. They move at c in *all* inertial frames.

If you can be bothered reading it, there might be something in this -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus -- and the citations listed there. I think there were other people to mention a historical Jesus, but each and every one (I think) comes with a lot of YMMV warnings. Personally I don't think it's unreasonable to believe there really was a historical Jesus, but I'm not out to convince anyone, and I don't think there is anything particularly irrational about your belief that he didn't exist. I just wanted to answer your request for a non-Christian source. I think it's more important to see the difference between the "he existed / he didn't exist" argument, and the "he was the son of God / no he wasn't" argument. The former is a pretty minor leap of faith, while the latter requires abandoning a lot of what we know about the world.

Josephus is one -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus -- but I think there is some disagreement about that.

One issue could be the question of the rights of the hybrid. For example, humans have many rights that cows don't, but what about a cow with a human central nervous system?

Or other primates with bits and pieces of human "code" in their brains? If we say that this animal isn't human, and therefore only deserving of the rights normally given to other primates even though it shows clear signs of human intelligence, wouldn't that somehow be wrong? But on the other hand, should they have full human rights, a seat at the UN, etc.?

Stretching things a little, wouldn't it be possible to create a slave-class of creature, with many of the abilities of humans but none of the rights?

There would seem to be a lot of room for a lot of pain to be caused if we don't get this right.

Wow! That was fast! Thanks chill!

sdmolloy at gmail

Pretty please? :)

His uncertainty principle doesn't put any limits on how accurately we can know any one number. It puts a limit on how accurately we can know certain pairs of numbers (e.g. position and momentum). There is nothing in his principle that says we can't know one of those numbers *precisely*, as long as we are completely uncertain as to the value of its canonical pair.

Not a lot of people seem to be complaining about that, but it was one of the first things I noticed. I guess the /. crowd don't like xkcd any more :(