I'm not sure where you got the idea that chess is solved, but we're still a looong way from solving chess. We have only solved chess with 7 pieces, not the full 32, and unless quantum computers arrive in force, we have no shot at solving it in our lifetimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

> That first patient, a 76-year-old man suffering from terminal heat failure, died March 2.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A...

> Worst case is you lose the remote destruct ability if you lose the servers with the remote detonate pads.

More like worst cast is it accidentally is triggering due to component failure or impact from a high-moving projectile/explosive..

I had a similar thought, but I think http://slashdot.org/comments.p... is a more likely explanation.

This seems like the most likely explanation -- thank you coward!

Currently Indigogo says that 2,575 people have contributed $1,175,564 ($457 per person).

But if you add up the people and amounts for the various perks, you get 330 people contributing $73,874 (223 per person).

Can someone explain the difference?

Thanks for the insults.. very informative.

Perhaps this XKCD will be of help: http://xkcd.com/1053/

For those clueless like me, PAC stands for Politicial Action Committee

I can forgive the headline and summary for not defining the acronym, but when the article itself also doesn't say, it's getting ridiculous.

Way to miss the point. According to Wikipedia, in 2012, 73% of Americans self-identified as "Christians".

Applying strong labels like "irrational" and "unintelligent" to that large of group of people is "irrational" and "unintelligent".

You're dealing with Stanch Atheists. Don't expect them to be rational or intelligent. They've gone tribal, circled the wagons, and are now locked into anti-religious flame wars and are unable to learn better.

Isn't painting with broad stokes fun! There's surely no actual rational, intelligent creatures in these enormous labels!

Simple explanation on this, actually. That article has a ton of comments, so I had to click "Load More Comments" before I could see your reply #46185253.

I was speaking tongue-in-cheek about the religion of evolution, not the science of evolution. Certainly, scientifically speaking, evolution has falsifiable predictions; not that it matters to the zealots.

You contradict yourself. You seem to believe by faith that there is no substantive research possible toward creationism.

Tens to hundreds of thousands of scholars throughout the ages have devoted considerable portions of their lives in the study of God and creationism, yet secular scholars of today refuse to even examine the evidence or even acknowledge its existence.

Wow, a rational response in this thread; nice to see.

I don't agree that Intelligent Design (ID) is an argument from ignorance. In fact, it's exceptional to find opponents to ID that have actually investigated the matter with any rigor.

I'm always amazed that those who would consider themselves "quality thought-leaders" need to resort to name-calling to discuss evolution. It's no different than the Slate article; why bother with facts when propaganda will do?