Ughh. Pseudo-scientific pop-physics mumbo jumbo. I suggest working through Griffiths or some other elementary QM book as a cure for pop-QM induced retardation.

Ugh. Not another math illiterate person complaining about the sample size. For the last time, your intuitive notions of statistics are worthless. The gamer study had a lot of people repeating this stupid objection too.

No, it's just that your intuitive ideas of what kind of sample size is statistically relevant are invalid. I am sick of how many people keep saying this even though it was addressed in an earlier post http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1341207&cid=29120539 .

Also, the complaints about the sample size being restricted to Seattle are probably unwarranted. The sample size is large enough to provide a 95% confidence level for a reasonably small interval, and it would be highly unusual for such a general result that's true in Seattle to be significantly different for other cities.

It would imply that there was some confounding variable that's exclusive to Seattle that modifies the characteristics of gamers, which is an absurd assumption, and the only reason you would think so without other evidence is if you just didn't like the results of the study.

This is completely unjustified. Might be true in a few special cases but no reason to assume it in general.

When people say evolution they don't just mean descent with modification, they mean the hypothesis that descent with modification (and other little things perhaps) is responsible for all the various species, and that this is how they descended from a common (and probably) single ancestor. It it this hypothesis that does not make (sufficiently) falsifiable predictions. Descent with variation is rather trivial and was known before and independent of Darwinian evolution. Anyone who breeds anything knows this.

The Maldacena duality can't be used to 'make predictions' with a string theory, its just a correspondence between a string theory and a conformal field theory. It's useful because sometimes calculations which are hard in a CFT can be made in the corresponding string theory which is sometimes easier (or vice versa). It cannot be used to support the physical validity of some string theory.

Which taxi driver makes over 100K? He is a tenured professor. The point of tenure is that you can say what you think is right without being worried about your salary/livelihood.

Apparently the use of the term 'teleportation' is causing a lot of confusion. In QM, two particles that have identical states (quantum numbers) are considered indistinguishable; if they were switched, you wouldn't know. TFA describes a process that allows an entire state to be transferred instantaneously from one particle (or system) to another, and since in QM they are the same, the particle has been 'teleported'. There is nothing superluminal here, since before the state can be transferred you have to send some information across at kosher speeds.

They know it was entangled because they prepared the state way. For example, if you have a spin zero particle that splits up into two particles, and you measure one as spin up, the other must be necessarily spin down, no matter how far away it is, because of the conservation of angular momentum. Or you can think of a neutral particle splitting into positive and negative ones. So I guess it is ultimately the consequence of some conservation law.

Not quite, they describe different things, so you can put them on the same scale. Classical mechanics is a framework for describing the dynamics of a system once you specify the forces. QM is a different framework. But GR is a theory for describing a particular force, gravity.

This doesn't make any sense IMO, unless you can come up with something to back it up. If you mean the precession of a top in the presence of gravity, then sure it can be solved analytically in classical mechanics, but the general two body problem has no analytical solution in GR, and I doubt the restriction to a top simplifies it enough to allow a closed form solution. But I can give you valid examples that suggest the opposite. In classical mechanics, the dynamics under a linear potential (constant force) is very simple: constant acceleration in one direction. But try solving that in quantum mechanics, and what you get are hideous Airy functions to describe the position of the particle.

Not even then. I don't know what it means among laypeople, but for a physicist TOE means a quantum field theory that describes gravity, electroweak and strong force. I can guarantee that we will have such a theory in 100 years, and probably a lot less. I can also guarantee that this TOE will eventually be superseded by a more accurate theory.

Nope. It is just that scientists use simple models like harmonic oscillator for most systems, simply because they are easy to solve. That doesn't mean that the universe is 'built' from second order laws. The rest of your post is also similar misinterpretations of QM, optics etc

But will it run Crysis?