Not sure I agree - it is all very well, making wise about somebody else's opinions, but it doesn't really address his concerns, which are very valid IMO.

It has for a long time annoyed me that so much science fiction is so uninspired - aliens are simply assumed to be a kind of humans with a funny hairdo/skin color/whatever. Stephen Baxter and Iain Banks are two that seem to reach a bit beyond that mindset, but even they seem to stay within the idea of basic, human psychology. What I'd really like to see is science fiction that is highly speculative, but scienfically plausible - for example, describing life evolving in the quark-gluon plasma in the first moments after the big bang would be interesting. On the other hand, confabulating about 'viruses' that are somehow, magically able to take over the body and mind of more or less any creature from whichever biological background and then grow uncontrollably beyond anything allowed by a simple matter/energy consideration, is simply no more than magic; I'd rather read Harry Potter, then.

I don't think it is unreasonable to criticise SF for being too unambitious and unimaginative - or lacking in real, scientific insight.

They may well do so, but they would, as always, be missing the point, which is that somebody, half a million years ago, did this deliberately; the surface of a shell is hard, so it is not likely that it happened by accident, and it does not seem likely that this pattern could have had an obvious utility for the shell's use as a tool. So, somebody deliberately did this for no practical reason - perhaps just for the joy of doing it? It also seems like a very well controlled scratch - I haven't tried myself (yet), but I guess that it requires more skill and effort than what you would expect from something unimportant. Calling it 'art' may be stretching the concept, but it is very reasonable to think that it is the result of abstract thought about something not tied to the specifics of day to day survival.

You've probably nailed it, I'd say. Is GTA really controversial any more? It's violent, stupid, anti-social and a lot of other things, but it is also old news by now, and I think it is a bit pathetic, the way the 'controversy' gets milked with every new release.

Hmm, I just ordered a deep pan base with stuffed crust, anchovies, tabasco, softice, cheesecake, olives and chicken wings. Mmmm

Not really - what you say seems thoughtful and balanced to my eye.

But to answer the fellow's question - what makes girls interested in science is the same that makes anybody else interested: the feeling of understanding an exciting subject. One has to keep in mind - and accept - that not everybody will find it interesting, though. That said, the worst thing one can do to anybody's interest is push them; that will almost inevitably lead to feelings of failure and teach them that science is the one thing they hate. It's the same for all subjects, really; I have seen often enough how parents force their children to play the violin or piano, and they end up detesting it.

If you really want your daughter to become interested in science, let her understand that the only thing you want for her is that she chooses what shereally likes, and that you trust her own judgement in this. Most children are naturally interested in learning new things and in asking questions. Also, you have to realise that ALL questions are valid and should be answered to your best ability - and if you don't know the answer, show her how to find it for herself. That may be the most important part - after all, science is not about knowing everything, but about finding out.

This is not 'an argument', it's a postulate. How does he actually imagine that this fabled 'IoT' (note the fancy capitalisation, an infallible sign that This Is True, for certain values of true). Let's go all the way back to the fundamentals of economy: value is produced by adding labour to natural resources, right? You dig iron ore out of the ground, heat it up and slap it with a hammer - now you have a tool, which is valuable (slightly simplified, I know). Where does the value come from in this IoT? Advertising? Outsourcing? Or does he just mean that the already wealthy will be better able to concentrate what limited wealth there is in their bankaccounts? Value, whichever way you define it, does not come out of thin air and communication.

Let's hear some real arguments, please.

You're talking nonsense, obviously. Most people watch tv in the night, when the sun is on the other side of the planet, so the panels should actually face down. I would have thought that was obvious.

I don't think it is a good idea, really, but I also don't think it will make much difference. There are certain skills and technologies that combine simplicity with major advantage: the wheel, fire, the knife. And writing, of course.

I can't see handwriting going away - it is too useful, being able to not only write, but also read handwriting, even if you mostly type. However, I think it is a very good idea to teach typing and texting (why not?) as a supplement to handwriting; my only worry is the progressive loss of skills that technology brings with it.

My favourite example of this: shaving. Something like 100 years ago, a man would use a straight razor - a simple knife of good, high carbon steel, kept extremely sharp, and he would probably only ever buy one in his life. The came the disposable razor blade, and now you had to buy a packet of those maybe every week or two. And now we are required to buy these ridiculous shaing heads with five blades in packet that cost £25 for 5 heads. Every weeks. So, do people get a better shave for the money? I got fed up with the whole thing, went and bought an old, straight razor for £1 in a car boot sale, learned to sharpen it (which was difficult in the beginning) and use it (very easy), and it is fully as good as the most expensive contraptions. All in all, we have, over the years, learned to throw away large amounts of money on things that give no added benefit. To me, the morale is: hold on to those simple, basic skills - they are worth it.

And not only that, what else would be the purpose of this 'Internet of Things (TM)'? It certainly doesn't address any problem in need of solving except, perhaps, overpopulation.

So, in a word, we have actually rimmed a comet?

What is it with film makers in the last too many years, who think that using growling voices and Double Thunder Base Technology (TM) or whatever it is called is all it takes to make an 'epic' movie? And why would that in itself be an adequate replacement for a good storyline, proper acting and all the rest? You know, I've found to my horror, that given the choice between 'Sound of Music' and this crap, I'd actually go for 'Sound of Music'. Well, I don't know, actually; I might just choose to slit my own throat slowly with a spoon.

No - I wasn't commenting on the actual article, but on the apparent fawning over the way an obscenely rich person casually wastes money on expensive, but fundamentally worthless decorations. A bit like when some 'artist' exhibits a few rotting pig carcasses in a glassbox, and it turns out there actually are people in the world, who combine wealth with a stupidity to the extent that they will pay tens to hundreds of thousands of USD for it, 'because it is art'. I find it genuinely hard to understand that anybody can admire that kind of people for this sort of thing.

Hmm, you have replyed to my posts before, and as usual, you don't seem to understand the concept of engaging in a discussion - and you are probably going to counter this statement with a flat out denial (as always) and claim that this is 'ad hominem' etc. Sigh.

It is not what you think, but what you do that makes the difference. Anybody can sometimes wish to kill another person - that doesn't make you a murderer, if you control your impulse. Any man can look at a beautiful girl and think of her in a way contains undeniably sexual overtones; a pedophile, however, does not control his impulses, but instead starts thinking up excuses for why it ought to be OK - the girl 'wants it', she is 'consensual', it is your 'special love' etc etc. Pedophiles are criminals, because they violate young children and fail to protect the vulnerable, not because they have natural instincts. I wonder what it is you are trying to tell us, between the lines?

I didn't say it would be easy to decide what to do. But if you have an epidemic of a disease that kills something like 60 - 70 % of those infected, and it is threatening to spread into the population that you are supposed to protect, what options do you have? You can either close your borders, so nobody can get in, and leave everybody else to rot, or you can go out there and do whatever it takes to control the epidemic. You have already indicated what you would choose.

At first I read your comment as a clever, sarcastic comment, but now I'm not so sure.

Ross Perot has always struck me as complete tosser, if you'll excuse the expression. This story only confirms my view. What really sets me off is the scale of stupid luxury - the kind of stuff you spend money on, despite the fact that you don't actually like it or have any use for it, but simply because you want to show others that you are rich enough to throw money around stupidly. If he had bought the whole computer, had it set up in working order and displayed it to the public for free in a museum, that would have been admirable, but as I read it from idly skimming the summary, he just got some parts of it. Idiot.

Can I turn this feature off? I absolutely hate it when applications try to second guess me, especially when it disrupts what I am in the middle of doing. Right at the top of my feature hate list are:

1) Autocomplete, because the suggestions that come up are generally not what I wan't any way, and they can easily become distractions that lead your thought processes astray.

2) Spellchecking as you type, because a) it doesn't prevent the stupid 'there/their' type errors, and b) minor spelling mistakes don't actually matter that much in an age where people tend to write SMS style lingo.

3) Search-as-you-type, because I actually hardly ever want simple, linear, single-term search functionality, and it only adds noise and distraction and costs performance. I want to be able to type in my search terms, revise them and then send off the query.