A Livescribe pen would let her take notes like normal and record the lecture. Plus Livescribe will also let you take notes for all your classes in one notebook, and then you can sort the notes into individual classes ion the computer. So only one notebook to carry around at a time. AND the notes can then be put into PDF or loaded into Evernote so you can read them on whatever device you want. Easy and familiar to use to record information and easy to sort it and use the notes later. I love mine for notes in meetings and my own projects!

The difference will be the price point and ease of use. Sure- the iPad can do it all better, but for 2.5 times the cash. Other devices might be better ebook readers. But getting all of it for under $200? Technology history is full of better devices and technologies losing to "good enough". And the reviews seem to be saying it isn't stellar, but also seem to be saying it will do the job. And how many non-techie people read through all the comparison reviews? I doubt the typical Slashdot reader is Amazon's main intended demographic.

I wouldn't count it out yet.

If it is true, then it worked didn't it? And it is certainly less crazy than a number of other well documented spy/war/cold war evens.

I do mean it like that. While religious upbringing can be passed on, faith cannot. I know too many ex-Catholics to believe otherwise.

Faith cannot be pushed on someone. A person might be taught something even to the point of brainwashing, but they are still able to learn new facts. If you put two people through the same process, you cannot say with certainty they will come out with the same faith. Opposed to a scientific process, where two separate people can perform the same experiment and obtain the same results.

It has been theorized that different universes might have different laws. Once universe creation can be done in a controlled, repeatable fashion, I would be glad to have this conversation ;)

Though I never said only the repeatable things can be true. I said that only repeatable processes can be considered science. It is true that I loved my childhood pet, but it would be impossible to recreate that relationship, making my emotions for the pet not a valid subject to scientific proof.

Coward, you are a troll and an idiot, but I'll still answer.

If you cannot verify it, then no- religion cannot be considered science. Let's look at some examples of falsehoods. In science, we have the Piltdown man. It was taken as a great discovery, but subsequent studies demonstrated that it was a fake. In religion, someone claims god told them something, how can you verify that? No number of religious experts can say it did or didn't happen. For every claim of achieving cold fusion, subsequent peer review has shown it to be false. Can you recreate or study Jesus rising from the grave? That is peer review. Religion has no sort of peer review.

I don't think you have to do every experiment to believe it. But if you have faith in the PEOPLE telling you what the science is, then you don't have to. That is the difference. You have faith in the repeatable, scientific, peer-reviewed process. As opposed to religion, which puts faith in millennia old writings that have been edited and translated repeatedly.

Science is fundamentally different from faith in that science is reproducible. Faith is not.

What this question asks is if you are too lazy to learn the details yourself then you have to have faith in the person telling you about it. Which is exactly the same as most people who can't be bothered to learn the details of their own religion and its history, and instead just take on faith that the person telling them what god wants them to do is actually the truth of it. But that similarity is that people not wanting to learn themselves are putting faith in a person of trust.

If we had quality talent at the top level, I would be willing to pay for it. Instead we get culture-pushing, fear-mongering, holier-then-thou sorts.

I know a lot of people on assembly lines that are far more trust-worthy than a lot of the politicians I read about. Or than a number of CEO's I've met or read about.

Maybe instead of thinking that it is the "high-but-not-high-enough pay" that encourages dishonesty, maybe it is the fact that these people are power-hungry, I-know-better sorts that are glad to take outside money and influence if it will let them win the next election to show that they were right all along.

And for your information, the average TV star doesn't make a huge amount. Not unless they are at the very top and score a $1M+ per episode deal, and that is usually only after years on a show. But I'm sure Charlie Sheen is showing just how respectable and worth it he is. After all, he is(was) getting paid well, so under your theory, he must be above all other influences, right?

You do realize he claims to sleep in his office to avoid that? And that he has a far-from-necessary vacation home?

So explain how many businesses are getting huge profits, such as GE (which paid no taxes), and still laying off people?

Excellent idea! Let's start off with all of us agreeing that the Holocaust never happened. We can move up to Greedo having always shot first after that settles.

That is because Republicans are out doing things. Mainly crazy things that can be made fun of. Democrats are not doing much of anything. Sure they don't get made fun of- but they also aren't doing anything to run the country.

Incorrect.

You are right that books are cheap to make (~10% of the cover), and distribute (another ~10%) but the writer only gets around 15%. The retailer gets ~40% of the cover price, and the rest goes to the publisher.

In other words, the business around writing gets more than the writers do.

Coward, most of the time (unless it is a big name writer) the person doing the marketing is the author themselves.

Thank you for proving my point. Every bit of current geo-engineering has been done by mistake. And for every idea about intentional geo-engineering, none have been tested adequately and all of them have potentially large negative side effects. Real geo-engineering would know what the outcome will be with a high degree of certainty. So we do not know how to do that yet. As you suggest we might be able to do that in 50 years. But then they thought we would have weather forecasting licked 50 years ago as well.

For space travel, the mechanics are known. Go that way as fast as possible. The aspects about identifying materials that can withstand the stresses is still unknown, but that is design rather than the total science. Intentional and stable geo-engineering is currently guesswork. Space travel science is known- it is just ahead of the material capabilities available.

And why are you assuming that thousands of people would be sent out in a ship? Or for that matter it can't be both geo-engineering and people? A robotic ship loaded with viruses, alien algae, alien insects, and alien seeds would be how any geo-engineering would need to start. That could be far worse for us than a ship full of sentients.