That's quite insightful. We can't really define randomness, anyway, except as a quantification of ignorance, or possibly free will. Like any other organism, when carefully tested under the most precisely defined experimental conditions, even an electron will do -- well, whatever it darn well feels like. Materialism bottoms out - quanta behave nothing like bricks and beefsteak. Causality is no longer a part of fundamental physics, and hasn't been for nearly a century. The universe is alive, every bit of it is conscious and has free will - or none of it does. (see the Free Will Theorem")

  Yet there is still this yearning to believe in a Newtonian universe among the vulgar bandwagon of internet atheists, to somehow clothe their ignorance in a semblance of science, to profess certainty when there is none to be had. They want to believe that they really know, that they understand the universe, that they are smart and special and superior, even if that means they have to claim that nothing is conscious, not even themselves, that there is no meaning, not even in their own thoughts, that there is no choice, not even in how to interpret the world. Try to show them that reality is so much bigger and slipperier than they think, and they won't listen. They don't know science, they certainly don't practice science, and their hooting and slavering to hunt heretics comes from unsupported belief and pack mentality just as much as the most deluded zealot of any other sect.

More to the point, these fake rationalists have only a cartoonish understanding of evolution. Here's what I posted on Slashdot six years ago:

Evolutionary theorists (at the slashdot level, at least) seem to operate with a very shallow understanding of genetic processes. The base sequence is not all that is inheirited - the whole structure of the egg (RNA, proteome, cytoskeleton, etc.)is passed on as well, and the pattern of activation or of portions of the genome depends on its cellular environment. The womb environment is largely pased on in placental mammals. "Epigenetic" effects such as methylation can have dramatic heiritable effects. The cytoskeleton seems to have the capacity for an informational and computational structure, even without the hypothesized quanum effects. (See Mershin and Nanopoulos [lanl.gov])

The problem is that people try to pretend that everything is understood despite the fact that there are huge anomalies such as the 90% of the genome that is not expressed as proteins - "introns" which in many cases are actually functional and usually highly structured. (analogous to the reverse of the "missing mass" problem in cosmology) The mechanisms of rapid speciation and of conservation of species in the face of isolated populations with changing environments are both not understood. The supposed single ancestral cell is not supported over panspermia and/or multiple ultimate ancestors. Genetic flows beween species are overlooked. Endosymbiosis and co-evolution are ignored as much as possible. Wild genetic diversity of otherwise virtually indistinguishable species is not accounted for. Probabilities are not calculated and math is discarded in favor of superficially plausible "just-so stories", which may make the some of the most glaring anomalies effectively invisible.

The physicists of 1900 may have had fewer and less troubling anomalies than biology does today - the biologists have no way of knowing since they continue to refuse to make hypotheses which can be quantified and falsified (in a Bayesian rather than Popperian sense) even after the biochemical means have become available

It's not really about that tho, it's about being able to joke without being arrested.
Imma kill all presidents of the world!
then next morning im arrested. that .. doesn't make any sense.

and then we get history lessons about how 200 years ago people got jailed, fined, and/or killed for a yes or no from more powerful people.
it didn't change all that much.

The old name for mahi-mahi was, in fact, "dolphin". Unfortunately, it's hard to confuse with beef.

12" is a perfectly natural distance to hold a small device. Perhaps holding a device closer than 12" is awkward, but most people can focus closer than that. I'm over 40 and can focus both eyes from 9" to infinity. (Younger people could do better. At 10 I could focus at 1.5"-infinity.) I can also make out 1-pixel movements at 97ppi from 6 feet away. At 12 inches, that's the equivalent of over 580ppi. At 9 inches it's nearly 780ppi. The 440ppi of this device is not overkill.

And 3"x5" is not too big at all. I've had wallets bigger than that.

Interesting. After clicking through to get the real 128 pixel sizing, I can still barely see movement on my 97ppi (0.262mm pitch) monitor from 6 feet (1.82m). So I'd need about 350 ppi (0.0725mm pitch) to seem perfect from my usual 20in (0.5m) viewing distance. That would be a resolution of about 2912x4368 on a 3:2 15-inch screen, or just over 12.7 megapixels.

"If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve - what's more resolution going to get you?"
You just need these 2.5x near-focus binocular spectacles. Stylish, too.

What do you mean if Google made good on their promise? They did release all the necessary code to run Wave servers.

What does SMS do better then email? It seems inferior in every way. I imagine SMS will die before email does, replaced by IM clients on smart phones.

I see. Well, as I said, it will be helpful for Chinese too. Just focus on the meanings of the characters and not the pronunciations, those would be pretty much useless.

It was an attempted joke. What he said is rude in Cantonese, but of course meaningless in the language we're talking about.