The article makes it sound like she's the head of some team of scientists actually working on how to make this happen. Maybe philosophy journalism is actually worse than science journalism.
If you look at her other posts she doesn't seem to be a complete nutter.
In effect, he has created a far superior core translation engine for a Universal Translator. Their web site includes a link to his TED talk."
Link to Original Source
Okay, they did spend a little effort to try to improve my experience, but unfortunately they spent it on Clippy, The Ribbon, and Metro.
"Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories, he did not do well in science classes in college, and avoided taking math. His grades during his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class." --Wikipedia
He actually studied government.
I'm guessing the concept of omnipotence emerged later?
And the Old Testament is not really monotheistic as we think about that today. It seems to say Yahweh is the most powerful of gods, but not the only. Some language like "above all others" implies to me that the *author* is saying "mine's better" instead of "yours don't actually exist".
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
And here's more commentary.
Newton, on the other hand, yeah.