No, it answers questions (after determining what the question actually is), and then phrases the answer as a question. Exactly the same as the human contestants.

Also, it's possible that such a virus could be released even if none of the researchers involved are insane. The article says that the research involved infecting ferrets with viral strains. There's a known history of PETA type folks breaking into research labs and releasing animals...

I decided a few years ago that a super-virus will almost definitely be released, eventually. The technology and knowledge is (relatively) easily accessible, there are more than enough crazy people out there, and it only takes one person getting infected to knock down the whole house of cards. It's just a matter of time. Honestly, I think the only promising defense we have for this scenario are potent generally effective antivirals. If we have effective antivirals, then we could possibly hold out long enough to develop a vaccine. Without that, society as it stands is probably pretty much screwed.

And what if one of those released research animals was one from the research project discussed in the article? Congratulations, you just unwittingly released a deadly virus into the general population.

That's called a hidden variable theory, and experiments have been done that show that hidden variable theories are incorrect.

Observation requires interaction with the entangled object. Interacting with it causes the wave function to collapse and the object "chooses" a definite state. There is no way to passively observe the entangled object.

Well, of course you can't observe the effect directly with your eyes. The light bouncing off of the diamond would break the entanglement.

I don't think you understand what entanglement means.

I've heard that hypothermia is actually one of the more peaceful ways to kick the bucket. Not that I'd like to try it.

Well at least this one is 3 to 5 years away rather than the 5 to 10 that is normally thrown about. Progress?

You're assuming that we actually have one ourselves.

I don't disagree that the dipole claim seems weak. However, It does seem to me that these results are interesting enough to warrant further inquiry.

To be fair, if you RTFA, you'll see a diagram showing the various measurements they had made. I've not counted them, but it appears to be several dozen different "spots" rather than the two that you suggested.

I don't see the attack that you did. They simply approached the talk differently.

The the basic argument that I heard from Haught was that the universe must have a purpose (more or less because we can't accept the alternative), and while science is valuable, it is not capable of determining what that purpose is due to it's limited view of reality/the universe. Thus religion is there to answer what science can not, and in that way is complementary to science. He didn't really address the opposing viewpoint.

Coyne basically argues that religion is not based on reality and thus can't give truths about the world. In that it is completely incompatible with science. He goes about it by directly addressing the opposing viewpoint and showing how the views are irrational.

Haught took that last part as being a personal attack, but it's fairly clear Coyne quoted Haughts ideas in his examples because they were pertinent to the argument that we was making (that religion is irrational). It wasn't a personal attack.

Yes, it could apply to a two lane (one in each direction) road. Keeping close to the edge of the road makes it easier for other drivers to pass.