I chose "waving hands in the air" but that is not QUITE what I want to see. I want to see full-body control. The first generation of this idea would be a combination of a wiimote and a DDR pad. Hand and foot positioning together working to control the system.

Second step I would like to see would be motion sensors that could strap to forearms, shins, and the continued use of a wiimote type device or a glove.

Third gen would simply be a camera attached to the console that monitors your movement.

Full motion video games would first of all just be awesome. In a third person or first person adventure game, being able to defeat the orcs by actually dodging when they attack, then quickly coming back with a kick or thrust would be amazing. Being able to "throw" a baseball, and have the computer work out my body mechanics to see how likely the batter is to hit it would be wonderful. Being able to "push" my armies around the screen in a war simulator would make me happy. Having video games provide a way to be less sedentary, more active, and still entertain could save many lives.

I think if they worked, such game systems would be extremely popular. The existing games and game systems that go for an approximation of emersive reality have all been wild successes. From Duck hunt, to DDR to Rock Band to the Wii phenomenon. All we need is for some company to take this to the next level.

Did they test those same kids for computer literacy before and after they got computers in their homes?

Computer literacy is an important skill. In today's world it is possibly more important than elementary math or spelling, as it to a large extent can substitute for either skill.

Trying to get entry level pseudo professional jobs, computer literacy is more important than the difference between a diploma and a GED. It is more important than how quickly you can add, subtract, multiply or divide. It is more important than your ability to analyze literature.

So my question is, on these important tests that the student did poorly in, did they test computer literacy? If their literacy went up 300% and they had a fairly minor drop in other scores, having the computer are getting them much more prepared for their futures than not having them would have.

So you say that after leaving high school people use a pen for almost nothing, then in the same breath say that we should teach more penmanship? Really? We should focus MORE on the skills that are least likely to be used in any professional setting? Penmanship is on the decline for the same reason that horsemanship has greatly declined in the last three hundred years. It isn't as needed anymore.

Today, if you want to do well in the real world, you don't need to know how to ride a horse, you need to learn how to drive a car. Today if you want to do well in the real world you don't need to study penmanship, you need to learn to type.

Get rid of cursive writing in the third grade (or second or whenever your school system teaches it) and teach touch-typing instead. Let high schools teach cursive as an elective. Don't teach something just because of tradition. Look at the real world and figure out what the value of what your teaching is. If something has more value than another, teach the more valuable lesson first. Then do the other lesson if you have time.

Hmm, either you made an absolutely wonderful analogy, or you just proved you don't understand two different areas of medical science.

Acupuncture has been shown to effective for the treatment of pain. It would be effective in mitigating the pain associated with everything from cancer to cuts and scrapes. It would not, however, treat the root causes. If you were using acupuncture as an example of "junk" medicine that really doesn't work, you fail. On the other hand, if you were using it as an example of something that seems like it would be counterproductive, but actually works for treatment of some conditions, you've hit a home run.

Almost all ADHD drugs are stimulant medication. If you give them to someone who doesn't have ADD/ADHD you will see an increase in hyperactivity, decrease in attention control and a the subject might get a mild sence of euphoria (but only if to much was given).

But in an ADHD patient, the stimulant medication have a CALMING effect. This is strikingly counterintuitive, yet is real double-blind tested science. (Acupuncture, by its nature cannot be tested with a double blind test, so the evidence for its effectiveness might be slightly less conclusive.)

However, from your last paragraph, I'm guessing you understand NEITHER aspects of medical science. Sadly, not understanding something does not make it any less true. You were blessed with sons with "easy" personalities. Congratulations, your sons probably do not have ADD. This is not a result of your parenting methods, it is a result of your genetics. Some people have ADD, for some of these children medication is required so that they CAN learn not to "stand up, escape, run out of the room, [or] throw a random object."

Asking people with diagnosed medical conditions to stop taking their medication, or worse, asking people who's CHILDREN have diagnosed medical conditions to stop treatment because you do not understand the mechanism of the condition or treatment is irresponsible. When penicillin was first discovered, there was a small amount of backlash against it. People claimed that the old folk treatments were more effective, and that the penicillin craze was caused by manufacturers wanting to make more money off an injection. Indeed, the very notion of an injection was, at one time, considered barbarous. Yet again and again controlled, scientific studies show the same results: acupuncture is effective in the mitigation of pain, Ritalin is effective in the treatment of ADD and ADHD, antibiotics are effective in the treatment of bacterial infections. Refusing your child any of the three of these, if he or she has been properly diagnosed with a condition for which they are the most appropriate treatment, should be considered child abuse. Giving any of these to your child if he or she does not have the condition for which they are appropriate treatment is likewise abusive.

Okay, I see, you're a bit harsher than I am, but not as bad as it looked to begin with.

I'm confused here, are you saying only a scumbag would say that blind people should be able to access books as inexpensively as a sighted person? Are you implying that people who try to fight for legal protections for the disabled are scumbags?

Or is scumbag simply your euphemism for lawyer? (Which is understandable.)

Or did I miss something else?

Stop the fowl puns!

Vegetables, fresh vegetables from my garden. Even with a cold frame, you can't get a good fresh mouth-watering tomato December-February. (I've seen cherry tomatoes grown in late February, but I don't like them anyway.) Try growing habaneros in the middle of winter; ain't gonna happen. Zucchini are your friends, frost (or snow for that matter) is not your zucchini's friend.

Oh, and mead won't brew at your suggested 40 degree temperature (without a LOT of help). You need at least 50 degrees, and 60-75 is ideal.

Knew I'd get you with that last one.

"Free Will" and "Deterministic" are both linguistic constructions that have no meaning beyond what they are given. Their utility in arguments depends on their having the same meaning on all sides of the arguments. Many, but not all philosophers define "Free Will" and "Deterministic" in such a way as to make them logically mutually exclusive. The argument that this article is relevant to makes that assumption. Arguing otherwise is not adding to the argument, it is just an emotional or political attempt to change the definitions of the words, while you take one side of the argument or another. (You are taking the hard deterministic argument, and changing the meaning of "Free Will".)

Although semantic arguments sound reasonable. And often are well thought out. They add nothing to the debate, and even often cloud the waters of established debates, as sometimes the meaning shifts go unnoticed on first reading. When involved in a Philosophical argument, try to first find out what definitions for words are being used then use those definitions yourself, even when they differ from how you usually use them.

It might sound odd at first, that you can be asked to completely change definitions you use in every-day life when talking in a specific field, but every field does something similar. Just think of the following words that mean very different things to a programmer than a non-programmer: arguments, objects, languages, environment, variables, functions, etc.