Analog vs digital. And digital print is aliased.

scenarios

Sorry, pet peeve: pseudo-latin/greek plurals.

2x2 for lowercase. Right. That's 16 possible "characters", with one of those being empty space and 4 of them being single pixels. I call BS.

This should go to +11. Thanks!

That links to Desktop Browser Market Share. He said "iPhones and iPads", i.e. not desktop: Mobile/Tablet Browser Market Share.

Here's a pretty good book: Javascript: The Good Parts. You're welcome. :)

It's a JavaScript comparison operator for strict equality, which tests both value and type. JS is dynamically typed, so 3 == '3' evaluates to true, but 3 === '3' is false. The inequality analogues are != and !==.

That's a rather narrow understanding of a fairly broad field of study.

Computer Science:

See also: Applied Science

R&D, like say, a prototype networked information system that makes data available on "pages" of hyper-linked text -- a "web" of data. The proof-of-concept came first, the engineering came after.

People who "just think about things" are called philosophers. Scientists create a great number of things. If such creations are found to have useful properties, someone then figures out how to efficiently produce them in larger quantities. Those people can be scientists or engineers or both, depending on the challenges involved. Other engineers then figure out how to use those creations to make stuff that gets used by other people.

Tim Berners-Lee is a computer scientist. Robert Cailliau is an informatics engineer and a computer scientist. Nicola Pellow was a math undergrad. The Web was created at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) and first deployed to science departments and physics labs like SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center) and Fermilab.

So yes, _scientists_ did create the Web.

You know, that doesn't sound bad at all... :)

2% is over 70 million people. That's not rare by most definitions. How many people do you know? All it takes is one to ruin lives. Do remember that these people gravitate towards positions of power in corporations and governments. They don't have to be "really out to harm others and abuse nature." The harm and misery they cause is simply collateral damage to them, and they don't care how much harm they cause in the pursuit of their goals.

+5 Informative (with bonus points for clarity and presentation) :)

I've seen estimates of the brain's computing power ranging from 38 PetaFLOPS, which Tianhe-2 is approaching, to 6.4 ExaFLOPS, which was the estimated computing power of all the computers on Earth in 2007. I suspect the actual figure is closer to the latter than the former.

In 25 years, transistors have gotten around 100,000 times smaller. In 1988, the fastest computer was the Cray-2. It had 32 MB (!) and could achieve 250 MFLOPS (!). The Tianhe-2 just exceeded 30 PFLOPS. That's 120 million times faster than the Cray-2. I think the available computational resources will make a difference at some point.

The core of science is the scientific method, which is a set of mental tools and processes designed to help us figure out the truth and avoid our inherent biases and cognitive limitations. The part that's important to your question is this: extraordinary claims must require extraordinary evidence to be considered valid.

Not even considering the content and supposed provenance of the Christian Bible, just the claim that there is an entity with the qualities and attributes ascribed to the Christian God is an exceptionally extraordinary claim. There is absolutely no independently and empirically verifiable evidence to support that claim. Objectively, any acceptance of the truth of that claim is the same as acceptance of any of a number of similar extraordinary claims, most of which would fall under the categories of myths, legends, superstitions or pseudo-science: faeries, unicorns, elves, UFOs, ghosts, etc. There simply is no rigorously objective, intellectually honest juxtaposition between most major religions and the scientific method. Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot comes to mind.

Personally, I think if one considers oneself a scientist, one must apply the scientific method to all truth propositions, regardless of whether such happen to be in the lab or outside, or whether they fall under one's specialty or not. I suppose it's possible to draw a line somewhere and say "Here I'll apply the scientific method and there I won't." but given our inherent human fallibility, I think that's a recipe for disaster. Sooner or later, the line will blur and you end up with bad science.