That's true in neuroscience but it's not an uncommon outlook in computer science/machine learning. How neurons are modeled in a neural net can make or break its ability to to learn. The activation function, the function used to determine when the artificial neurons in a neural net should fire, has to be stochastic to a degree to get that learning behaviour. Of course, the best we can usually do in computer science is psuedorandom. So there is some merit in wanting to investigate what true randomness could do for these algorithms. This said, correlation is not causation, but the necessity of stochastic elements in ML does warrant further investigation of the possibility.

This is an advantage in terms of how useful that energy is. The weight of the vehicle goes down as fuel is consumed, which means that energy gets you further. Since the battery watt-hrs per kg are lower, and their weight never changes significantly, you will have to move more mass with less energy. All other things being equal of course.

I have no idea what you're talking about. They used photometry to detect the planets... They see a dipp in the light curve of the star as the planets block some of the light.

This isn't so the GPU can address just vram, it allows their new GPU HBM2 cache to directly address data in memory and disk as well. For big simulations on a cluster utilizing GPUs this can be a huge benefit.

Improvement in this case is somewhat ambiguous. Real world performance vs benchmarks isn't as telling as we would like in CPU comparison. Certainly the processors are more efficient, which allows higher clocks (in this case ~150% higher). New architectures usually bring improvements to performance. You have software utilizing the additional threads and and cores far better then the Q9550 would allow. Improvement yes, but the score encompasses a lot more then what the average user might see as improvement in their usage.

So if a couple down the road is genetically engineering their children without eyes or asking for changes just to see what happens we should be okay with this and enable them? There is a strong case to correct genetic based disorders. However I think a moment to talk about the ramifications of the wrong, intentional or otherwise, that can be done with this technology would be worthwhile.

I could not agree more. Also many models have an outstanding keyboard for a laptop which is a must for reports and documentation. Many can also use full docks and gives the added benefit of being able to drop it into a workstation setup.

I don't know how much weight I give the biblical flood account but when dealing with ancient literature nothing is that certain. There has been some interesting arguments in favour of this but that's far from the absolute you imply. Ancient Mesopotamia flooded a lot, cultures in the area didn't need to go far to get details on the phenomenon.

Your last statement is contradictory to the rest. Observation without controlled experiment is not science, its speculation. Controlled experiment always comes into it, you aren't completing the scientific process until you systematically test that hypothesis against observation. Anyone can pull a hypothesis out of the air and make predictions, until its applied to observation the science isn't finished. That isn't to say we can't make predictions, and look for their evidence as you were saying. How did we know what evidence an asteroid impact leaves? We studied it, we may not have been in control of the experiment but we did observe it (or its results). The author does make a good point, a lot of theories, studies, or things "proven" that hit media are many times not scientifically sound. They contain too many conclusions or predictions on too little (or poor) evidence.

Really, find a local astronomy club or group. We have local ones that do group gatherings, everyone brings out their telescopes. Usually local professors or teachers attend and love to answer questions and teach on the spot. Local observatories often do open to the public nights as well. Always professionals there to answer questions and direct.

Creationism more specifically then ID theory. Naturalistic explanation is unreasonable because the former proposes a supernatural event. This creates a naturalistic disjoint between the act of creation and the natural. It's unreasonable to expect an explanation for something that does not have to have evidence. This specifically refers to the general act. If you take young earth creationism for instance, you have a naturalistic argument interjected with a supernatural premise. This, apart from that singular premise, can be examined, debated, and rebutted from a naturalistic view point. However someone could adhere to evolutionary theory and creationism (without a derived naturalistic theory) and not be in conflict.

I did. Your argument was it didn't work, under any circumstances. This wasn't true. I've never had steam force an update on something I set not to nor has it ever locked out a game for being set not to update in offline mode. I'm sure it's game dependent but nothing I can attest to. Theres issues with not being able to install if you did not do so while online, sure. My point is that offline mode does work, not always, but that's different from never. My purpose was simply to show that some users don't have absolute bad experiences with steam, despite your personal difficulties. I can disconnect and get steam into offline mode with or without it running. It's only rarely been an issue. In stark contrast to your statements.

Worded poorly and inaccurately. It is however considered by most archaeologists to be the oldest large scale cut stone structure in antiquity.

Its certainly a pain no argument there but that's not all entirely true. If you have it set to remember your password you can go into offline mode whenever. If I don't have internet at startup when it launches it simply offers the option to go into offline mode. I just did that this morning. As for locking out your games, if you don't want them to update, set them to not update in steam. Its really that easy. I can't say how long it lasts in offline mode, but I've personally gone just over a week (no internet) without any issues. (All in windows)

That's exactly it. Intelligent Design is not a naturalistic argument and so, can't be examined as such. The moment people stop trying to give or demand a naturalistic argument for something that will never fit one is the moment we can get on with our lives. Both sides perpetuate this problem.