Rosetta Stone still requires Flash for full functionality.

As I recall Asimov's robots ended up becoming hidden figures using Hari Seldon's psychohistorical methods to guide humanity to a better society with minimal interference. That's something of a far cry from running amok and destroying humanity.

It certainly would have helped if he'd published it a couple of months ago.

What I don't get is why a five-a-day product is sold by the dozen.

None of the questions asked about 100% certainty. They asked how confident the respondents were that particular propositions were true, ranging from "Not at all confident" to "Extremely/very confident"; I think most scientists in the relevant fields would be able and willing to answer them as they were put.

"You know you've stayed too long when you start using the customer's calendar system." - Qeng Ho proverb

Our problems are traditional and societal, not legislative and institutional. The CofE gets to appoint Lords; imagine if the Baptist Church got to directly appoint a number of Senators! Faith schools are also directly supported by tax monies in the UK.

Mammon on the other hand he doesn't serve either. He could make a lot more money than he does, but he often waives speaking fees and he donates to charities. Simply making a good living, even a very good living, is not the same as worshipping money.

Dawkins isn't primarily trying to convert believers into atheists; he's trying to level the playing field so that it is as acceptable to criticise or even mock a religious or otherwise superstitious belief as it is to criticise or mock a political belief or any other kind. He is also trying to raise opposition to the institutional legislative advantages religion, particularly the Church of England, has in government, such as the seats in the House of Lords which are automatically assigned to CoE bishops, and to end the practice of governmental support of faith schools.

He's also made it quite plain that he doesn't dislike "religious people" in general - he is in fact close personal friends with many, including prominent bishops and other clerics.

Yes, it's actually considered a positive thing (not a "commandment" but more along the lines of a mitzvah) among LaVeyan Satanists to mock any and all dogmas in the world, as I understand it.

No, I think you're straw-manning their view, though not necessarily deliberately. The ones I've spoken to are quite serious about their philosophy, not just poking fun at Christianity (though there's a little bit of that too). They also don't worship Satan in quite the same sense; the Satan figure is overtly symbolic, not taken to be a literal personality as the Christian deity is.

It's a bit weird and to my point of view unnecessarily so, but they do seem to be mostly serious. They're not (at least for the most part) a joke religion along the lines of Pastafarianism; it's a bit more nuanced than that.

It's funny because it's true. I was dead serious, it works for me.

Nah. Buy good tools, crap tools are an invitation to frustration.

To avoid pilferage, paint them pink, and optionally add a little glitter as well.

His stuff is dark, complex, deep (no pun intended), and philosophically best described as brutally objective.

You can download just about all his backlist for free from his blog at rifters.com too.

At some point you have to accept that risk can't be eliminated, only mitigated.

^This.