Invest in companies developing nicotine vaccines.

Define what a better company means. You can argue about the artistic merit of the games or the technological achievement of both companies, but the fact remains: Sony loses money with every console sold, Nintendo earns profit with every console sold, therefore, in terms of the business of being a company, Nintendo is the better gaming company.

I second hamandcheese's statement.

Well, if we stick to the modern mythical version of Jesus, then this blindness-curing, demon-casting, fish-multiplying, half-man half-deity would require an extraordinary amount of corroborating evidence to support his historical existence; evidence which does not exist, as we all know.

Biochemical systems and electromechanical systems both play by the same rules of physics and chemistry, so technically, human organisms and robotic machines are two specks on the same long spectrum of how to organize atoms to conduct predetermined functions and calculations.

The question is silly because robots and human beings are essentially the same type of "object".

On the case of the two converging: Quantum mechanical engineering is far more complex than both electromechanical and biochemical engineering, so a possibility is for both humans and robotic machines to verge towards that complexity instead of merging into eachother.

An artist who digitizes their work must understand the following rules: copies will be worth just as much as the original and making further copies is costless.

So one must ask, why did the artist digitize their art to begin with? Why imbue your product with such capabilities only to wish to restrict them as if they were in a previous format?

Any artist who allows their work to enter the digital domain must understand that they have decided to remove the particular ownership benefits of analogue from their work and now must play by the digital world's rules.

And then the next debate would be, should the digital world be forced to play by the rules of the analogue world?

Ah yes! This question. Well, there are dozens of scholars who debate this very topic fiercely in academic and theological circles, so I fear my lowly research wouldn't do this argument justice.

I do however want to share a quote from Christopher Hitchens on the veracity of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical figure:

"The jumbled 'Old' Testament prophecies indicate that the messiah will be born in ... Bethlehem. However, Jesus's parents were apparently from Nazareth and if they had a child he was most probably delivered in that town. Thus a huge amount of fabrication - concerning Augustus, Herod, and Quirinius - is involved in confecting the census tale and moving the nativity scene to Bethlehem.

But why do this at all, since a much easier fabrication would have had him born in Bethlehem in the first place ... The very attempts to bend and stretch the story may be inverse proof that someone of later significance was indeed born, so that in retrospect, and to fulfill the prophecies, the evidence had to be massaged to some extent."

So are you refering to Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus the messiah (or Christ)?

Good scientific evidence is what we call reliable, logical, mutually confirming observations that support certain answers about how the world works. So how does one reach a true answer without using good scientific evidence?

The answer is chance. Using bad scientific evidence, or faulty logic, or just plain old guessing are all ways upon which, based on statistical probabilities, one could merely chance upon the true answer to a question without actually having good scientific evidence for it. Therefore science is not the only method of reaching answers.

But these answers are particularly useless to us until we verify their truthfulness against reality. How does one verify those answers? One has to fall back on the search for evidence to logically support those conclusions, in other words, good scientific evidence.

So, can you have all the answers within your reach using good scientific evidence?

In so much as the answers can be had, AND VERIFIED, then yes, "it" "has" all the answers.

Modern man is only the current incarnation of a spectrum of species dubbed 'homo' that extends for hundreds of thousands of years (and beyond). Therefore, our habits, diet, strategies for survival and bonding techniques are mutable and constantly changing to meet the needs of our environment.

To believe that there is a standard for homo sapien relations that is constant and must be upheld, in spite of new technologies and new interactive capabilities not originally found on the African Savanna, is to ignore the necessary mutability of nature and the fleeting existance of particular specie.