I started watching, but couldn't find any science, just ridicule. I wish I had time and unlimited internet out here to watch; maybe sometime. Normally, a speaker tells you what he's going to say, says it, then tells you what he said. As for science, I got a now related paleontology professor to accept that Darwin was an ignorant, and Friar Gregor Mendel was a profoundly successful scientist. Remember, I also studied and did well in advanced genetics; but that is off topic. There were two points of my note to your TCLUG numerical simulation reference. First, Cellulosic biofuels are a top global priority. Whether climate, economics, natural resources, population, security; nobody will dispute this. I don't need to swim upstream in a political sewer to advocate scientific inquiry using computer modeling and databases people are bragging about. Second, Minnesota has cellulose. If Richard Dawkins and his theater audience can help develop some science that works I'll sit in the front row and applaud louder than anybody. Finally, I'll believe fire is photochemistry until somebody proves otherwise. It might be worth doing more quantum mechanics and less thermodynamics in you computer simulations. Iznogoud wrote: > Nothing wrong with having no plan and "no purpose." I was at this lecture > featured at the very start: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT4EWCRfdUg > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tclug-list at mn-linux.org > http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >