This is a weird idea, but QR codes can come in handy for certain things, I don't think they're totally useless. It's when you try to make up ways to use them that are less convenient than not using them at all that they become stupid.

That's possible. It'll probably all come down to how it is marketed (kind of like the iPad).

Possibly, some people would, but I think it would be more profitable to capture the overwhelming majority of the meat market than to cater to a subset of it, albeit a wealthy subset.

Interesting, I didn't know that.

1) I find it difficult to assume that those markets would never give up natural grown meat, but I suppose it is entirely possible.

1) Perhaps, but the food snob population pales in comparison with the "I just want to eat" population.

If/when lab grown meat replaces the way we currently eat meat, what will we do with all of our domesticated livestock?

Soups and stews often taste better after a few days. Chicken soup pretty much always tastes better after sitting in the refrigerator for a bit. A couple of days ago I made an onion soup that was terrible, but the next day it was actually pretty good.

I get that, but they really should think a bit more before making a choice anyway. I think the iPhone's screen is a good size in general, but it can feel a bit cramped at times because it tries to straddle that middle ground of hand sizes and doesn't work for everyone.

Why didn't they just buy a phone with a smaller screen? Can't complain if they made the choice, it isn't like Google mandates a huge screen.

ISO is awesome, stuff moves and long shutter speeds don't always get the results you want. I guess it depends on what you like shooting :P

Well taking really good photos isn't so easy either (though I'll keep trying!), but I agree. The person who loves taking photos on their iPhone and can't afford a better camera is still a photographer.

You assume that religious people consciously use religion in that manner, in which case yes, it would be pretty disgusting. I don't believe that that is the case, so I don't accept their position as morally contemptible.

But how people feel about it is important. To disregard the way they feel because they're wrong defeats the purpose of a democratic society. If a majority of the population feels that it is morally wrong to destroy a fertilized egg because it has sufficient potential for life then, but definition, they live in a…

The vote wasn't about the scientific fact though. Most people who view a fertilized egg as a person see this as a morality issue, not a scientific issue. Government by its very nature has to take into account what people think of morality, otherwise we could just be ruled by an oligarchy of scientists.

It isn't constructive because it isn't a very convincing argument. Most people place a lot more emphasis on human life than other forms of animal and plant life and it isn't so hard to understand the fact that they also feel that the potential for life is important as well.

I get the comparison, I was commenting more on the fact that it seems to oversimplify the issue.

Unfertilized egg is not such a great example, but what about an egg that simply hasn't hatched yet? Is it a chicken?

Man, humans are weird. When was the last time anyone heard of a cheetah running with improper form?

Some friends of ours got a $20 knife set when they got married. It includes something like 10 kitchen knives and steak knives and spatulas and whatnot. They think it was a bargain and don't really that knives aren't supposed to have trouble cutting things.