> It's possible there were other universes. Prove it.

You made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. I pointed out how your assertion could be wrong.

If evolution is such a obvious theory as to be taken as fact, then why are there no species obviously evolving into another?

According to the theory, millions of years ago Chimps evolved into humans. Why then are there no chimps in a stage of evolving that would signify a progression to a different species? They've had millions of years to do so...

Probably this is just a troll, since these answers are so well known, so I'm not going to bother looking up citations.

1. There are many examples of speciation that are documented in the time we've been watching rigorously.

2. If you think that the theory of evolution says that chimps evolved into humans, than you have no understanding of evolution.

How do you know there aren't any?

Surely if they did, they'd be widely referenced and be irrefutable?

My point is, evolution is a theory, which cannot be proved even by its most hardened supporters. There is more gray here than you would seem to admit.

Eat your Own Dog Food is the one I never get. I know it's supposed to mean that your dog food should be good enough to eat yourself, but it's akin to expecting the CEO of a pet food company to open a can and start eating!

I think that it's more memorable this way precisely because it's unlikely to happen. Think of the riddle: "Why does Dog Food taste like shit?" "Because nobody ever eats it."

If the saying was "Eat your own croissants," it wouldn't have the same punch because most croissants are reasonably edible and indeed people who make croissants do taste test them.

without a compiler

Dilbert: Today we're going to learn what time is. Imagine a donut fired from a cannon and spinning at the speed of light. Time is just like that, but without the donut and the cannon.

But if that language had EVAL, things would get a little more complicated ..

Or curly braces. Did they use tabs?

As a side note, do you think academia or startups are leading the charge in revolutionary technologies? As a post-grad, my point of view was firmly skewed towards academia, but the pace of iterative technological improvements by startups makes it seem as if in the short term, startups are driving new technologies more than academic research.

A lot of startup founders are people who leave academia for one reason or another (graduates, ex-academics).

Also, a lot of excellent ideas (e.g. the Web) were of almost no interest to academic researchers in relevant fields at the time - they dismissed it as a toy. And perhaps from a purely academic viewpoint they were right - but that doesn't mean that it isn't of use to billions of people.