I think we need to define some things here. In context, by fundamental I mean those who take a literalistic interpretation of their Holy Book. I made this clear with the rest of what I said; "... and insist on a literal 7 x 24-hour day creation.... of course there are Muslims and Hindus capable of equivalent stupidity".
Now, if you believe literally in either the Biblical account of the Flood or Creation, then you are denying _rather_ solid evidence. For example, with regard to the Noachian Global Flood, both dendrochronological dating of bristlecone pines still standing today and the dating of the Great Pyramid at Geza falsify this as an actual event. The dating one can take from the Bible's chronology implies that both the Great Pyramid, and trees on the top of mountains in Califronia were apparently totally covered by water and yet examination of the trees and Pyramids - hell, the existence of the trees and pyramid, show that this cannot have been. That is solid evidence. The yawning lack of evidnce for a Global Flood backs this up.
If you do indeed fall under the designation I gave (a literalistic believer), I'd be happy to discuss it with you as you may not be aware of the evidence or misunderstand the evidence that the Earth is far more than a few thousand years old. If you regard the Bible account of creation as a metaphor, fine, your beliefs do not deny solid evidence.
I am afraid taking a bunch of post-rennaisance scientists who were Christian because of where they were born (rather than any decision on their part) and who lived in a period where the worst excesses of Christian suppression of science were in the past does not invalidate my point, which is that over history Christianity seem to win the contest as 'religion most likely to stifle scientific advancement'.
I can, for example, quote how a Hindu astronomer introduced a correct theory of eclipses to replace the religious supersticion of moon eating demons (in 400AD I think), and how no one threatened to burn him for rubbishing fondly held religious dogma, and then I can keep on going with other examples until I have a dissertation. Islam holds teaching science to be of equal value to prayer!
Religious supersticion still makes some people oppose scientific progress, as you demonstrate;
"We believe that all human life is sacred and that no human should be killed to make life easier or healthier for someone else. The science shows that these zygotes are inherently human - that all that is required for a person to grow from a fertilized egg is food and shelter."
Now, your theory firstly requires belief in god. This is not universal, yet you seem to expect respect to your religious supersticiona be shown by non-belivers (and not return a similar respect to their beliefs).
Your theory requires drawing equivalence - for example between one ounce of fetus barely 2" long, with less nerve tissue than a pet rat - and the mother or a new born child. This is NOT supported by science; your contention that human life is sacred is not even supported by the facts; did you know a large number of fertilised eggs fail to implant? What of the sacredness of those lives?
And also, your theory requires belief in a soul. Now I can get in the Hebrew here if you like, and point out by the Bible's own definiton of soul (nephish) a baby has no soul until it breathes, as nephish means 'breather'. I can also ask why the Bible has laws against bestiality and wearing clothes made out of mixtures of fabrics and somehow forgets to specifically legislate against abortion - even though abortion was known and practsied in antiquity. If you can answer those, please do.
But I don't mind what you believe -fine, HAVE those beliefs, just don't inflict them on others.
"Science has long existed in a realm where there were moral guidelines on appropriate research. e.g. People must know that they are part of an experiment, and what the risks are, etc."
Thus me using 'developed', instead of 'invented'.;-)
The "who invented zero" question depends on whether you're talking about the numeral, or the number.
Best guess regarding the number is actually the Olmecs, as they definately had it in the 1st Century AD.
Ptolemy used a sign for zero as an independent number in 130AD.
The earliest Indian use of zero was as a decimal digit by 300AD, although Brahmagupta (628AD) often gets mentioned as his is the first more-or-less complete work discussing the number zero, Brahmasphutasiddhanta, as your links mention.
Actually you'll find that compared to say, Islam, Christianity was very backward until the renaissance.
The Arabic Islamic world was the most advanced civilisation in the early centuries of the second millennium, whilst the European Christian world was stagnated around the bits of Greek science they could understand.
In addition to developing from the knowledge of the Greeks in such areas as medicine, they developed our modern mathematical characters and the idea of 0. They also developed a law system where Christians and Jews could peacefully co-exist in Islamic countries, albeit as second class citizens.
This was a far cry from the situation in Europe where anyone who was non-Christian in the same period was likely to end up dead. Even being suspected of something like witchcraft (normally an elderly woman with some property but no surviving relatives, funny that, eh?) was a death sentence, unless of course you weighed more than a duck.
Somehow the Muslims in power were more able to tolerate the advance of science than the Christians in power during the same period.
So the original post seems to be fair in its focus on Christianity as a bad example of established power structures fighting progress with dogma.
And it still goes on; eggs, sperm, zygotes, blastoclysts and embryos with less nerve tissue than a per rat are claimed to have equal rights to born humans by the Roman Catholic Church.
Jehovah's Witnesses oppose the transfusion of blood.
Fundamental Christians deny the vast level of supporting evidence for an ancient naturalistically formed Universe where life developed under the control of natural selection, and insist on a literal 7 x 24-hour day creation.... of course there are Muslims and Hindus capable of equivalent stupidity, plus stuff like Mormons, Scientologists, etc., but Christianity seem to win the contest as 'religion most likely to stifle scientific advancement'.
Look at the lobby groups now most opposed to stem cell research...
Having actually done some research for my degree on this, I do think you should have left your opinion where you pulled it from.
Your colon must feel strangely empty...
But what's the point replying to an Anonymous Coward who has decided in advance that anyone disagreeing with them will do so for reasons not related to the actual validity of the claims you make?
Nah, nah, nah... you have to drive a steak through it, sever its head, burn both bits and then scatter the ashes in two different locations... remember to wear garlic whilst doing this to avoid ESD...
It will effect sales, but not the way I think some people think...
For books under copyright the limited text samples (which is something Amazon have been providing for sometime now) will act as teasers encouraging purchase.
It might open up pay-per-read opportunitunities, but I doubt it. To make the text secure you'd have to stop a computer Print Screening; the resultant BMP's can be OCR'd and digitised easily even if Copy+Paste is disabled (and if there is no obvious work-around to that like suiong another browser.
So don't expect text books to be pay-per-view anytime soon; it would be economic stupdity on the part of those publishing them.
For books out of copyright, as has been said, Project Gutenberg et. al. have been digitising old books with the help of volunteers for the best part of a decade. If you find an o-o-c book on Google you'll probably be able to get the entire E-text somewhere for free.
Pah! If that lasted 500 years you'd be lucky. Even with archive quality stock you'd be pushing 1-2,000 years unless you could ensure consistant storage standards.
What you need is something really durable.
What do you think Stonehenge is?
re. "he's better off in the private sector, they pay much better:-P"
This week two Cold War era spies, a Russian coupled who'd worked for the CIA in Russia, been promised support for life, and then been given new lives here, were told in court the government didn't have to pay them any more.
I am a Client Service Manager for a European high-tech contact centre. We do support work for hardware, software and Internet security companies based in Europe and the USA.
We cover 16 European languages, so obviously fulfil an outsourcing requirement American companies couldn't hope to do in house. Nothing to complain about there.
We also outsource support work, first in English to a web-based (like Siebel or RightNow) support centre in Karachi.
They are cheap and pretty good. Their RPA (responses to solve an assigned incident) is around 1.5, about the same as US-based teams or our own European teams. They do close about 10% less incidents on the first response (FCRR) than the Americans or Europeans though.
This is about half due to them not being native English speakers and either misunderstanding at first or being misunderstood, and half due to them persisting in doing 'shotgun' initial posts, giving one likely fix and a few others, and thus confusing some customers.
The main thing is you cannot hint, or suggest, or tell. You have to ask; if you've got a good suggestion they will embrace it, they will accept one they don;t agree with, but tell them to do something without consultation and they are a little insulted.
Also, actually SHOWING you are annoyed is sometime the only way to get your point over; they're a more emotive and dramatic culture. Being all off-hand and English sometimes goes over their heads.
They crap over a Latin American team run by the client from a great height. I really like the people I work with.
The European side of the business is far more easy about having a Pakistani support centre doing work for them. Some of the attitudes on the American side of the company are a little less relaxed. South Pakistan is actually comparatively cosmopolitan compared to the tribal north; most people living there moved from India during partiton, so it's a mixed society with no single and ultra-"orthodox" tribal view holding sway; one of the techs is a woman.
The US head office insist on the Pakistani techs using 'European' names. I'm sorry, but if someone has a problem with having a problem solved by Iqbal Abdul, then they can take their bigoted ass to the FAQ's. Funny thing is, just like Taiwanese people can have really whacked-out ideas of what an English name is when they choose one (Ceiling Fan, I shit-you-not, and Euphoria Wu. Seven and Golden were really popular too), so too are Pakistanis ideas of European names rather droll. Paul George, Martian Nighcolls (sic) etc..
I think this is insulting, and in fact another American client with a vastly more complicated product uses a massive phone support centre in India and the agents use their own names.
The idea of a customer getting racist or abusive to one of the Indian staff is something that makes fire come out the boss of the US company's support department, so different companies/indivduals have different views.
I grew up in a really cosmopolitan part of London, and really am not bothered by dealing with the guy who runs the place, and is _really_ Muslim. Of course, he hates the bad guys just like everyone else. They write really old-fashioned courteous English, and sometimes US customers take offence because of it.
Recently the company closed a US phone support centre and outsourced their US phone support to Canada. We couldn't compete with the price (using an Irish partner to take the calls).
We had a bad time setting up a partnership with a centre in the former Yugoslavia, but now have a pilot going well in Roumania for the 'big five' European languages.
Invariably most current volumes of support calls will be there within two years. In Holland we shall just support still more high-tech products; a consumer multimedia program is a tad simpler than administering network security. So staff will go but be replaced by more skilled, better-paid jobs.
In effect the shittier jobs will go to people in other countries who think the
Actually, this reminds me of a great bit from a UK comedy called 'Coupling', a bit like Friends except you never feel like killing the main characters, it is far ruder, and actually really funny.
In it one character managed to build a convincing argument that every single major technological innovation was to enable men to see more breasts.
Fire; you can see breasts at night.
Art; enabled people to draw breasts.
Clothing; you don't appreciate seeing breasts the same if they are out there all the time.
Domesticated beats of burden; you can travel longer distances to see breasts.
Agriculture; no mote multi-day hunting trips away from breasts.
Water transport; now water is no barrier to seeing breasts.
Writing; allowed communication about breasts.
The wheel; as per beast of burden.
Printing; allowed mass production of the art.
Photography; allowed you to see real breasts even if they weren't there.
The telephone; enabled calling women to arrange seeing their breasts.
Film; moving breasts!.. and so forth. And the Internet is the crowning achievement, as it means a man (or woman if so inclined) can see more breasts in an afternoon than a person could realistically ever have seen in their lifetime.
http://www.cbpq.org.br/downloads/video01.zip
It is worth the download (5mb)!
The 'chute is the size of a picnic blanket. I've seen bigger kites.
The guys has balls, it has to be said.
Maybe he would have experimented with stuff like 'how short a stick can you poke a sabre-tooth with and get away from it' if he lived in a neolithic hunter-gatherer society.
Today he can convert himself to pizza in a remarkably inventive fashion. Either way, natural selection (he jumped out of a perfectly good aeroplane with a blanket, he'd have found something equally dangerous 10,000 years ago) will out.
It's all about passing your genes on.
Of course, the fact he can do such spectaculary stupid things with ease might mean he ends-up with so many girls that by the time he IS pizza he will have potentially out-bred most of us.
Maybe being a dare-devil is an Evolutionary Stable Stratagy?
Yeah, a game related joke...
Mutations large enough to produce a noticable coding error or in an area of DNA that codes for something vital often kill the organism.
If it can survive the 'internal' factors changed by the mutation then the organism has to survive 'external' factors.
Mutations that survive (for an evolutionary meaningful period) are by definiton beneficial, or else they would not have survived, QED.
A mutation which doesn't kill an organism by some internal process but also doesn't confer any advantage in terms of batural selection will be overwhelmed by breeding with organisms with the original copy of the gene.
A mutation which doesn't kill an organism by some internal process but makes it more likely the organism will not breed or raise young succesfully (because it was slow and got eaten or made it's nests upside-down or whatever) will also, rather obviously die out.
You don't have to have ionising radiation to cause cellular damage. Heat will denature proteins; someone on E who fails to hydrate or rest and just dances can raise their body temperature to the point they suffer organ failure simply due to the fact they have overheated and killed enough cells to cause real damage.
Of course whether there is enough of a temperature rise caused by moby use next to the head is another thing entirely.
Slashdot Mirror
Anomaly
... of course there are Muslims and Hindus capable of equivalent stupidity".
I think we need to define some things here. In context, by fundamental I mean those who take a literalistic interpretation of their Holy Book. I made this clear with the rest of what I said; "... and insist on a literal 7 x 24-hour day creation.
Now, if you believe literally in either the Biblical account of the Flood or Creation, then you are denying _rather_ solid evidence. For example, with regard to the Noachian Global Flood, both dendrochronological dating of bristlecone pines still standing today and the dating of the Great Pyramid at Geza falsify this as an actual event. The dating one can take from the Bible's chronology implies that both the Great Pyramid, and trees on the top of mountains in Califronia were apparently totally covered by water and yet examination of the trees and Pyramids - hell, the existence of the trees and pyramid, show that this cannot have been. That is solid evidence. The yawning lack of evidnce for a Global Flood backs this up.
If you do indeed fall under the designation I gave (a literalistic believer), I'd be happy to discuss it with you as you may not be aware of the evidence or misunderstand the evidence that the Earth is far more than a few thousand years old. If you regard the Bible account of creation as a metaphor, fine, your beliefs do not deny solid evidence.
I am afraid taking a bunch of post-rennaisance scientists who were Christian because of where they were born (rather than any decision on their part) and who lived in a period where the worst excesses of Christian suppression of science were in the past does not invalidate my point, which is that over history Christianity seem to win the contest as 'religion most likely to stifle scientific advancement'.
I can, for example, quote how a Hindu astronomer introduced a correct theory of eclipses to replace the religious supersticion of moon eating demons (in 400AD I think), and how no one threatened to burn him for rubbishing fondly held religious dogma, and then I can keep on going with other examples until I have a dissertation. Islam holds teaching science to be of equal value to prayer!
Religious supersticion still makes some people oppose scientific progress, as you demonstrate;
"We believe that all human life is sacred and that no human should be killed to make life easier or healthier for someone else. The science shows that these zygotes are inherently human - that all that is required for a person to grow from a fertilized egg is food and shelter."
Now, your theory firstly requires belief in god. This is not universal, yet you seem to expect respect to your religious supersticiona be shown by non-belivers (and not return a similar respect to their beliefs).
Your theory requires drawing equivalence - for example between one ounce of fetus barely 2" long, with less nerve tissue than a pet rat - and the mother or a new born child. This is NOT supported by science; your contention that human life is sacred is not even supported by the facts; did you know a large number of fertilised eggs fail to implant? What of the sacredness of those lives?
And also, your theory requires belief in a soul. Now I can get in the Hebrew here if you like, and point out by the Bible's own definiton of soul (nephish) a baby has no soul until it breathes, as nephish means 'breather'. I can also ask why the Bible has laws against bestiality and wearing clothes made out of mixtures of fabrics and somehow forgets to specifically legislate against abortion - even though abortion was known and practsied in antiquity. If you can answer those, please do.
But I don't mind what you believe -fine, HAVE those beliefs, just don't inflict them on others.
"Science has long existed in a realm where there were moral guidelines on appropriate research. e.g. People must know that they are part of an experiment, and what the risks are, etc."
Please provide evi
Thus me using 'developed', instead of 'invented'. ;-)
The "who invented zero" question depends on whether you're talking about the numeral, or the number.
Best guess regarding the number is actually the Olmecs, as they definately had it in the 1st Century AD.
Ptolemy used a sign for zero as an independent number in 130AD.
The earliest Indian use of zero was as a decimal digit by 300AD, although Brahmagupta (628AD) often gets mentioned as his is the first more-or-less complete work discussing the number zero, Brahmasphutasiddhanta, as your links mention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number)
Actually you'll find that compared to say, Islam, Christianity was very backward until the renaissance.
... of course there are Muslims and Hindus capable of equivalent stupidity, plus stuff like Mormons, Scientologists, etc., but Christianity seem to win the contest as 'religion most likely to stifle scientific advancement'.
The Arabic Islamic world was the most advanced civilisation in the early centuries of the second millennium, whilst the European Christian world was stagnated around the bits of Greek science they could understand.
In addition to developing from the knowledge of the Greeks in such areas as medicine, they developed our modern mathematical characters and the idea of 0. They also developed a law system where Christians and Jews could peacefully co-exist in Islamic countries, albeit as second class citizens.
This was a far cry from the situation in Europe where anyone who was non-Christian in the same period was likely to end up dead. Even being suspected of something like witchcraft (normally an elderly woman with some property but no surviving relatives, funny that, eh?) was a death sentence, unless of course you weighed more than a duck.
Somehow the Muslims in power were more able to tolerate the advance of science than the Christians in power during the same period.
So the original post seems to be fair in its focus on Christianity as a bad example of established power structures fighting progress with dogma.
And it still goes on; eggs, sperm, zygotes, blastoclysts and embryos with less nerve tissue than a per rat are claimed to have equal rights to born humans by the Roman Catholic Church.
Jehovah's Witnesses oppose the transfusion of blood.
Fundamental Christians deny the vast level of supporting evidence for an ancient naturalistically formed Universe where life developed under the control of natural selection, and insist on a literal 7 x 24-hour day creation.
Look at the lobby groups now most opposed to stem cell research...
Having actually done some research for my degree on this, I do think you should have left your opinion where you pulled it from.
Your colon must feel strangely empty...
But what's the point replying to an Anonymous Coward who has decided in advance that anyone disagreeing with them will do so for reasons not related to the actual validity of the claims you make?
Yes, you are right. Now go away. 8-)-~
Nah, it sublimates. Stands to reason; have you ever seen liquid light?
Nah, nah, nah... you have to drive a steak through it, sever its head, burn both bits and then scatter the ashes in two different locations... remember to wear garlic whilst doing this to avoid ESD...
Well, I always thought of him as having a smaller head. I took 'brain the size of a planet' as a metaphor of processing power.
They've been a little more literal, taking it as hyperbole.
The posture is right though...
After all, most people who burnt witches had access to a copy of the Bible.
I ddin't see anything about the victims being orc though
It will effect sales, but not the way I think some people think...
For books under copyright the limited text samples (which is something Amazon have been providing for sometime now) will act as teasers encouraging purchase.
It might open up pay-per-read opportunitunities, but I doubt it. To make the text secure you'd have to stop a computer Print Screening; the resultant BMP's can be OCR'd and digitised easily even if Copy+Paste is disabled (and if there is no obvious work-around to that like suiong another browser.
So don't expect text books to be pay-per-view anytime soon; it would be economic stupdity on the part of those publishing them.
For books out of copyright, as has been said, Project Gutenberg et. al. have been digitising old books with the help of volunteers for the best part of a decade. If you find an o-o-c book on Google you'll probably be able to get the entire E-text somewhere for free.
So, no big change.
Pah! If that lasted 500 years you'd be lucky. Even with archive quality stock you'd be pushing 1-2,000 years unless you could ensure consistant storage standards. What you need is something really durable. What do you think Stonehenge is?
re. "he's better off in the private sector, they pay much better :-P"
This week two Cold War era spies, a Russian coupled who'd worked for the CIA in Russia, been promised support for life, and then been given new lives here, were told in court the government didn't have to pay them any more.
I am a Client Service Manager for a European high-tech contact centre. We do support work for hardware, software and Internet security companies based in Europe and the USA.
We cover 16 European languages, so obviously fulfil an outsourcing requirement American companies couldn't hope to do in house. Nothing to complain about there.
We also outsource support work, first in English to a web-based (like Siebel or RightNow) support centre in Karachi.
They are cheap and pretty good. Their RPA (responses to solve an assigned incident) is around 1.5, about the same as US-based teams or our own European teams. They do close about 10% less incidents on the first response (FCRR) than the Americans or Europeans though.
This is about half due to them not being native English speakers and either misunderstanding at first or being misunderstood, and half due to them persisting in doing 'shotgun' initial posts, giving one likely fix and a few others, and thus confusing some customers.
The main thing is you cannot hint, or suggest, or tell. You have to ask; if you've got a good suggestion they will embrace it, they will accept one they don;t agree with, but tell them to do something without consultation and they are a little insulted.
Also, actually SHOWING you are annoyed is sometime the only way to get your point over; they're a more emotive and dramatic culture. Being all off-hand and English sometimes goes over their heads.
They crap over a Latin American team run by the client from a great height. I really like the people I work with.
The European side of the business is far more easy about having a Pakistani support centre doing work for them. Some of the attitudes on the American side of the company are a little less relaxed. South Pakistan is actually comparatively cosmopolitan compared to the tribal north; most people living there moved from India during partiton, so it's a mixed society with no single and ultra-"orthodox" tribal view holding sway; one of the techs is a woman.
The US head office insist on the Pakistani techs using 'European' names. I'm sorry, but if someone has a problem with having a problem solved by Iqbal Abdul, then they can take their bigoted ass to the FAQ's. Funny thing is, just like Taiwanese people can have really whacked-out ideas of what an English name is when they choose one (Ceiling Fan, I shit-you-not, and Euphoria Wu. Seven and Golden were really popular too), so too are Pakistanis ideas of European names rather droll. Paul George, Martian Nighcolls (sic) etc..
I think this is insulting, and in fact another American client with a vastly more complicated product uses a massive phone support centre in India and the agents use their own names.
The idea of a customer getting racist or abusive to one of the Indian staff is something that makes fire come out the boss of the US company's support department, so different companies/indivduals have different views.
I grew up in a really cosmopolitan part of London, and really am not bothered by dealing with the guy who runs the place, and is _really_ Muslim. Of course, he hates the bad guys just like everyone else. They write really old-fashioned courteous English, and sometimes US customers take offence because of it.
Recently the company closed a US phone support centre and outsourced their US phone support to Canada. We couldn't compete with the price (using an Irish partner to take the calls).
We had a bad time setting up a partnership with a centre in the former Yugoslavia, but now have a pilot going well in Roumania for the 'big five' European languages.
Invariably most current volumes of support calls will be there within two years. In Holland we shall just support still more high-tech products; a consumer multimedia program is a tad simpler than administering network security. So staff will go but be replaced by more skilled, better-paid jobs.
In effect the shittier jobs will go to people in other countries who think the
Actually, this reminds me of a great bit from a UK comedy called 'Coupling', a bit like Friends except you never feel like killing the main characters, it is far ruder, and actually really funny. In it one character managed to build a convincing argument that every single major technological innovation was to enable men to see more breasts. Fire; you can see breasts at night. Art; enabled people to draw breasts. Clothing; you don't appreciate seeing breasts the same if they are out there all the time. Domesticated beats of burden; you can travel longer distances to see breasts. Agriculture; no mote multi-day hunting trips away from breasts. Water transport; now water is no barrier to seeing breasts. Writing; allowed communication about breasts. The wheel; as per beast of burden. Printing; allowed mass production of the art. Photography; allowed you to see real breasts even if they weren't there. The telephone; enabled calling women to arrange seeing their breasts. Film; moving breasts! .. and so forth. And the Internet is the crowning achievement, as it means a man (or woman if so inclined) can see more breasts in an afternoon than a person could realistically ever have seen in their lifetime.
http://www.cbpq.org.br/downloads/video01.zip It is worth the download (5mb)! The 'chute is the size of a picnic blanket. I've seen bigger kites. The guys has balls, it has to be said. Maybe he would have experimented with stuff like 'how short a stick can you poke a sabre-tooth with and get away from it' if he lived in a neolithic hunter-gatherer society. Today he can convert himself to pizza in a remarkably inventive fashion. Either way, natural selection (he jumped out of a perfectly good aeroplane with a blanket, he'd have found something equally dangerous 10,000 years ago) will out. It's all about passing your genes on. Of course, the fact he can do such spectaculary stupid things with ease might mean he ends-up with so many girls that by the time he IS pizza he will have potentially out-bred most of us. Maybe being a dare-devil is an Evolutionary Stable Stratagy?
Yeah, a game related joke... Mutations large enough to produce a noticable coding error or in an area of DNA that codes for something vital often kill the organism. If it can survive the 'internal' factors changed by the mutation then the organism has to survive 'external' factors. Mutations that survive (for an evolutionary meaningful period) are by definiton beneficial, or else they would not have survived, QED. A mutation which doesn't kill an organism by some internal process but also doesn't confer any advantage in terms of batural selection will be overwhelmed by breeding with organisms with the original copy of the gene. A mutation which doesn't kill an organism by some internal process but makes it more likely the organism will not breed or raise young succesfully (because it was slow and got eaten or made it's nests upside-down or whatever) will also, rather obviously die out. You don't have to have ionising radiation to cause cellular damage. Heat will denature proteins; someone on E who fails to hydrate or rest and just dances can raise their body temperature to the point they suffer organ failure simply due to the fact they have overheated and killed enough cells to cause real damage. Of course whether there is enough of a temperature rise caused by moby use next to the head is another thing entirely.