I think this is an overblown situation. Nautilus has settings in Preferences that run the full gamut of choices.
1. You can have the system do nothing. 2. You can browse the media without allowing any software to execute. 3. You can auto run anything you insert 4. You can have the system ask you want you want to do. 5. You can choose what application to run upon insertion depending on the content: music, video, software, etc....
I don't remember what the defaults were as it's been a long time since I originally built this computer, but I think it was that auto run was disabled. I run Debian so I don't know what kind of foolishness Ubuntu is doing. .
I started with Debian as total Linux noob back when Woody was the official release. I've stayed because Debian stable is so stable, and because the APT system is about as good as installers get. I've never had to wonder whether something wasn't working because it was buggy, or because I lacked the requisite knowledge to configure it correctly. That alone made learning Linux much, much easier and far more straightforward. I'd used a couple of other distros before I heard of Debian, but even simple things in the gui didn't work on them because of bugs and I got very frustrated with them. I never knew if any problem I ran across was a bug or because I'd done something stupid. With Debian I could know with a high degree of certainty that the problems I encountered were my own stupidity, not someone elses.
Debian was a breath of fresh air compared to all the bugs in other distros and Windows. I've played with Ubuntu a few times, but always abandoned it because it's not gotten any better over the years. It's always buggy, buggy, buggy. If I wanted a buggy OS I would have stayed with Windows. And, I find fewer bugs and newer software in the vast majority of cases in Debian testing and unstable than I do in Ubuntu.
Yeah, you just need to run the "expert" installation routine to get to it.
To others reading this, don't let the "expert" tag fool you. All it does is give you more options to choose from, if you want them. If you don't want/understand the options you can still use the same defaults the "regular" install routine uses within the "expert" install routine.
Unless you have a post-graduate degree in US history I most likely know more about it than you do. US history is one of my hobbies, and I've read hundreds of books on it.
As to the rest of your post, I see no correlation between it and having a sense of duty, love of country, caring about your fellow countrymen, and living an honest, moral life, as that was the entire point of the post you replied to.
It's just about come to this in many areas of society but the question wasn't should I go out and steal cars, rob banks, deal drugs, it was should I take a job setting up an off shore IT shop. Sure, do it, take the money for it and call it a day.
Yeah, just take the money and run.... Screw your children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. They won't care that you screwed them over. Who gives a damn about them? Not you.... You're one helluva human being.
Hey, everyone is stealing so just go along for the ride? Who cares that you're taking the bread out of your neighbor's mouth? Well, I, for one, do care. It's a lack of ethics that got this country into the financial mess it's in. Unethical politicians created, and continue to create, bad laws because they have agendas rather than the best interests of their own constituents and country at heart. Unethical government bureaucrats take paychecks when they're not doing the jobs they were hired to do, and the unethical unions make it impossible to fire them.
We need more, a lot more, people with the heart, the sense of duty, the sense of honor, that the guy in the article displayed. He put doing-the-right-thing above self-interest. He understands the principles our country was built upon, and upon which it prospered for an extended period of time. And, until we as US citizens get back to practicing those principles in our daily lives our country will continue to flounder and sink in a morass of debt and continue to lack in the political will needed to put us back on the track of economic growth and the moral authority needed for our country to fill its place in the world. If we don't start acting more like this guy we will continue to parallel the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Our own immorality will kill us, just like the Roman's own immorality killed them.
Nah. This report was funded by the membership of the National Bovine Society(NBS). The sole reason for the existence of the NBS is the advancement of bovine interests.
I was raised as lacto-ovo vegetarian, became a meat eater in my 20's, but now prefer vegetarian food over meat. I eat some meat once in a while, but if I eat much of it I begin to feel pretty poorly. I have something similar to rhuematoid arthritis in my spine, and if I eat much meat(chicken or beef), more than a couple of times a month, my pain levels skyrocket.
For anyone unacquainted a vegetarian diet to just jump into it with little or no knowledge of all things related to a vegetarian diet it's almost impossible to succeed at it. Even learning how to season vegetarian cooking so that it tastes good takes practice as it is a much different cooking with meat. You have to learn what herbs and spices to use, how to build flavors, etc....
Then you have to learn what foods contribute which nutrients to your diet. You need to learn the sources of protein and fats, and how to combine them in meals so that you get the appropriate levels all the nutrients you body needs, just as meat eaters should. Once you do learn the fundamentals though it becomes easy and you feel much better than you do on a meat diet. I know I do.
This has to be one of the dumber arguments here against organic farming methods.
Don't properly clean and cook your food to kill naturally occurring bacteria and you'll get sick from eating it. That's an argument against organic farming? Try not properly cleaning up after handling raw chicken and see what happens. Try eating produce raised in a non-organic manner without properly cleaning it where the pickers are taking shits in the field and see what happens to you.
BTW, botulism in canned green beans can exist no matter how they are raised. The same procedures must be used to ensure that the end product is free of botulism whether they are raised organically or not. Large scale agribusiness must take the same precautions that people canning the green beans they raised organically in their garden must take. Your ignorance is really something.....
I would most definitely want a jury that was intelligent enough, and curious enough, to both desire and act on that desire to understand exactly what is being talked about in court.
To tell the truth, I don't see how researching terms used in court, so the implications of phraseology used by lawyers during the trial are fully understood by the jurors themselves, taints a jury. That isn't irresponsible or an attempt to defeat justice. It is, in fact, just the opposite. It's an attempt to make sure justice is served. That's a jury I want to decide any case I'm involved in. I would want a thinking, inquiring, jury.
Just what does that mean? Are you implying that you can't have all the Debian non-free firmware packages available to you from the beginning of a Debian install? If so, you're completely wrong. All you need to do is choose to include the non-free repository, when asked by the installer if you want it to be available at the start of the installation, and all that firmware will be available at all times.
None of the non-free stuff is hidden, nor does Debian make it hard find. Debian tells you up front that it's available and gives you the option to include access to it from the start of your Debian install.
Oh, for Pete's sake. Your ignorance of how things work in Debian is astounding.
Don't take that as me calling you stupid. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying you're criticizing that which you know nothing about.
Debian packages quite a bit of non-free firmware in a package named, believe it or not, firmware-linux-nonfree. Debian also has packages for many of the specific wifi chipsets with the word firmware in the package name. Run "apt-cache search firmware | grep firmware" at a bash prompt on a Debian machine, and see all the firmware packages, or go to the Debian site and search the repositories for firmware. The apt-cache search I gave you returns 45 packages with the word firmware either in the package name, and the package name is a combination of the word firmware and either a chipset model or manufacturer's name, or in the package description that tells you exactly what the firmware in the software package is used for.
Choose to include the non-free repositories during your installation and all the non-free firmware packages are available at any time.
You're wrong on all your assumptions about what I said.
If some organization is going to make themselves THE moral authority on something, and use that position to tell people who they should do business with, then they have a moral responsibility to do things the right way. And, the right way is to not use vetting processes that they know are so flawed they are worthless. To defend them is to defend the indefensible....
Your defense of Al Gore is funny. Anyone who sets themselves up as an authority on anything can't have a dog in the fight if they are to be seen as an impartial, moral authority. When a Google CEO tells me Google is the best I take it with a grain of salt. When Bill Gates tells me MS is wonderful I take it with a grain of salt. When Obama tells me the Democrats are the best thing since sliced bread I take it with a grain of salt. I do the same thing when John Boehner says the same things about the Republicans. None of the people I mentioned above are impartial when they speak on the subject to which I tied them. Neither is Al Gore because of his financial involvement in the financial games being played with the "green" movement.
If Al Gore is to be viewed as impartial on environmental issues with all his financial ties to it, then Dick Chaney needs to be viewed as impartial on anything concerning Halliburton. Both have large financial incentives to not be completely forthcoming on the respective issues I mentioned.
That a right wing think tank invented the ethical concept of a "conflict of interest" just to make Al Gore look bad is completely absurd. Do you take everything all lobbyists say at face value? That is what Al Gore is now, a lobbyist who has great financial incentives to push what he's pushing.
Nationalism is not evil in and of itself. The problem with the image of nationalism right now is because of people like you who see only the negatives. But, since that fits your agenda that's what you're going to keep on promoting.
Look at the nationalism of the 1800's in the US. It brought about an environment in which the politics of the nation were discussed daily by the average citizen. Politicians were scrutinized closely and held to a much, much greater level of responsibility than they are now.
We took care of ourselves, as Americans. After the New Madrid earthquake of 1811 President Madison refused to send Federal money to the area. His reasoning was that it wasn't the government's business. The request he refused was for something like $100,000. The total aid that went to the affected areas was something like 10 or 15 times that number, and all it came from private sources. We, as citizens, took care of our own. We didn't rely on government. We don't need to now either. We just need to start caring about one another instead of being selfish and claiming it's the government's job to take care of everything.
Those are two positive things that come from nationalism. They are not only good, they are great. They make society strong. They cause individuals to pull together to help one another for they are a part of something greater than themselves. They belong.
Who says that is the pride of which I speak? I support, and argue for, the return to our founding principles. I see nothing in that for which I should feel shame, nor that I should not feel pride in that. I'm in good company supporting the principles I advocate, for I'm in agreement with our founding fathers.
I'm not going to hang my head in shame over mistakes of the past and present, but work to rectify those mistakes. We can return our country to its basic principles. We can hold them up and say we are proud of them and that we will accept nothing other than a return to those principles.
Why should I feel for shame for something which I don't agree with, and never supported.
I'm here writing what I do because I think my country is worth fighting for on the battlefield of ideas. Our country was founded on the moral high ground, and I say we as a people need to retake that high ground. The only way to start doing that is to start reminding people of our history, reminding people that we don't have to accept corruption, greed, an over-bearing government, etc... as a matter of fact. We the people still have the power to change things, barely. But, if all we do is criticize then we will guarantee that the things we can be proud of will disappear. I'm not willing to do that. Are you? Are you willing to guarantee that what our founding fathers fought and died for will disappear without a fight?
We don't have to feel shame for we aren't the ones who have done this. The ones who should feel shame are the progressives/socialists who have been busily destroying our freedoms and sense of love for our country for more than 100 years and lying about what they are doing every step of the way.
We have to feel, and act on, our sense of responsibility we have in the governing of our own country, and the sense of the debt of honor we owe our founders. But, we can still derive pride that we are a part of something that has done such a great thing, if we are willing to fight to return our country to its founding principles. I am. How about you? If not, then you do need to feel a sense of shame until you decide your country's founding ideals are something worth fighting for.
My bad for not rtfa. I'm not going to register to read. However, even your criticism of my post makes my point.
The entire basis for Organization Z loudly criticizing Company X was based upon a process Organization Z knew, or should have known, to be completely worthless from the start. Their credibility is therefore dead, even if they assert they are changing their ways. I, for one, would never trust their "certification" as they've already shown their willingness to deliberately use flawed processes so there is nothing to say their "certification" process is worth any more than their pledge system.
It's like Al Gore going around claiming the sky is falling due to global warming while he's making untold millions off of global warming. He lost his credibility as soon as he put himself in position to make a fortune off what he's preaching. His conflict of interest is so large he makes his word worthless.
The US is a Republic, based on the idea that we the people govern the country. It was our successful experimentation in self-government that proved to the world that self-government could be done successfully, and that spread the idea of individual liberty across the entire world. In doing so the US changed the political landscape of the entire world for the better. I'd say that is an accomplishment of which any American can rightfully be proud.
Do you not understand "credibility", or is it "RIP" with which you're struggling?
Maybe there is a third option and you fall into it. Do you not understand that when Organization Z, which has set itself up as the Conscience_of_America with respect to recycling, says Company X is evil for using this practice and we certify that Company Y would never do that, that their assertion must be true? If Organization Z is to have any credibility Company Y must not be using the same evil process as Company X. When it turns out Company X and Company Y use exactly the same process Organization Z makes itself look incompetent, dishonest, or both. Thus, the credibility of Organization Z is dead. Who is going to believe anything they say when they've shown they either don't have a clue as to what they're talking about, or they're lying to everyone on a grand scale?
Hmmm..... If you're going to criticize someone's grammar you ought to at least have a decent knowledge of the subject manner. As it's has been in use since 1555, and its since 1507, I'd say your knowledge of grammar is more than a little outdated.
From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
it's \its, ts\ Definition of IT'S : it is : it has First Known Use of IT'S circa 1555
Now, from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary comes the definition of its:
its adj \its, ts\ Definition of ITS : of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action See its defined for English-language learners Examples of ITS
1. the dog in its kennel
2. The landscape is beautiful in its own unique way.
3. Each region has its own customs.
4. The company is hoping to increase its sales.
Slashdot, where the blind aggressively attempt to lead the seeing on a daily basis.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is an overblown situation. Nautilus has settings in Preferences that run the full gamut of choices.
1. You can have the system do nothing.
2. You can browse the media without allowing any software to execute.
3. You can auto run anything you insert
4. You can have the system ask you want you want to do.
5. You can choose what application to run upon insertion depending on the content: music, video, software, etc....
I don't remember what the defaults were as it's been a long time since I originally built this computer, but I think it was that auto run was disabled. I run Debian so I don't know what kind of foolishness Ubuntu is doing. .
What a load of bs.
I started with Debian as total Linux noob back when Woody was the official release. I've stayed because Debian stable is so stable, and because the APT system is about as good as installers get. I've never had to wonder whether something wasn't working because it was buggy, or because I lacked the requisite knowledge to configure it correctly. That alone made learning Linux much, much easier and far more straightforward. I'd used a couple of other distros before I heard of Debian, but even simple things in the gui didn't work on them because of bugs and I got very frustrated with them. I never knew if any problem I ran across was a bug or because I'd done something stupid. With Debian I could know with a high degree of certainty that the problems I encountered were my own stupidity, not someone elses.
Debian was a breath of fresh air compared to all the bugs in other distros and Windows. I've played with Ubuntu a few times, but always abandoned it because it's not gotten any better over the years. It's always buggy, buggy, buggy. If I wanted a buggy OS I would have stayed with Windows. And, I find fewer bugs and newer software in the vast majority of cases in Debian testing and unstable than I do in Ubuntu.
Yeah, you just need to run the "expert" installation routine to get to it.
To others reading this, don't let the "expert" tag fool you. All it does is give you more options to choose from, if you want them. If you don't want/understand the options you can still use the same defaults the "regular" install routine uses within the "expert" install routine.
Unless you have a post-graduate degree in US history I most likely know more about it than you do. US history is one of my hobbies, and I've read hundreds of books on it.
As to the rest of your post, I see no correlation between it and having a sense of duty, love of country, caring about your fellow countrymen, and living an honest, moral life, as that was the entire point of the post you replied to.
Yeah, just take the money and run.... Screw your children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. They won't care that you screwed them over. Who gives a damn about them? Not you.... You're one helluva human being.
What a pathetic response....
Hey, everyone is stealing so just go along for the ride? Who cares that you're taking the bread out of your neighbor's mouth? Well, I, for one, do care. It's a lack of ethics that got this country into the financial mess it's in. Unethical politicians created, and continue to create, bad laws because they have agendas rather than the best interests of their own constituents and country at heart. Unethical government bureaucrats take paychecks when they're not doing the jobs they were hired to do, and the unethical unions make it impossible to fire them.
We need more, a lot more, people with the heart, the sense of duty, the sense of honor, that the guy in the article displayed. He put doing-the-right-thing above self-interest. He understands the principles our country was built upon, and upon which it prospered for an extended period of time. And, until we as US citizens get back to practicing those principles in our daily lives our country will continue to flounder and sink in a morass of debt and continue to lack in the political will needed to put us back on the track of economic growth and the moral authority needed for our country to fill its place in the world. If we don't start acting more like this guy we will continue to parallel the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Our own immorality will kill us, just like the Roman's own immorality killed them.
Chickens taste better, say panel of cows.
Study funded by Chick-fil-A.
Nah. This report was funded by the membership of the National Bovine Society(NBS). The sole reason for the existence of the NBS is the advancement of bovine interests.
Yeah, having to use Google to figure out something you don't know is so hateful and discriminatory.... ;)
Good points.
I was raised as lacto-ovo vegetarian, became a meat eater in my 20's, but now prefer vegetarian food over meat. I eat some meat once in a while, but if I eat much of it I begin to feel pretty poorly. I have something similar to rhuematoid arthritis in my spine, and if I eat much meat(chicken or beef), more than a couple of times a month, my pain levels skyrocket.
For anyone unacquainted a vegetarian diet to just jump into it with little or no knowledge of all things related to a vegetarian diet it's almost impossible to succeed at it. Even learning how to season vegetarian cooking so that it tastes good takes practice as it is a much different cooking with meat. You have to learn what herbs and spices to use, how to build flavors, etc....
Then you have to learn what foods contribute which nutrients to your diet. You need to learn the sources of protein and fats, and how to combine them in meals so that you get the appropriate levels all the nutrients you body needs, just as meat eaters should. Once you do learn the fundamentals though it becomes easy and you feel much better than you do on a meat diet. I know I do.
You actually have to ask that question? The answer is so obvious it's impossible to miss.
Greed makes you stupid. Greed is self-destructive. Greed keeps you thinking you can keep on getting away with anything.
So, that's the answer? The same thing that caused them to want to steal in the first place: Greed.
This has to be one of the dumber arguments here against organic farming methods.
Don't properly clean and cook your food to kill naturally occurring bacteria and you'll get sick from eating it. That's an argument against organic farming? Try not properly cleaning up after handling raw chicken and see what happens. Try eating produce raised in a non-organic manner without properly cleaning it where the pickers are taking shits in the field and see what happens to you.
BTW, botulism in canned green beans can exist no matter how they are raised. The same procedures must be used to ensure that the end product is free of botulism whether they are raised organically or not. Large scale agribusiness must take the same precautions that people canning the green beans they raised organically in their garden must take. Your ignorance is really something.....
I would most definitely want a jury that was intelligent enough, and curious enough, to both desire and act on that desire to understand exactly what is being talked about in court.
To tell the truth, I don't see how researching terms used in court, so the implications of phraseology used by lawyers during the trial are fully understood by the jurors themselves, taints a jury. That isn't irresponsible or an attempt to defeat justice. It is, in fact, just the opposite. It's an attempt to make sure justice is served. That's a jury I want to decide any case I'm involved in. I would want a thinking, inquiring, jury.
Just what does that mean? Are you implying that you can't have all the Debian non-free firmware packages available to you from the beginning of a Debian install? If so, you're completely wrong. All you need to do is choose to include the non-free repository, when asked by the installer if you want it to be available at the start of the installation, and all that firmware will be available at all times.
None of the non-free stuff is hidden, nor does Debian make it hard find. Debian tells you up front that it's available and gives you the option to include access to it from the start of your Debian install.
Oh, for Pete's sake. Your ignorance of how things work in Debian is astounding.
Don't take that as me calling you stupid. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying you're criticizing that which you know nothing about.
Debian packages quite a bit of non-free firmware in a package named, believe it or not, firmware-linux-nonfree. Debian also has packages for many of the specific wifi chipsets with the word firmware in the package name. Run "apt-cache search firmware | grep firmware" at a bash prompt on a Debian machine, and see all the firmware packages, or go to the Debian site and search the repositories for firmware. The apt-cache search I gave you returns 45 packages with the word firmware either in the package name, and the package name is a combination of the word firmware and either a chipset model or manufacturer's name, or in the package description that tells you exactly what the firmware in the software package is used for.
Choose to include the non-free repositories during your installation and all the non-free firmware packages are available at any time.
You're wrong on all your assumptions about what I said.
If some organization is going to make themselves THE moral authority on something, and use that position to tell people who they should do business with, then they have a moral responsibility to do things the right way. And, the right way is to not use vetting processes that they know are so flawed they are worthless. To defend them is to defend the indefensible....
Your defense of Al Gore is funny. Anyone who sets themselves up as an authority on anything can't have a dog in the fight if they are to be seen as an impartial, moral authority. When a Google CEO tells me Google is the best I take it with a grain of salt. When Bill Gates tells me MS is wonderful I take it with a grain of salt. When Obama tells me the Democrats are the best thing since sliced bread I take it with a grain of salt. I do the same thing when John Boehner says the same things about the Republicans. None of the people I mentioned above are impartial when they speak on the subject to which I tied them. Neither is Al Gore because of his financial involvement in the financial games being played with the "green" movement.
If Al Gore is to be viewed as impartial on environmental issues with all his financial ties to it, then Dick Chaney needs to be viewed as impartial on anything concerning Halliburton. Both have large financial incentives to not be completely forthcoming on the respective issues I mentioned.
That a right wing think tank invented the ethical concept of a "conflict of interest" just to make Al Gore look bad is completely absurd. Do you take everything all lobbyists say at face value? That is what Al Gore is now, a lobbyist who has great financial incentives to push what he's pushing.
Nationalism is not evil in and of itself. The problem with the image of nationalism right now is because of people like you who see only the negatives. But, since that fits your agenda that's what you're going to keep on promoting.
Look at the nationalism of the 1800's in the US. It brought about an environment in which the politics of the nation were discussed daily by the average citizen. Politicians were scrutinized closely and held to a much, much greater level of responsibility than they are now.
We took care of ourselves, as Americans. After the New Madrid earthquake of 1811 President Madison refused to send Federal money to the area. His reasoning was that it wasn't the government's business. The request he refused was for something like $100,000. The total aid that went to the affected areas was something like 10 or 15 times that number, and all it came from private sources. We, as citizens, took care of our own. We didn't rely on government. We don't need to now either. We just need to start caring about one another instead of being selfish and claiming it's the government's job to take care of everything.
Those are two positive things that come from nationalism. They are not only good, they are great. They make society strong. They cause individuals to pull together to help one another for they are a part of something greater than themselves. They belong.
Who says that is the pride of which I speak? I support, and argue for, the return to our founding principles. I see nothing in that for which I should feel shame, nor that I should not feel pride in that. I'm in good company supporting the principles I advocate, for I'm in agreement with our founding fathers.
I'm not going to hang my head in shame over mistakes of the past and present, but work to rectify those mistakes. We can return our country to its basic principles. We can hold them up and say we are proud of them and that we will accept nothing other than a return to those principles.
When you become perfect, let me know.
Why should I feel for shame for something which I don't agree with, and never supported.
I'm here writing what I do because I think my country is worth fighting for on the battlefield of ideas. Our country was founded on the moral high ground, and I say we as a people need to retake that high ground. The only way to start doing that is to start reminding people of our history, reminding people that we don't have to accept corruption, greed, an over-bearing government, etc... as a matter of fact. We the people still have the power to change things, barely. But, if all we do is criticize then we will guarantee that the things we can be proud of will disappear. I'm not willing to do that. Are you? Are you willing to guarantee that what our founding fathers fought and died for will disappear without a fight?
We don't have to feel shame for we aren't the ones who have done this. The ones who should feel shame are the progressives/socialists who have been busily destroying our freedoms and sense of love for our country for more than 100 years and lying about what they are doing every step of the way.
We have to feel, and act on, our sense of responsibility we have in the governing of our own country, and the sense of the debt of honor we owe our founders. But, we can still derive pride that we are a part of something that has done such a great thing, if we are willing to fight to return our country to its founding principles. I am. How about you? If not, then you do need to feel a sense of shame until you decide your country's founding ideals are something worth fighting for.
My bad for not rtfa. I'm not going to register to read. However, even your criticism of my post makes my point.
The entire basis for Organization Z loudly criticizing Company X was based upon a process Organization Z knew, or should have known, to be completely worthless from the start. Their credibility is therefore dead, even if they assert they are changing their ways. I, for one, would never trust their "certification" as they've already shown their willingness to deliberately use flawed processes so there is nothing to say their "certification" process is worth any more than their pledge system.
It's like Al Gore going around claiming the sky is falling due to global warming while he's making untold millions off of global warming. He lost his credibility as soon as he put himself in position to make a fortune off what he's preaching. His conflict of interest is so large he makes his word worthless.
You're the idiot.
The US is a Republic, based on the idea that we the people govern the country. It was our successful experimentation in self-government that proved to the world that self-government could be done successfully, and that spread the idea of individual liberty across the entire world. In doing so the US changed the political landscape of the entire world for the better. I'd say that is an accomplishment of which any American can rightfully be proud.
Why is parent flamebait? If a service is free, then you are the product.
You're kidding me, right? You can't understand why sarcastically flaming someone you agree with is modded as flamebait?
Do you not understand "credibility", or is it "RIP" with which you're struggling?
Maybe there is a third option and you fall into it. Do you not understand that when Organization Z, which has set itself up as the Conscience_of_America with respect to recycling, says Company X is evil for using this practice and we certify that Company Y would never do that, that their assertion must be true? If Organization Z is to have any credibility Company Y must not be using the same evil process as Company X. When it turns out Company X and Company Y use exactly the same process Organization Z makes itself look incompetent, dishonest, or both. Thus, the credibility of Organization Z is dead. Who is going to believe anything they say when they've shown they either don't have a clue as to what they're talking about, or they're lying to everyone on a grand scale?
Hmmm..... If you're going to criticize someone's grammar you ought to at least have a decent knowledge of the subject manner. As it's has been in use since 1555, and its since 1507, I'd say your knowledge of grammar is more than a little outdated.
From Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:
Now, from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary comes the definition of its:
Slashdot, where the blind aggressively attempt to lead the seeing on a daily basis.