I hope they do and I hope you are right. Nothing could be better for the future of our country than for the impressionable youth to realize that their freedoms and access are protected only at the whim of corporate policy and fickle government oversight. I could actually hope the coming years would reflect the will of the people if the youth of today were sufficiently shocked.
Not all of them make the same case, in fact I'm more inclined to believe now that phone usage is the more dangerous, but come on, if you're gonna criticize the source, maybe find one of the dozens of better ones a google search away!
Texting while driving is certainly already covered under distracted driving rules where I live, and I suspect in most other places as well. Distracted driving isn't new nor I suspect, is using a CB while driving any better and we're in the "around and pervasive for 30 years" range there too. I don't think that changing the device has made it any different, only more common.
Banning is like censoring websites. The effectiveness is rarely what is hoped for, and often the side effects are worse than the cure. I've seen credible studies that texting bans result in more accidents. We recently had a big debate in my area where one county did bans and the neighboring county didn't and the results are still ambiguous. My suspicion is that if there is a crack down on distracted driving it will cure many more ills than a new ban would.
I can totally get behind banning your girlfriend's chatter... but not mine. Reminds me of a story:
I was at a party when this guy hands me a shot. I told him I couldn't drink because I promised my wife I wouldn't. He nods and pulls a gun on me and says "drink!" so I drank. Then he hands me the gun and says "I told my wife the same thing, so now you hold the gun on me."
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm open to learning that I was wrong. I'm only willing to tentatively accept the claims of the site until I can find better information. The assumption that texting associated with accidents has been accurately measured in accidents, however, seems to be wrong from what I can find. Of course, as always.... citation needed.
Fair enough. I'm not sure I'd even credit them with being a group, but I'd be interested to see the presentation of a good study refuting the claims. I didn't find any when I looked, but perhaps you have a good link? Heck, tell me the books and I'll see if I can get them through inter-library loan.
On the other side... perhaps people get defensive and present opinions rather than references when they find their own actions the object of scrutiny. It is certainly that way for me until I think it through.
Believe it or not, texting while driving may not be the most dangerous form of distracted driving. Actually, eating while driving is even more dangerous. Shhh! Don't tell McDonald's!
I'm not vouching for their research, certainly not alone, but I didn't stop there and didn't find any refuting evidence elsewhere. I'm not sure I'm convinced myself, but I'm willing to accept the research they present until I have better evidence otherwise.
While driving, apparently the eating and coffee are more dangerous than texting. You have to ask yourself, if the more dangerous activity is the one that is never talked about, is this really about safety in the first place?
You made me think. Why isn't eating-while-driving a bigger issue, is it significantly safer? I did a quick search, and got the startling answer that it is much more dangerous to eat-while-driving than text-while-driving.
You want the answer? Policy makers are not texting, but they are drinking coffee. I'm not just talking about while driving, I'm talking about generally. Ban what those reckless youth are doing, fine, but you'll get my coffee cup when you pry it out of my cold dead hands (and you'll probably need the jaws of life to get to them.) Voters will approve something to punish those youths making the roads unsafe, but you'll never get them to approve legislating cheeseburger access.
Speaking for myself, but I believe other people believe similarly:
I believe that Obama is deliberately vague on his beliefs regarding Islam and Christianity because he values his political career more than his faith. I believe he considers terrorism a word that is broadly redefinable to meet the political need. I believe he did lie in order to further his bid for presidency and after his election in order to protect his potential for reelection. I believe he ignores the opportunity to correct racism and tacitly approves of it when it is politically expedient.
I do believe he was born in the US, and was eligible and legally elected. During the campaign I was willing to consider the possibility that it might be otherwise, but never saw proof when exposing proof had many strong motivations. I decided therefore that it must not exist, despite speculation among some people whose intellects I otherwise respect. I don't believe he is the antichrist (or even an antichrist depending on your definition.) I believe his shifting stance on Facebook and technology in general is sufficient to say he is an asshole. I'm not sure on the term hatemonger, though I think it obvious he has incited others toward hating Bush and McCain, I don't know if it meets any threshold on defining him generally.
For the most part, my beliefs are fueled by observation, and where they aren't, they're fueled by cynicism. In most cases, I'd say the same about his rivals as well.
I'm glad a black man is president, but I am sad that the first one is this black man. I'm a little surprised to hear you using the term "gorilla dust." I had to look it up. It seems to be a term referring to confrontations based on bluster rather than actual combat that came into use thanks to Ross Perot.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
It is producing a product of value in exchange for payment, same as any other service or product produced.
Slight quibble, with most goods or services, you sell them and when the sale is complete, you have no right to determine what is done with them by the buyer afterwards. Your examples of crops, cars, gold, and houses all are yours to sell at any price or give away after the sale is complete.
That isn't to say that you are wrong about the fairness of it. Copyright is an attempt to treat information as a product and ignoring it means that the work produced with the expectation of copyright protection is devalued when that protection isn't given. Switzerland has chosen not to extend protection that is offered in many other places. It may be that artists and craftsmen there will choose to produce work only if they are granted fair compensation before releasing their work, and that could end up making the artists more money than they would elsewhere, thus making it a Mecca for the aspiring artist. Where else can you go and demand fair payment before release? On the other hand, a global market may mean that it is simply more cost efficient to import (piracy included) work from outside, thus eliminating the incentive to produce there.
As a software writer (albeit minuscule) I can certainly appreciate the draw of producing work based on what it might be worth to the buyer rather than hoping that other people will choose to pay later. I'd rather have a clear cut contract to produce a software product that does X in exchange for Y, than producing X hoping that Y^n will come to pass.
As a side note, this is what SaaS is all about and why I believe it has started becoming so popular. When you use a hosted service (as we do in my professional life) you aren't paying for the right to use X software so much as you are for using X services for a period of time. Napster is a perfect example of a SaaS gone wrong and there is much to learn from it. What if Napster had chosen/had to pay the artists up front for distribution and the method had been just a part of the business model? Metallica and Madona could have made a huge sum of money by licensing their work for distribution through Napster if they'd received a gross fee based on trends. If Napster had done this then it might be a big player today instead of a historical footnote.
"Give me product to distribute, and if it does well, I'll pay you Y per instance." "No, you figure out what it is worth to have X and pay me that, and THEN I'll give it to you." Which one is fair? It seems that Switzerland is banking on it being the second.
I am the son of a farmer. I've never observed my father to receive payment after he sold his crop because people bought it or failed to receive payment after he sold it because it wasn't distributed well later.
People often forget that most of the things they want from government are not provided by the federal government. Libraries, schools, roads, police and firefighters all get funding from sources closer than the federal government. There are very few (arguably zero) services that cannot be provided by a state and can be provided only by the federal government.
I can't decide whether to write Ron Paul off as a nut or to admire him for bringing up discussions that other candidates wouldn't dare give voice. On the one hand, this will be widely taken as "Ron Paul will destroy our collective investment in our society" which will effectively end any chance of him being a serious presidential hopeful. On the other hand, if it were seen as "Let the people have more say in how their taxes are used" then it would be a widely popular idea.
When I pay taxes to my city or county, they go toward funding those things that my neighbors want, except where they pay to follow laws from my state or federal government. My votes have the largest effect at this level of taxation, so I have the most say in how my taxes are used at this level. When I pay taxes to my state, it goes toward the things people in my state want. My votes don't have as much impact as they do locally, but they still have about 50 times the impact they do at the federal level. At the federal level, they go toward the things that my fellow citizens want, but my votes have the least impact and I have the least control of how my taxes are spent.
TC Wilcox observed that state control of services allows them to try different approaches and see which work better, which is very true. It is also true that what works best in one place is often not the best choice in another. I cannot help but agree with the idea that moving the decisions closer to the voter is a good idea. I suspect that people who prefer federal solutions to state solutions do so because they believe that their own preferences are unpopular in other regions and thus their preferences should be forced on those unwilling people who refuse to realize how right they are. Nothing says freedom so ironically as "you can't move out of the state if you disagree, you have to move out of my country."
I use the Win7 bootloader to boot grub. It's not obvious or well documented, so I have my cliff notes on my own site, but the summary is: dd if=/dev/partitionWhereInstalledGrub of=/mnt/windows1 bs=512 count=1 to create a file that the Win7 bootloader can use then modify the bootloader to use that as an option.
12% unemployment in CA, vs 8% in TX... yeah, there might be a whole lot of things going on there, but that's a pretty stunning difference. I don't know that Perry deserves any credit, but I can't imagine a politician not taking credit anyway.
The health insurance issue is certainly a valid one, but it's related to the cost of healthcare I suspect. CA and TX have almost the same per capita spending on healthcare though, where you'd think the cost for TX would be a lot more without health insurance, or maybe a lot less if Texans weren't getting the care their Californian counterparts are getting.
That map.. well it does kinda suck. I'd like a better one but that's what I found. It is interesting to see that 20% statistic, I didn't realise that was the case, I'd like to see some history there and numbers. Link if you have one would be cool. (Oh also, I wouldn't say TX is in great shape, just when comparing government spending and employment rates.)
We have a budding humanitarian here. Don't think this is typical of CA though. The government may be a mess and there is plenty to criticise on both sides in that, but CA has sent help to TX for the fires and in the past TX has sent help to CA too.
TX and CA have differences in government and policy and generally in how their citizens think the world should work, but both also have a lot of people who are serious about caring about their fellow man.
Silly accounting tricks vs a government that can't pay employees? Yeah, both suck, but I know which I prefer.
The unemployment in TX is 8%. In CA it is 12%. How is that "just as big as anywhere else?"
The "crappiest government and services" certainly sounds like an opinion that can be defended. Picking the fire department wait as an example might even work if it were an average or funded at a state level, but do you have the average response times for emergency (fire in particular?) services state wide to compare between the two states?
Oh, you think TX should have spent the rainy day fund differently? So do about half of Texans (judging by the news commentaries) but lets compare that to how CA is spending their rainy day fund..... yeah, not really a fair comparison is it?
The Zoolander governor who.... well actually I kind of agree with you there, but we're comparing to CA here, how'd CA handle the same issue?
This is a logical fallacy. To consider the argument, you have to presume that there is a God capable of building a human being from dust, which God also created first. The argument that God must have made Eve to be a clone assumes that God didn't create something new in the process, which is kind of contrary to the assumption of a Creator.
Certainly, if the God described in the creation story exists as described, then creating whole genomes from scratch is pretty much old hat by the time Eve is created. To say that they "must" be clones would be an odd assumption, particularly given the rest of the story. Further, the story details the creation of the first man and woman but at no point is it stated that they were the only humans he created. Some people believe that, perhaps many, but it simply isn't in the traditional story, and interestingly when their sons head out into the world, they meet up with other people, with admittedly could have been the product of incest and lives long enough to consider a couple of centuries to be middle aged, but more reasonably could be taken as more humans created whose creation stories aren't recorded.
Ancestry is very important to many prophesies and was very important to the religion of the Jews at the time of Jesus Christ. Adam and Eve provide a traceable lineage from God's hand and plan all the way to Jesus Christ, but it doesn't exclude the possibility that there were many other people created along the way. Genetics studies actually make the case that all living human beings share the heritage of no more than a few thousand individuals. (Look up the Toba event.)
None of this proves that God created Adam and Eve first or that the story is true at all, none of it proves that God did anything or that God exists. If you prefer another explanation of the facts, that's certainly something that (IMHO) society should protect as a liberty. I'm absolutely in favour of presenting logical reasons for what you believe, regardless of whether they happen to agree with my own or not. The only reason I'm responding to the parent is to point out that saying "God must have created a clone" is misleadingly simplistic.
I use FF, and expect to continue to do so, but when FF started being a headache for me to keep up to date on other people's workstations, I started recommending Chrome instead. For most of my users, it isn't the add-ons, it is the ability to self update that counts, and as far as I've seen so far (for non-admins) FF doesn't and Chrome does.
If you didn't catch that, let me rephrase: FF requires admin, Chrome doesn't, so I don't put FF anywhere I have to admin except my own PC
Slashdot Mirror
I hope they do and I hope you are right. Nothing could be better for the future of our country than for the impressionable youth to realize that their freedoms and access are protected only at the whim of corporate policy and fickle government oversight. I could actually hope the coming years would reflect the will of the people if the youth of today were sufficiently shocked.
There are better articles I've since read. Try one on nydailynews.com or collisionguard.com or drivers.com or slashfood.com or boston.com.
Not all of them make the same case, in fact I'm more inclined to believe now that phone usage is the more dangerous, but come on, if you're gonna criticize the source, maybe find one of the dozens of better ones a google search away!
Funny how people have their beliefs and the facts have no sway on them.
... In a separate study of 1,000 drivers, ExxonMobil Corp. discovered more than 70% of drivers eat while driving - and 83% drink beverages.
My source (not the original): http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009-07-19/local/17928504_1_drink-and-drive-drivers-study
Texting while driving is certainly already covered under distracted driving rules where I live, and I suspect in most other places as well. Distracted driving isn't new nor I suspect, is using a CB while driving any better and we're in the "around and pervasive for 30 years" range there too. I don't think that changing the device has made it any different, only more common.
Banning is like censoring websites. The effectiveness is rarely what is hoped for, and often the side effects are worse than the cure. I've seen credible studies that texting bans result in more accidents. We recently had a big debate in my area where one county did bans and the neighboring county didn't and the results are still ambiguous. My suspicion is that if there is a crack down on distracted driving it will cure many more ills than a new ban would.
I can totally get behind banning your girlfriend's chatter... but not mine. Reminds me of a story:
I was at a party when this guy hands me a shot. I told him I couldn't drink because I promised my wife I wouldn't. He nods and pulls a gun on me and says "drink!" so I drank. Then he hands me the gun and says "I told my wife the same thing, so now you hold the gun on me."
As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm open to learning that I was wrong. I'm only willing to tentatively accept the claims of the site until I can find better information. The assumption that texting associated with accidents has been accurately measured in accidents, however, seems to be wrong from what I can find. Of course, as always.... citation needed.
Fair enough. I'm not sure I'd even credit them with being a group, but I'd be interested to see the presentation of a good study refuting the claims. I didn't find any when I looked, but perhaps you have a good link? Heck, tell me the books and I'll see if I can get them through inter-library loan.
On the other side... perhaps people get defensive and present opinions rather than references when they find their own actions the object of scrutiny. It is certainly that way for me until I think it through.
Actually I did, and it explicitly says:
Believe it or not, texting while driving may not be the most dangerous form of distracted driving. Actually, eating while driving is even more dangerous. Shhh! Don't tell McDonald's!
I'm not vouching for their research, certainly not alone, but I didn't stop there and didn't find any refuting evidence elsewhere. I'm not sure I'm convinced myself, but I'm willing to accept the research they present until I have better evidence otherwise.
And one missile every ten years of maintaining the highest possible ranking... I'm really fixated on car mounted missiles today.
OHHH and if you score low enough, a ban from the more dangerous activity, eating while driving!
I'm not forgetting about them, but if you give me missiles, it will fulfill a daily fantasy of mine.
Yeah, fame, wealth, attractiveness... all good but what I really want is some missiles!
While driving, apparently the eating and coffee are more dangerous than texting. You have to ask yourself, if the more dangerous activity is the one that is never talked about, is this really about safety in the first place?
You made me think. Why isn't eating-while-driving a bigger issue, is it significantly safer? I did a quick search, and got the startling answer that it is much more dangerous to eat-while-driving than text-while-driving.
You want the answer? Policy makers are not texting, but they are drinking coffee. I'm not just talking about while driving, I'm talking about generally. Ban what those reckless youth are doing, fine, but you'll get my coffee cup when you pry it out of my cold dead hands (and you'll probably need the jaws of life to get to them.) Voters will approve something to punish those youths making the roads unsafe, but you'll never get them to approve legislating cheeseburger access.
http://www.drive-safely.net/eating-while-driving.html
Speaking for myself, but I believe other people believe similarly:
I believe that Obama is deliberately vague on his beliefs regarding Islam and Christianity because he values his political career more than his faith. I believe he considers terrorism a word that is broadly redefinable to meet the political need. I believe he did lie in order to further his bid for presidency and after his election in order to protect his potential for reelection. I believe he ignores the opportunity to correct racism and tacitly approves of it when it is politically expedient.
I do believe he was born in the US, and was eligible and legally elected. During the campaign I was willing to consider the possibility that it might be otherwise, but never saw proof when exposing proof had many strong motivations. I decided therefore that it must not exist, despite speculation among some people whose intellects I otherwise respect. I don't believe he is the antichrist (or even an antichrist depending on your definition.) I believe his shifting stance on Facebook and technology in general is sufficient to say he is an asshole. I'm not sure on the term hatemonger, though I think it obvious he has incited others toward hating Bush and McCain, I don't know if it meets any threshold on defining him generally.
For the most part, my beliefs are fueled by observation, and where they aren't, they're fueled by cynicism. In most cases, I'd say the same about his rivals as well.
I'm glad a black man is president, but I am sad that the first one is this black man. I'm a little surprised to hear you using the term "gorilla dust." I had to look it up. It seems to be a term referring to confrontations based on bluster rather than actual combat that came into use thanks to Ross Perot.
Discussion of Gorilla Dust as a term.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
It is producing a product of value in exchange for payment, same as any other service or product produced.
Slight quibble, with most goods or services, you sell them and when the sale is complete, you have no right to determine what is done with them by the buyer afterwards. Your examples of crops, cars, gold, and houses all are yours to sell at any price or give away after the sale is complete.
That isn't to say that you are wrong about the fairness of it. Copyright is an attempt to treat information as a product and ignoring it means that the work produced with the expectation of copyright protection is devalued when that protection isn't given. Switzerland has chosen not to extend protection that is offered in many other places. It may be that artists and craftsmen there will choose to produce work only if they are granted fair compensation before releasing their work, and that could end up making the artists more money than they would elsewhere, thus making it a Mecca for the aspiring artist. Where else can you go and demand fair payment before release? On the other hand, a global market may mean that it is simply more cost efficient to import (piracy included) work from outside, thus eliminating the incentive to produce there.
As a software writer (albeit minuscule) I can certainly appreciate the draw of producing work based on what it might be worth to the buyer rather than hoping that other people will choose to pay later. I'd rather have a clear cut contract to produce a software product that does X in exchange for Y, than producing X hoping that Y^n will come to pass.
As a side note, this is what SaaS is all about and why I believe it has started becoming so popular. When you use a hosted service (as we do in my professional life) you aren't paying for the right to use X software so much as you are for using X services for a period of time. Napster is a perfect example of a SaaS gone wrong and there is much to learn from it. What if Napster had chosen/had to pay the artists up front for distribution and the method had been just a part of the business model? Metallica and Madona could have made a huge sum of money by licensing their work for distribution through Napster if they'd received a gross fee based on trends. If Napster had done this then it might be a big player today instead of a historical footnote.
"Give me product to distribute, and if it does well, I'll pay you Y per instance."
"No, you figure out what it is worth to have X and pay me that, and THEN I'll give it to you."
Which one is fair? It seems that Switzerland is banking on it being the second.
I am the son of a farmer. I've never observed my father to receive payment after he sold his crop because people bought it or failed to receive payment after he sold it because it wasn't distributed well later.
Well that changed.
People often forget that most of the things they want from government are not provided by the federal government. Libraries, schools, roads, police and firefighters all get funding from sources closer than the federal government. There are very few (arguably zero) services that cannot be provided by a state and can be provided only by the federal government.
I can't decide whether to write Ron Paul off as a nut or to admire him for bringing up discussions that other candidates wouldn't dare give voice. On the one hand, this will be widely taken as "Ron Paul will destroy our collective investment in our society" which will effectively end any chance of him being a serious presidential hopeful. On the other hand, if it were seen as "Let the people have more say in how their taxes are used" then it would be a widely popular idea.
When I pay taxes to my city or county, they go toward funding those things that my neighbors want, except where they pay to follow laws from my state or federal government. My votes have the largest effect at this level of taxation, so I have the most say in how my taxes are used at this level. When I pay taxes to my state, it goes toward the things people in my state want. My votes don't have as much impact as they do locally, but they still have about 50 times the impact they do at the federal level. At the federal level, they go toward the things that my fellow citizens want, but my votes have the least impact and I have the least control of how my taxes are spent.
TC Wilcox observed that state control of services allows them to try different approaches and see which work better, which is very true. It is also true that what works best in one place is often not the best choice in another. I cannot help but agree with the idea that moving the decisions closer to the voter is a good idea. I suspect that people who prefer federal solutions to state solutions do so because they believe that their own preferences are unpopular in other regions and thus their preferences should be forced on those unwilling people who refuse to realize how right they are. Nothing says freedom so ironically as "you can't move out of the state if you disagree, you have to move out of my country."
I use the Win7 bootloader to boot grub. It's not obvious or well documented, so I have my cliff notes on my own site, but the summary is: dd if=/dev/partitionWhereInstalledGrub of=/mnt/windows1 bs=512 count=1 to create a file that the Win7 bootloader can use then modify the bootloader to use that as an option.
That may be the best analogy I've ever heard.
12% unemployment in CA, vs 8% in TX... yeah, there might be a whole lot of things going on there, but that's a pretty stunning difference. I don't know that Perry deserves any credit, but I can't imagine a politician not taking credit anyway.
The health insurance issue is certainly a valid one, but it's related to the cost of healthcare I suspect. CA and TX have almost the same per capita spending on healthcare though, where you'd think the cost for TX would be a lot more without health insurance, or maybe a lot less if Texans weren't getting the care their Californian counterparts are getting.
That map.. well it does kinda suck. I'd like a better one but that's what I found. It is interesting to see that 20% statistic, I didn't realise that was the case, I'd like to see some history there and numbers. Link if you have one would be cool. (Oh also, I wouldn't say TX is in great shape, just when comparing government spending and employment rates.)
We have a budding humanitarian here. Don't think this is typical of CA though. The government may be a mess and there is plenty to criticise on both sides in that, but CA has sent help to TX for the fires and in the past TX has sent help to CA too.
TX and CA have differences in government and policy and generally in how their citizens think the world should work, but both also have a lot of people who are serious about caring about their fellow man.
Silly accounting tricks vs a government that can't pay employees? Yeah, both suck, but I know which I prefer.
The unemployment in TX is 8%. In CA it is 12%. How is that "just as big as anywhere else?"
The "crappiest government and services" certainly sounds like an opinion that can be defended. Picking the fire department wait as an example might even work if it were an average or funded at a state level, but do you have the average response times for emergency (fire in particular?) services state wide to compare between the two states?
Oh, you think TX should have spent the rainy day fund differently? So do about half of Texans (judging by the news commentaries) but lets compare that to how CA is spending their rainy day fund..... yeah, not really a fair comparison is it?
The Zoolander governor who.... well actually I kind of agree with you there, but we're comparing to CA here, how'd CA handle the same issue?
Yeah, thank goodness CA has ballot measures. Wouldn't want to be like TX!
Check out the map on http://blog.american.com/2010/06/america-as-texas-vs-california-who%E2%80%99s-moving-where-edition/ to see what other people think... and follow it to forbes and check out how CA compares.
CA really dodged a bullet there didn't you?
This is a logical fallacy. To consider the argument, you have to presume that there is a God capable of building a human being from dust, which God also created first. The argument that God must have made Eve to be a clone assumes that God didn't create something new in the process, which is kind of contrary to the assumption of a Creator.
Certainly, if the God described in the creation story exists as described, then creating whole genomes from scratch is pretty much old hat by the time Eve is created. To say that they "must" be clones would be an odd assumption, particularly given the rest of the story. Further, the story details the creation of the first man and woman but at no point is it stated that they were the only humans he created. Some people believe that, perhaps many, but it simply isn't in the traditional story, and interestingly when their sons head out into the world, they meet up with other people, with admittedly could have been the product of incest and lives long enough to consider a couple of centuries to be middle aged, but more reasonably could be taken as more humans created whose creation stories aren't recorded.
Ancestry is very important to many prophesies and was very important to the religion of the Jews at the time of Jesus Christ. Adam and Eve provide a traceable lineage from God's hand and plan all the way to Jesus Christ, but it doesn't exclude the possibility that there were many other people created along the way. Genetics studies actually make the case that all living human beings share the heritage of no more than a few thousand individuals. (Look up the Toba event.)
None of this proves that God created Adam and Eve first or that the story is true at all, none of it proves that God did anything or that God exists. If you prefer another explanation of the facts, that's certainly something that (IMHO) society should protect as a liberty. I'm absolutely in favour of presenting logical reasons for what you believe, regardless of whether they happen to agree with my own or not. The only reason I'm responding to the parent is to point out that saying "God must have created a clone" is misleadingly simplistic.
I use FF, and expect to continue to do so, but when FF started being a headache for me to keep up to date on other people's workstations, I started recommending Chrome instead. For most of my users, it isn't the add-ons, it is the ability to self update that counts, and as far as I've seen so far (for non-admins) FF doesn't and Chrome does.
If you didn't catch that, let me rephrase: FF requires admin, Chrome doesn't, so I don't put FF anywhere I have to admin except my own PC