There has been a huge debate for decades over whether instinct shooting is superior to aimed fire using the Weaver stance.
The consensus appears to be that instinct shooting is valuable in those cases where you don't have time to get your gun OUT AND aim before firing. But when your gun is already out, you aim.
William Burroughs used to quote Wyatt Earp as saying, "Take your time". Meaning "make your first shot count as you might not get the time to fire a second one." If your "instinct" shot does NOT hit the opponent, you've just given him his chance to shoot you. As a famous pistol expert once titled his book, "No Second Chance."
Heinlein's advice is valid to some extent, but it is still preferable to be able to hit the enemy in a manner more likely to stop him than merely to "clip" him, using aimed fire. It does take more practice than instinct shooting - the SEALS under Marcinko used to burn through thousands of rounds of ammo until aimed fire BECAME instinctual. That's what you really want to achieve. For the average homeowner, of course, who doesn't have armorers to tune weapons that are so heavily used,that might not be practical.
They did a study in New York some years ago. They discovered that police officers hit what they're shooting at only 25% of the time. The reason there are still cops living in New York is that the bad guys hit what they're aiming at only 11% of the time.
The difference is practice. The minimal amount of practice cops get is enough to give them a two-to-one edge on the perps. Which is why when I was considering my terrorist campaign, I intended to practice until I was twice as good as that AND have the initiator's advantage.
"Just saying "more guns, less crime" doesn't look at the causes of the crime"
Saying "less guns, less crime" is also wrong by the same argument.
In fact, quite an argument could be made that more crime means more guns, as citizens try to defend themselves. If you then look at the correlation, you could come to the wrong conclusion that more guns equals more crime. In fact, the reverse is true. And it's also obvious - if there was no crime, who would bother carrying a gun?
Crime is not caused by the presence of guns, you are quite correct. It CAN be reduced by the presence of guns, but ONLY if that presence OUTWEIGHS the other factors involved - which I would hazard a guess is not true in most cases, but MAY be true in certain areas involving certain types of crime. (e.g., if everybody in an area is armed, burglars aren't going to be burgling occupied houses, and muggers are less likely to be operating. This says nothing about drug dealers shooting each other, however.)
Nobody said it wouldn't cost a hundred thousand lives if the US attempted mass genocide on a country. Hell, the US could just nuke Baghdad - and no doubt a lot of rightwing morons would like to see it happen. The result would be the US condemned by every nation on Earth (except Israel, of course.)
But to say the US has killed upwards of ten thousand civilians in Iraq alone is "tippy-toe" is just braindead.
And it's irrelevant. The US has around 140,000 troops in Iraq. Less than 20,000 are actual combat troops if the usual ratio of support to combat is still in existence. The rest can wield a firearm if they have to, but that's not their primary job and if they have to, then their primary job doesn't get done - which means vehicles don't move because they aren't repaired or there's no fuel for them or food and water for the troops.
It is standard theory that you need ten soldiers for every insurgent to suppress an insurgency. The US doesn't have anywhere near that number in Iraq compared to the estimated 5,000 to 30,000 insurgents (and hundreds of thousands of supporters) there presently are in Iraq. Compared to a mass national resistance, that is itself a pittance. Ayatollah Sistani could put another hundred thousand insurgents on the street with a word, should he so choose. The US would need to send the ENTIRE US military to Iraq in that case to defeat the insurgency. It would cost the Iraqis a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand lives, but they would win in the end. And the US would lose ten or twenty thousand troops before evacuating the country.
The ONLY reason this hasn't happened yet is because Ayatollah Sistani and the Hawza and the major tribal heads are holding back waiting to see which way the wind blows come the January elections. One head of a two-million-strong tribe said a few months ago that he could stop the insurgency immediately - but he wouldn't. He also said that IF it became necessary, they could make Vietnam look like a picnic.
When the US screws them out of the elections and leaves them all being ruled by some puppet strongman like Allawi, all hell will break loose.
Iraq is no longer under the careful control of a competent dictator with a party organization and an established secret service. Iraq is now DESTABILIZED - BADLY. Anything is possible - but for a puppet government to regain control of the country in the same manner as Hussein did is highly unlikely - even backed up by the US military and the CIA. Whether a civil war will erupt once the US is forced out is uncertain, but what IS certain is that virtually ALL Iraqis want the US out ASAP. The ONLY thing holding back a mass national resistance is the promise of elections in January.
"No citizenry armed with small arms alone could ever hope to stand up to the full might of the US military."
Absolute nonsense.
No standing military can or ever has stood up to the might of a fully armed and resistant population.
And the US military is no exception.
Your tanks and jets mean nothing if your drivers and gunners and pilots are shot on the way to their vehicles.
Not to mention their commanders.
One percent of the population of this country, armed with pistols and long arms, would quickly possess any number of antitank weapons, explosives, Humvees, anything they can operate without advanced training (and some things that they have actually had advanced training in - since there are lot of EX-military around), that USED to belong to some moron in the military.
The US military is GETTING ITS ASS KICKED in Iraq - and is heading for a full-out military defeat in that country. Only the restraint of Ayatollah Sistani and several of the larger tribal heads has prevented it from occurring thus far - for reasons of their own. Screw up those elections in January and see what happens. I predict the loss of several thousand - even ten thousand - US troops within a couple of months of the outbreak of mass national resistance and the result will be the evacuation of Iraq by the US leaving behind billions of dollars of US military equipment that I'm sure the Iraqis will find a use for. Not that this won't cost the Iraqis another hundred thousand lives, but they'll pay that price to get rid of the US IF they have to.
"And selling a weapon to terrorists would be a way for them to execute a strike on the US without opening themselves up to direct retaliation."
Wrong. It would not be that hard for the US to track back the weapon used. And that would mean NK's doom at the hands of a US nuclear response.
This is why Saddam would never have sold WMDs to terrorists. Too easy to track it back.
The North would NEVER use a nuke against the US (or allow anyone else to use one of their nukes) in a terrorist attack UNLESS they were already at war with the US and losing badly (in which case of course it would not BE a "terrorist" attack - it would be an escalation of the war, or a "revenge" attack.)
They certainly would never give one of the four or five weapons they might have to Al Qaeda - again unless they were already on the losing end and thought Al Qaeda might be able to strike the US after NK lost the war. In which case, why bother? They have the Special Forces trained in infiltration and the submarines to deliver the weapon themselves - far more competent approaches than handing one to the barely competent Arab terrorists.
No, NK would never hand off nukes unless they had dozens and were offered enough money by Pakistan or Iran or somebody. Money they need, but they need a nuclear deterrence against the US more - even if that deterrence could never match the US nuclear arsenal.
After all, while NK has sold missile tech, the only nuke tech being sold so far has been from Pakistan, not NK.
One can look twenty years down the road and see plenty of countries with nuke tech selling it - but I doubt any of them would actually sell a weapon per se.
The real nuclear threat in the Middle East is Israel, not Iran. The IAEA and the UN needs to come down hard on Israel and force them to disarm just as much as they did on Saddam. Without that nuclear arsenal, Israel would be forced to negotiate more on the Palestinian issue.
Nonsense. Dictators do not sell nukes to other people. Maybe their scientists do, but North Korean scientists are not Pakistani scientists. I would expect them to be VERY much more under control.
However, popping off a nuke and then blaming Al Qaeda for it, then blaming North Korea for giving it to them is something I could see the neocons doing - with Israeli help, supplying the nuke from Israel's own considerable stock.
Don't worry about NK getting Chinese or Russian material - worry about the Israeli agents who have ALREADY been identified negotiating deals (supposedly for "Wall" technology between NK and China like the one in Israel) in North Korea. Wouldn't it be interesting if Israel was offering nuclear technology to North Korea?
Considering that "Al Qaeda" (which really isn't anything but a generic term for a movement) appears to be alive and well and growing rapidly, I rather doubt "suicide" is the proper term.
In fact, recent analysis articles indicate that basically Bush's actions have helped Al Qaeda enormously in turning Arab opinion away from the US and toward Al Qaeda's attitudes.
Bush: 0 Al Qaeda: 1
Of course, it would be Bush: 2 if in fact the whole point of this was not about Al Qaeda at all, wouldn't it? Especially if some people knew 9/11 was coming and let it happen for their own reasons.
In other words, vote for Bush or we'll pop off a nuke on US soil, then blame it on Al Qaeda (to keep the Israelis happy) then blame North Korea for giving them the bomb so we can attack North Korea and make Halliburton some more money while fifty thousand more US troops and a million North and South Koreans die for the good of Cheney's bank account.
I suspect the Israeli spy rings operating in the US have already provided a nice "untraceable" (especially if no one tries) nuke from their considerable stockpile to be used for the operation.
The only way to solve these problems is for some terrorist with half a brain to steal half a dozen Israeli nukes and level Tel Aviv, Dimona and most of the Israeli Air Force. Then let the Arab nations finish the job.
Too bad about the non-Zionist Jews in Israel, but if you're dumb enough to live in a fascist nation, you deserve what you get. Unfortunately that applies to US citizens, too, as the people in the World Trade Center found out.
I just hope San Francisco is not the target - but since this town is full of gays and Bush and his fundie cronies hate this town, and it's nicely next to the ocean where North Korea can get a sub in, I suspect I'm in trouble.
Why would France or Germany give a shit? They're in Europe. North Korea is in Asia.
Japan already cares. That's why they are aiding the US in provoking the North with ship interdictions and harassment of the NK ferry. They are also joining the US in "interdiction exercises" in October. The Japanese have decided that a war between the North and the US which ruins their trade competitor South Korea is good for business. Of course, if the North sneaks a nuke into Tokyo Bay in one of their infiltration subs, the Japanese will be informed otherwise.
And any notion of North Korea selling nuclear weapons to terrorists is a joke. Dictators do not sell nuclear weapons to terrorists - too risky for them personally. And the North doesn't nearly have enough nukes to be selling them to anybody - not if they want any deterrence against the US.
There is no such thing as "protecting" children from porn - or anything else. Any such attempt is itself harm to children.
There is no "harm" done to anyone (including people who are already freaks) - including children - from viewing porn or anything else. Any "harm" is self-inflicted.
It's all ruminant evacuation.
Any parents who buy into this crap are themselves doing harm to their children by not properly training them to deal with human reality.
This "children are supposed to be innocent" bullshit started with moronic Christians and has nothing to do with human evolution or human history or practically any human culture.
NONE of these laws are useful for anything but enabling freak cops and statists to bust people to enhance their psychotic need to push people around to demonstrate to themselves that they're better than other people.
George Lucas is the guy who claims there should be a law that says if you buy a sculpture from the sculptor and put it on your lawn and paint it blue, the sculptor should have the right to repossess it or sue you or something.
He's a nut.
Besides, somebody tell me how Qeedo could be pointing his piece directly at Han from three feet AND fire at the same time and NOT hit Han.
That's one piss-poor piece of blaster proficiency for a bounty hunter. Boba Fett would turn over in his grave (or the stomach of that thing that ate him.)
I saw the "enhanced" version where they added Jabba to the original - these idiots took the EXACT SAME DIALOGUE uttered by Han elsewhere and shoehorned it into the scene.
It couldn't have stood out more if you'd painted Jabba blue.
But if somebody did that, Lucas would have sued him.
The real intent is to simulate conceptual processing - or at least conceptual organization of data.
Unfortunately it doesn't even come close.
None of this can be done (done well, anyway) without some decent simulation of human conceptual processing.
And since Microsoft chose to piss away their R&D money on a one-time stock prop scheme, I guess they won't be the ones who succeed in doing it. If they even care, which I doubt.
I think we should have a mod category called "Windows Trolls" (and to be fair, one called "Linux Trolls") which can be applied to comments like mine and the one I'm responding too. So we can mod something "Interesting to Windows Trolls".
Slashdot Mirror
There has been a huge debate for decades over whether instinct shooting is superior to aimed fire using the Weaver stance.
The consensus appears to be that instinct shooting is valuable in those cases where you don't have time to get your gun OUT AND aim before firing. But when your gun is already out, you aim.
William Burroughs used to quote Wyatt Earp as saying, "Take your time". Meaning "make your first shot count as you might not get the time to fire a second one." If your "instinct" shot does NOT hit the opponent, you've just given him his chance to shoot you. As a famous pistol expert once titled his book, "No Second Chance."
Heinlein's advice is valid to some extent, but it is still preferable to be able to hit the enemy in a manner more likely to stop him than merely to "clip" him, using aimed fire. It does take more practice than instinct shooting - the SEALS under Marcinko used to burn through thousands of rounds of ammo until aimed fire BECAME instinctual. That's what you really want to achieve. For the average homeowner, of course, who doesn't have armorers to tune weapons that are so heavily used,that might not be practical.
They did a study in New York some years ago. They discovered that police officers hit what they're shooting at only 25% of the time. The reason there are still cops living in New York is that the bad guys hit what they're aiming at only 11% of the time.
The difference is practice. The minimal amount of practice cops get is enough to give them a two-to-one edge on the perps. Which is why when I was considering my terrorist campaign, I intended to practice until I was twice as good as that AND have the initiator's advantage.
"Just saying "more guns, less crime" doesn't look at the causes of the crime"
Saying "less guns, less crime" is also wrong by the same argument.
In fact, quite an argument could be made that more crime means more guns, as citizens try to defend themselves. If you then look at the correlation, you could come to the wrong conclusion that more guns equals more crime. In fact, the reverse is true. And it's also obvious - if there was no crime, who would bother carrying a gun?
Crime is not caused by the presence of guns, you are quite correct. It CAN be reduced by the presence of guns, but ONLY if that presence OUTWEIGHS the other factors involved - which I would hazard a guess is not true in most cases, but MAY be true in certain areas involving certain types of crime. (e.g., if everybody in an area is armed, burglars aren't going to be burgling occupied houses, and muggers are less likely to be operating. This says nothing about drug dealers shooting each other, however.)
"tippie-toeing through those countries."
Nobody said it wouldn't cost a hundred thousand lives if the US attempted mass genocide on a country. Hell, the US could just nuke Baghdad - and no doubt a lot of rightwing morons would like to see it happen. The result would be the US condemned by every nation on Earth (except Israel, of course.)
But to say the US has killed upwards of ten thousand civilians in Iraq alone is "tippy-toe" is just braindead.
And it's irrelevant. The US has around 140,000 troops in Iraq. Less than 20,000 are actual combat troops if the usual ratio of support to combat is still in existence. The rest can wield a firearm if they have to, but that's not their primary job and if they have to, then their primary job doesn't get done - which means vehicles don't move because they aren't repaired or there's no fuel for them or food and water for the troops.
It is standard theory that you need ten soldiers for every insurgent to suppress an insurgency. The US doesn't have anywhere near that number in Iraq compared to the estimated 5,000 to 30,000 insurgents (and hundreds of thousands of supporters) there presently are in Iraq. Compared to a mass national resistance, that is itself a pittance. Ayatollah Sistani could put another hundred thousand insurgents on the street with a word, should he so choose. The US would need to send the ENTIRE US military to Iraq in that case to defeat the insurgency. It would cost the Iraqis a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand lives, but they would win in the end. And the US would lose ten or twenty thousand troops before evacuating the country.
The ONLY reason this hasn't happened yet is because Ayatollah Sistani and the Hawza and the major tribal heads are holding back waiting to see which way the wind blows come the January elections. One head of a two-million-strong tribe said a few months ago that he could stop the insurgency immediately - but he wouldn't. He also said that IF it became necessary, they could make Vietnam look like a picnic.
When the US screws them out of the elections and leaves them all being ruled by some puppet strongman like Allawi, all hell will break loose.
Iraq is no longer under the careful control of a competent dictator with a party organization and an established secret service. Iraq is now DESTABILIZED - BADLY. Anything is possible - but for a puppet government to regain control of the country in the same manner as Hussein did is highly unlikely - even backed up by the US military and the CIA. Whether a civil war will erupt once the US is forced out is uncertain, but what IS certain is that virtually ALL Iraqis want the US out ASAP. The ONLY thing holding back a mass national resistance is the promise of elections in January.
"No citizenry armed with small arms alone could ever hope to stand up to the full might of the US military."
Absolute nonsense.
No standing military can or ever has stood up to the might of a fully armed and resistant population.
And the US military is no exception.
Your tanks and jets mean nothing if your drivers and gunners and pilots are shot on the way to their vehicles.
Not to mention their commanders.
One percent of the population of this country, armed with pistols and long arms, would quickly possess any number of antitank weapons, explosives, Humvees, anything they can operate without advanced training (and some things that they have actually had advanced training in - since there are lot of EX-military around), that USED to belong to some moron in the military.
The US military is GETTING ITS ASS KICKED in Iraq - and is heading for a full-out military defeat in that country. Only the restraint of Ayatollah Sistani and several of the larger tribal heads has prevented it from occurring thus far - for reasons of their own. Screw up those elections in January and see what happens. I predict the loss of several thousand - even ten thousand - US troops within a couple of months of the outbreak of mass national resistance and the result will be the evacuation of Iraq by the US leaving behind billions of dollars of US military equipment that I'm sure the Iraqis will find a use for. Not that this won't cost the Iraqis another hundred thousand lives, but they'll pay that price to get rid of the US IF they have to.
"Government does not have a monopoly on paranoid lunacy and unjustified violence..."
You're right - they just want to have a monopoly on them.
Unfortunately for the state, never gonna happen.
I sure as hell do.
In fact, I'd prefer cops to be actually SHOT with guns carried by civilians.
Shot and KILLED, in fact.
TODAY, if possible.
Worldwide, also.
Was I clear? Did I make my point?
That advice is a quick way to get dead.
Make your FIRST shot perfect.
To do that, PRACTICE.
No substitutes.
'Anyone have a holographic Yeti generator to scare away intruders? :)"'
Okay, relax, it was just a joke!
Jeez, no sense of humor!
No problem here. The compound still has freezers running with pizza in them.
Wait 'til you see what we do to Tel Aviv.
Does "glow in the dark" ring a bell?
"And selling a weapon to terrorists would be a way for them to execute a strike on the US without opening themselves up to direct retaliation."
Wrong. It would not be that hard for the US to track back the weapon used. And that would mean NK's doom at the hands of a US nuclear response.
This is why Saddam would never have sold WMDs to terrorists. Too easy to track it back.
The North would NEVER use a nuke against the US (or allow anyone else to use one of their nukes) in a terrorist attack UNLESS they were already at war with the US and losing badly (in which case of course it would not BE a "terrorist" attack - it would be an escalation of the war, or a "revenge" attack.)
They certainly would never give one of the four or five weapons they might have to Al Qaeda - again unless they were already on the losing end and thought Al Qaeda might be able to strike the US after NK lost the war. In which case, why bother? They have the Special Forces trained in infiltration and the submarines to deliver the weapon themselves - far more competent approaches than handing one to the barely competent Arab terrorists.
No, NK would never hand off nukes unless they had dozens and were offered enough money by Pakistan or Iran or somebody. Money they need, but they need a nuclear deterrence against the US more - even if that deterrence could never match the US nuclear arsenal.
After all, while NK has sold missile tech, the only nuke tech being sold so far has been from Pakistan, not NK.
One can look twenty years down the road and see plenty of countries with nuke tech selling it - but I doubt any of them would actually sell a weapon per se.
The real nuclear threat in the Middle East is Israel, not Iran. The IAEA and the UN needs to come down hard on Israel and force them to disarm just as much as they did on Saddam. Without that nuclear arsenal, Israel would be forced to negotiate more on the Palestinian issue.
Nonsense. Dictators do not sell nukes to other people. Maybe their scientists do, but North Korean scientists are not Pakistani scientists. I would expect them to be VERY much more under control.
However, popping off a nuke and then blaming Al Qaeda for it, then blaming North Korea for giving it to them is something I could see the neocons doing - with Israeli help, supplying the nuke from Israel's own considerable stock.
Don't worry about NK getting Chinese or Russian material - worry about the Israeli agents who have ALREADY been identified negotiating deals (supposedly for "Wall" technology between NK and China like the one in Israel) in North Korea. Wouldn't it be interesting if Israel was offering nuclear technology to North Korea?
Considering that "Al Qaeda" (which really isn't anything but a generic term for a movement) appears to be alive and well and growing rapidly, I rather doubt "suicide" is the proper term.
In fact, recent analysis articles indicate that basically Bush's actions have helped Al Qaeda enormously in turning Arab opinion away from the US and toward Al Qaeda's attitudes.
Bush: 0
Al Qaeda: 1
Of course, it would be Bush: 2 if in fact the whole point of this was not about Al Qaeda at all, wouldn't it? Especially if some people knew 9/11 was coming and let it happen for their own reasons.
In other words, vote for Bush or we'll pop off a nuke on US soil, then blame it on Al Qaeda (to keep the Israelis happy) then blame North Korea for giving them the bomb so we can attack North Korea and make Halliburton some more money while fifty thousand more US troops and a million North and South Koreans die for the good of Cheney's bank account.
I suspect the Israeli spy rings operating in the US have already provided a nice "untraceable" (especially if no one tries) nuke from their considerable stockpile to be used for the operation.
The only way to solve these problems is for some terrorist with half a brain to steal half a dozen Israeli nukes and level Tel Aviv, Dimona and most of the Israeli Air Force. Then let the Arab nations finish the job.
Too bad about the non-Zionist Jews in Israel, but if you're dumb enough to live in a fascist nation, you deserve what you get. Unfortunately that applies to US citizens, too, as the people in the World Trade Center found out.
I just hope San Francisco is not the target - but since this town is full of gays and Bush and his fundie cronies hate this town, and it's nicely next to the ocean where North Korea can get a sub in, I suspect I'm in trouble.
Why would France or Germany give a shit? They're in Europe. North Korea is in Asia.
Japan already cares. That's why they are aiding the US in provoking the North with ship interdictions and harassment of the NK ferry. They are also joining the US in "interdiction exercises" in October. The Japanese have decided that a war between the North and the US which ruins their trade competitor South Korea is good for business. Of course, if the North sneaks a nuke into Tokyo Bay in one of their infiltration subs, the Japanese will be informed otherwise.
And any notion of North Korea selling nuclear weapons to terrorists is a joke. Dictators do not sell nuclear weapons to terrorists - too risky for them personally. And the North doesn't nearly have enough nukes to be selling them to anybody - not if they want any deterrence against the US.
"Do you honestly claim that all children, regardless of age, are perfectly able to defend themselves?"
Reread this:
Any parents who buy into this crap are themselves doing harm to their children by NOT PROPERLY TRAINING THEM TO DEAL WITH HUMAN REALITY.
There is no such thing as "protecting" children from porn - or anything else. Any such attempt is itself harm to children.
There is no "harm" done to anyone (including people who are already freaks) - including children - from viewing porn or anything else.
Any "harm" is self-inflicted.
It's all ruminant evacuation.
Any parents who buy into this crap are themselves doing harm to their children by not properly training them to deal with human reality.
This "children are supposed to be innocent" bullshit started with moronic Christians and has nothing to do with human evolution or human history or practically any human culture.
NONE of these laws are useful for anything but enabling freak cops and statists to bust people to enhance their psychotic need to push people around to demonstrate to themselves that they're better than other people.
Humans. Morons.
Happy Halloween, ladies!
YAAAAH...YAAAAH...YAAAAHH...(tongue out)
Nuns! No sense of humor!
"currently in Beta"
Along with everything else Microsoft makes.
Whereas Sybase is at version 12.5.2.
"I don't know whether you were joking or very perceptive"
How about both?
Actually, I was worse than you are by second year of college - because that was in my late twenties!
Come to think of it, I'm not significantly better off now - and I'm 55.
So look what you have to look forward to - another 30 years of no girlfriend!
My solution - make lots of money and hire young babes to give you blowjobs like Hugh Hefner.
Now if I could just make lots of money...
Heh, heh, I rest my case.
Now try spelling antidisestablishmentarianism.
"I bet that I now lost my reputation for being a geek."
Why? Have you established you've ever had hands on a girl?
You have, however, established a reputation for being unable to communicate in correct English...:-) (Okay, it was a typo, relax.)
So they cut that scene and moved the audio into another scene, and now they've put it back in BOTH places?
Still stupid.
Dumbass.
George Lucas is the guy who claims there should be a law that says if you buy a sculpture from the sculptor and put it on your lawn and paint it blue, the sculptor should have the right to repossess it or sue you or something.
He's a nut.
Besides, somebody tell me how Qeedo could be pointing his piece directly at Han from three feet AND fire at the same time and NOT hit Han.
That's one piss-poor piece of blaster proficiency for a bounty hunter. Boba Fett would turn over in his grave (or the stomach of that thing that ate him.)
I saw the "enhanced" version where they added Jabba to the original - these idiots took the EXACT SAME DIALOGUE uttered by Han elsewhere and shoehorned it into the scene.
It couldn't have stood out more if you'd painted Jabba blue.
But if somebody did that, Lucas would have sued him.
The real intent is to simulate conceptual processing - or at least conceptual organization of data.
Unfortunately it doesn't even come close.
None of this can be done (done well, anyway) without some decent simulation of human conceptual processing.
And since Microsoft chose to piss away their R&D money on a one-time stock prop scheme, I guess they won't be the ones who succeed in doing it. If they even care, which I doubt.
Windows XP is "non-ugly, non-childish?"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Modded "Interesting?" To whom?
I think we should have a mod category called "Windows Trolls" (and to be fair, one called "Linux Trolls") which can be applied to comments like mine and the one I'm responding too. So we can mod something "Interesting to Windows Trolls".