I think you're the first person in this thread to say "ubiquitously misused." Language does indeed evolve, but there is a difference between an expansion of the language and a common misuse. Furthermore, irony is more than a word. It's a concept. Claiming that something is ironic merely because it is coincidental is not a sign of linguistic evolution, but rather of an educational shortcoming. That you not only don't get it but post your ignorance anonymously shows that you are part of the problem.
You can't really hate on people for expanding the English language to accommodate such a simple and common mental concept.
This is not an expansion of the language - it's a misuse of a word within the language. Furthermore, you can always dislike people who throw around random prepositions where they do not belong.
The blinding colors notwithstanding, you missed the first remotely original April 1st theme Slashdot has had since about 2001. Essentially, for 24 hours it was a site for 13-year-old girls named, I think, "0MG P0N1ES!!!!!!!!!"
The fear in the USA is more related to a strong national government taking full control. We have, for longer than our federal government has even existed, taken great pleasure in being a confederation of states and not a single government with political subdivisions called "states." I don't know how Australian federalism (if such a thing exists there) works, so I don't know if the same fear makes sense there. Remember, our nation's constitution was strongly opposed at first and nearly was not ratified because of exactly the same fear.
Most Americans proudly carry an ID card issued by their state of residence, and are happy that full faith and credit must be given to it in other states within the USA. However, many of us dislike one or more of the following:
1. Mandatory carrying of identification documents and mandatory production of them to police when the police have no probable cause to make an arrest. See the Hiibel case that was decided in our Supreme Court not that long ago - a Nevada man was arrested for refusing to identify himself under a Nevada state law requiring him to do so when the policeman made what is known as a Terry stop, meaning one where you have reasonable suspicion (but not probable cause) that a crime is being committed and can confront the suspect about it to give him a chance to either dispel your suspicion or confirm it. The Supreme Court basically said that the law was just fine, but largely because it allowed you to identify yourself just by stating your name to the officer and not producing any documentation of who you are.
2. National ID. The US Constitution does not provide for this. I can see an argument for the federal spending power to allow Congress to condition certain expenditures on the condition that the recipients have a national ID card, but even that argument is on shaky ground.
3. Biometric information on ID cards. A photo and a signature, plus a holograph to show that it's state-issued, is all we want.
4. RFID and the like in ID cards. We do not want our ID to be "visible" to the government without us showing it to them. It's not that we have an evil government - it's that things like this make it easy for an evil government to thrive if it comes to exist.
I hereby petition you not to accept any design based chiefly around the color purple. Any other color (OMG PONIES included... that's a valid HTML color name, right?) is acceptable, but not purple.
I believe in the Creation. I also believe that the methodology employed was evolution. Please stop (not just you, but people from the "creation means no evolution" camp as well) claiming that they are mutually exclusive. The two concepts are orthogonal. You can believe in one, the other, both, or neither without any inconsistencies.
Thank you for reading my comment and comprehending it before responding. As the moderation spree (up and then back down) and flurry of responses shows, you are lonely in having done so. I always respond to reasoned responses and sensible questions about what I've said. After all, I'm not a total asshole.;)
Your "perhaps" nails it. When I said "evolutionists" in that sentence, I meant to refer only to those who say that, because of evolution and for no other reason, creationism is dead wrong; the same as my references to "creationists" tend to be for those who deny evolution for the sole reason that they believe in creation.
So yes, contrary to popular belief, I was only attacking the false dichotomy argument that people on both extremes tend to make. To me, the response that I received proves the related point that the majority of people suck at logic, even the majority of people on Slashdot who ought to pride themselves on being able to think rationally.
So anyhow, I spent my Sunday mastering the art of using the wrong words to get a simple point across. How was yours?;)
It doesn't matter what support either side has. The issue here isn't the merits of either side of the dichotomy. The issue is that it is a false dichotomy.
Exactly my point.:) Whether there is or is not a divine creator/guider/designer/whatever is entirely separate from the question of how species evolve and develop. The problem is that too few people actually discuss the real question because everyone is too focused on claiming that they are right and thus everyone else is wrong, committing themselves to the false dichotomy. If people would cure themselves of the false dichotomy, they would be able to actually think about the real issues.
I don't know for a fact that the theory of evolution explains everything about life on Earth, but it does a good enough job that I tend to trust it unless the small blanks left on the page get filled in with entirely inconsistent entries. I also can't prove that there's been divine intervention in the evolutionary process at some point, nor can anyone prove that there hasn't been.
These are entirely separate concerns. I like discussing either of them. I like discussing their interplay. I don't, however, like dealing with stubborn ignorami who can't understand that they are separate discussions. Thanks for reminding me that I'm not alone.:)
Hooray! Yet another person who entirely missed the point. What I would actually say is that my religion and the game of poker have entirely separate rules. Thanks for playing and for helping to further verify my point in the minds of those who actually understood it.
You are still arguing that, because I said "Intelligent Design is... a middle ground," I proposed it as the correct middle ground. I didn't even propose it as my middle ground. You should really take my advice and read my original comment for comprehension rather than buzzwords before responding again. You are stubbornly adhering to a fairly ignorant reading of it which only goes to prove my underlying point more conclusively each time you click Submit.
You will note that I have posted other comments on this thread begging people not to mistake science for religion or vice versa. The false dichotomy that exists comes from people insisting that the two are, on this topic, mutually exclusive.
You are either (a) arguing that they are not mutually exclusive and thus are in agreement with me despite your inflamed attitude toward my use of one controversial buzzword for the purpose of demonstrating that middle ground exists (and nothing more; and please do note that I called specific attention to the shortcomings of ID when it comes to any credibility it may actually have in any form that it is presented); (b) arguing that they are mutually exclusive - if so, please explain your seemingly inconsistent statements that "Science is not faith. Faith is not science."; or (c) arguing something else altogether and failing to state it in any clear terms.
Don't declare yourself the winner while you are still playing a different game in the parking lot outside the arena - it's the same as jacking off in the bathroom at the chess tournament and walking out screaming "checkmate," and the only real point you make is that you're a special olympian at heart. Try again, genius.
You're the fourth person to reply to my comment, and you take first place for the most succinct response. However, your response misses the point. Read my other replies to help you find it, but the key is not to read my use of an example of middle ground as my endorsement of that middle ground as the only possible explanation. I am really beginning to wish I had used a different middle ground as an example, but ID is the most commonly-known example.
Are you arguing that only one of the two extremes must be correct? If not, then are you arguing that the words "a middle ground" mean the same thing as "the only possible explanation"? If not that, then what exactly are you saying? As far as I can tell, you are making one of those two statements. If a third exists, I am unaware of it and will await your explanation.
See my other response in this thread here regarding mistaking science for religion or vice versa. What point am I missing? You claim that, because evolution is compatible with the Anglican view and also compatible with the Confucianist view, it is therefore incompatible with any religious views. Your conclusion simply does not follow from your premises. The correct conclusion to draw is that, for all religious beliefs which are not incompatible with evolution, those religious beliefs can be held by a person without stubbornly denying on purely religious grounds the veracity of the theory of evolution. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Keep religion and science separate. Both are important parts of human history and culture, and adherence to either should not be a badge of ignorance. Again, all I'm asking is for people to stop bowing to a false dichotomy. If you can't follow my point, don't tell me I'm missing yours when it defies all logic. And if you follow my point and disagree with it, then debate me about it. I am always open to criticism, but you are going to look foolish if you do nothing but throw red herrings at me.
You, sir, are an idiot. Please cite for me the exact language I used to say that Intelligent Design is the middle ground. I used it as an example, not as an explanation. Again, read my comment and this time, when you look up the difficult words in the dictionary, look up the difficult words in the definitions as well. Eventually, you might be able to comprehend what I wrote. Please stop replying until that time - you aren't doing the discussion any favors by picking two words I used and acting like they were my entire comment, and the fact that you're receiving +1 Funny points shows just how seriously you are being taken in that endeavor.
You're the third person to respond to my comment, and the third to do so without completely wrapping your mind around my actual point. Evidently, I have once again succeeded in hiding my point underneath my words. I apologize for this shortcoming.
You are, however, the first response with anything intelligent to say that's even remotely on topic. I am not asking anyone to accept any conclusions - I am only asking them to stop bowing to the false dichotomy of Evolution vs. Creationism. You seem to have focused in on my invocation of Intelligent Design as an example of middle ground. Anything other than "evolution is right and creation is absolute bunk because it is fundamentally inconsistent with evolution" and "creation is right and evolution is absolute bunk because it is fundamentally inconsistent with evolution" qualifies as middle ground in this debate. I only used ID as an example because it is well-known, and then I went on and stated that because of how it has been (misre)presented it is not all that popular of an example.
Focus on my point, not on my invocation of a controversial term that I freely say is controversial and poorly-received because of its poorer presentation in recent years. The point is simply that it is possible to reconcile the scientific theory of creation with the religious belief in creation. Anyone who thinks that scientific theory and religious beliefs are fundamentally mutually exclusive is in most cases (but not all) making the grave error of mistaking science for religion or, equally bad, religion for science.
I never asked anyone to accept creationism, evolution, or intelligent design in any form. For at least the fourth time today, I will restate my point: This is not a situation of "A if and only if not B." A and B are independent facts, the truth of either of which has no bearing on the truth of the other. It is possible that evolution and creation are both right, that only one is right, or that both are wrong.
I do not push my beliefs on this matter on anyone. I just want them to terminate their stubborn insistence that A <---> !B for independent A and B.
You are really missing the point. This seems to be a common problem, but let me explain - the parent of my comment discussed creationism. Discussing creationism without reference to its underlying beliefs is asinine. The point is not that the Bible is proven correct - the point is that a belief system based in the Bible is not fundamentally inconsistent with the scientific theory of evolution.
I do, however, have to thank you for not disproving my hypothesis that the people who understand that this is a false dichotomy form a tiny minority of the people who speak out loudly about it on one side or the other.
I think that you completely misunderstood everything that I said. The reason I think this is that you seem to believe I said that both sides are wrong. I never once said that either side is wrong. Re-read my comment, and look up the difficult words in a dictionary as you go through it. Come back with a less ignorant and less inflammatory comment after you have done so. Thanks.
Why is it that such a seemingly tiny minority of people understand that Creationism vs. Evolution is a false dichotomy? If you want closed-mindedness, it exists on both sides of this issue. Creationists who deny that evolution is possible not only ignore overwhelming scientific evidence* in its favor, but also they have a strong tendency to take the closed-minded and inconsistent view that Genesis is word-for-word literal despite the fact that it was recorded by prophets long after its events occurred, and that Revelation is entirely symbolic. Evolutionists tend to take the closed-minded view that, because evolution happened, it must have happened entirely spontaneously and creationism of any sort must therefore be false.
Intelligent Design actually is a middle ground - the problem is that it's such a bad word because of how it has come up in the USA in the past few years, and that it is usually presented in a way that makes it just as closed-minded and ignorant as the sources of the problem it attempts to address.
Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Genesis tells that God created the heavens, the earth, and life. It doesn't say a word about how he went about it. Evolution explains the process of how life came to be as it is today. It doesn't say a word about the motive.
* - As to Christians in particular who ignore all scientific evidence for evolution and insist it must be false, such as an eons-old fossil record, I have this to say. Assume two facts: (1) God created the earth; and (2) God does not go out of his way to tempt people not to believe in him (which is consistent with my Christian faith, although some may disagree; temptation is the province of the devil, is the basic assumption here). Next, note that overwhelming scientific evidence cultivated from the earth is (assuming that it was "put there," however indirectly, by a higher power; see assumption #1) either (3) not intended to deceive people and therefore reliable; or (4) unreliable and intended to deceive people. It follows immediately from #3 that evolution is a plausible theory and immediately from #4 that either God created a deceptive earth to make people doubt him (which contradicts assumption #2) or the devil played a part in the creation (which contradicts assumption #1). You cannot assume both of the things I did and still claim that evolution is entirely implausible without destroying all of your credibility in the realm of things logical.
The recourse is to resolve the question through your state legislative process. The Supreme Court may have passed the buck, but the Court passed that buck back to where it belongs - the states. If the First Amendment were sufficiently threatened by the legislation, the Court would have taken the case. As it is, the Court by its silence is merely saying that this is something to resolve at the state level. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Sure, they talk about 1.8 million successful commercial transitions. What about the failures? How many companies tried to switch to Windows and either went out of business because of it or ended up limping back to Novell or another platform?;)
Slashdot Mirror
I think you're the first person in this thread to say "ubiquitously misused." Language does indeed evolve, but there is a difference between an expansion of the language and a common misuse. Furthermore, irony is more than a word. It's a concept. Claiming that something is ironic merely because it is coincidental is not a sign of linguistic evolution, but rather of an educational shortcoming. That you not only don't get it but post your ignorance anonymously shows that you are part of the problem.
You can't really hate on people for expanding the English language to accommodate such a simple and common mental concept.
This is not an expansion of the language - it's a misuse of a word within the language. Furthermore, you can always dislike people who throw around random prepositions where they do not belong.
I'm going to start my own vacation company, with blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the vacation company.
I never said they're not evil. I just said it doesn't matter if they are or not. :)
The blinding colors notwithstanding, you missed the first remotely original April 1st theme Slashdot has had since about 2001. Essentially, for 24 hours it was a site for 13-year-old girls named, I think, "0MG P0N1ES!!!!!!!!!"
The fear in the USA is more related to a strong national government taking full control. We have, for longer than our federal government has even existed, taken great pleasure in being a confederation of states and not a single government with political subdivisions called "states." I don't know how Australian federalism (if such a thing exists there) works, so I don't know if the same fear makes sense there. Remember, our nation's constitution was strongly opposed at first and nearly was not ratified because of exactly the same fear.
Most Americans proudly carry an ID card issued by their state of residence, and are happy that full faith and credit must be given to it in other states within the USA. However, many of us dislike one or more of the following:
1. Mandatory carrying of identification documents and mandatory production of them to police when the police have no probable cause to make an arrest. See the Hiibel case that was decided in our Supreme Court not that long ago - a Nevada man was arrested for refusing to identify himself under a Nevada state law requiring him to do so when the policeman made what is known as a Terry stop, meaning one where you have reasonable suspicion (but not probable cause) that a crime is being committed and can confront the suspect about it to give him a chance to either dispel your suspicion or confirm it. The Supreme Court basically said that the law was just fine, but largely because it allowed you to identify yourself just by stating your name to the officer and not producing any documentation of who you are.
2. National ID. The US Constitution does not provide for this. I can see an argument for the federal spending power to allow Congress to condition certain expenditures on the condition that the recipients have a national ID card, but even that argument is on shaky ground.
3. Biometric information on ID cards. A photo and a signature, plus a holograph to show that it's state-issued, is all we want.
4. RFID and the like in ID cards. We do not want our ID to be "visible" to the government without us showing it to them. It's not that we have an evil government - it's that things like this make it easy for an evil government to thrive if it comes to exist.
I hereby petition you not to accept any design based chiefly around the color purple. Any other color (OMG PONIES included ... that's a valid HTML color name, right?) is acceptable, but not purple.
I believe in the Creation. I also believe that the methodology employed was evolution. Please stop (not just you, but people from the "creation means no evolution" camp as well) claiming that they are mutually exclusive. The two concepts are orthogonal. You can believe in one, the other, both, or neither without any inconsistencies.
Thank you for reading my comment and comprehending it before responding. As the moderation spree (up and then back down) and flurry of responses shows, you are lonely in having done so. I always respond to reasoned responses and sensible questions about what I've said. After all, I'm not a total asshole. ;)
;)
Your "perhaps" nails it. When I said "evolutionists" in that sentence, I meant to refer only to those who say that, because of evolution and for no other reason, creationism is dead wrong; the same as my references to "creationists" tend to be for those who deny evolution for the sole reason that they believe in creation.
So yes, contrary to popular belief, I was only attacking the false dichotomy argument that people on both extremes tend to make. To me, the response that I received proves the related point that the majority of people suck at logic, even the majority of people on Slashdot who ought to pride themselves on being able to think rationally.
So anyhow, I spent my Sunday mastering the art of using the wrong words to get a simple point across. How was yours?
It doesn't matter what support either side has. The issue here isn't the merits of either side of the dichotomy. The issue is that it is a false dichotomy.
Exactly my point. :) Whether there is or is not a divine creator/guider/designer/whatever is entirely separate from the question of how species evolve and develop. The problem is that too few people actually discuss the real question because everyone is too focused on claiming that they are right and thus everyone else is wrong, committing themselves to the false dichotomy. If people would cure themselves of the false dichotomy, they would be able to actually think about the real issues.
:)
I don't know for a fact that the theory of evolution explains everything about life on Earth, but it does a good enough job that I tend to trust it unless the small blanks left on the page get filled in with entirely inconsistent entries. I also can't prove that there's been divine intervention in the evolutionary process at some point, nor can anyone prove that there hasn't been.
These are entirely separate concerns. I like discussing either of them. I like discussing their interplay. I don't, however, like dealing with stubborn ignorami who can't understand that they are separate discussions. Thanks for reminding me that I'm not alone.
Hooray! Yet another person who entirely missed the point. What I would actually say is that my religion and the game of poker have entirely separate rules. Thanks for playing and for helping to further verify my point in the minds of those who actually understood it.
Game? No. Set? No. Match? Hardly.
... a middle ground," I proposed it as the correct middle ground. I didn't even propose it as my middle ground. You should really take my advice and read my original comment for comprehension rather than buzzwords before responding again. You are stubbornly adhering to a fairly ignorant reading of it which only goes to prove my underlying point more conclusively each time you click Submit.
You are still arguing that, because I said "Intelligent Design is
You will note that I have posted other comments on this thread begging people not to mistake science for religion or vice versa. The false dichotomy that exists comes from people insisting that the two are, on this topic, mutually exclusive.
You are either (a) arguing that they are not mutually exclusive and thus are in agreement with me despite your inflamed attitude toward my use of one controversial buzzword for the purpose of demonstrating that middle ground exists (and nothing more; and please do note that I called specific attention to the shortcomings of ID when it comes to any credibility it may actually have in any form that it is presented); (b) arguing that they are mutually exclusive - if so, please explain your seemingly inconsistent statements that "Science is not faith. Faith is not science."; or (c) arguing something else altogether and failing to state it in any clear terms.
Don't declare yourself the winner while you are still playing a different game in the parking lot outside the arena - it's the same as jacking off in the bathroom at the chess tournament and walking out screaming "checkmate," and the only real point you make is that you're a special olympian at heart. Try again, genius.
You're the fourth person to reply to my comment, and you take first place for the most succinct response. However, your response misses the point. Read my other replies to help you find it, but the key is not to read my use of an example of middle ground as my endorsement of that middle ground as the only possible explanation. I am really beginning to wish I had used a different middle ground as an example, but ID is the most commonly-known example.
Are you arguing that only one of the two extremes must be correct? If not, then are you arguing that the words "a middle ground" mean the same thing as "the only possible explanation"? If not that, then what exactly are you saying? As far as I can tell, you are making one of those two statements. If a third exists, I am unaware of it and will await your explanation.
See my other response in this thread here regarding mistaking science for religion or vice versa. What point am I missing? You claim that, because evolution is compatible with the Anglican view and also compatible with the Confucianist view, it is therefore incompatible with any religious views. Your conclusion simply does not follow from your premises. The correct conclusion to draw is that, for all religious beliefs which are not incompatible with evolution, those religious beliefs can be held by a person without stubbornly denying on purely religious grounds the veracity of the theory of evolution. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Keep religion and science separate. Both are important parts of human history and culture, and adherence to either should not be a badge of ignorance. Again, all I'm asking is for people to stop bowing to a false dichotomy. If you can't follow my point, don't tell me I'm missing yours when it defies all logic. And if you follow my point and disagree with it, then debate me about it. I am always open to criticism, but you are going to look foolish if you do nothing but throw red herrings at me.
You, sir, are an idiot. Please cite for me the exact language I used to say that Intelligent Design is the middle ground. I used it as an example, not as an explanation. Again, read my comment and this time, when you look up the difficult words in the dictionary, look up the difficult words in the definitions as well. Eventually, you might be able to comprehend what I wrote. Please stop replying until that time - you aren't doing the discussion any favors by picking two words I used and acting like they were my entire comment, and the fact that you're receiving +1 Funny points shows just how seriously you are being taken in that endeavor.
You're the third person to respond to my comment, and the third to do so without completely wrapping your mind around my actual point. Evidently, I have once again succeeded in hiding my point underneath my words. I apologize for this shortcoming.
You are, however, the first response with anything intelligent to say that's even remotely on topic. I am not asking anyone to accept any conclusions - I am only asking them to stop bowing to the false dichotomy of Evolution vs. Creationism. You seem to have focused in on my invocation of Intelligent Design as an example of middle ground. Anything other than "evolution is right and creation is absolute bunk because it is fundamentally inconsistent with evolution" and "creation is right and evolution is absolute bunk because it is fundamentally inconsistent with evolution" qualifies as middle ground in this debate. I only used ID as an example because it is well-known, and then I went on and stated that because of how it has been (misre)presented it is not all that popular of an example.
Focus on my point, not on my invocation of a controversial term that I freely say is controversial and poorly-received because of its poorer presentation in recent years. The point is simply that it is possible to reconcile the scientific theory of creation with the religious belief in creation. Anyone who thinks that scientific theory and religious beliefs are fundamentally mutually exclusive is in most cases (but not all) making the grave error of mistaking science for religion or, equally bad, religion for science.
I never asked anyone to accept creationism, evolution, or intelligent design in any form. For at least the fourth time today, I will restate my point: This is not a situation of "A if and only if not B." A and B are independent facts, the truth of either of which has no bearing on the truth of the other. It is possible that evolution and creation are both right, that only one is right, or that both are wrong.
I do not push my beliefs on this matter on anyone. I just want them to terminate their stubborn insistence that A <---> !B for independent A and B.
You are really missing the point. This seems to be a common problem, but let me explain - the parent of my comment discussed creationism. Discussing creationism without reference to its underlying beliefs is asinine. The point is not that the Bible is proven correct - the point is that a belief system based in the Bible is not fundamentally inconsistent with the scientific theory of evolution.
I do, however, have to thank you for not disproving my hypothesis that the people who understand that this is a false dichotomy form a tiny minority of the people who speak out loudly about it on one side or the other.
I think that you completely misunderstood everything that I said. The reason I think this is that you seem to believe I said that both sides are wrong. I never once said that either side is wrong. Re-read my comment, and look up the difficult words in a dictionary as you go through it. Come back with a less ignorant and less inflammatory comment after you have done so. Thanks.
Why is it that such a seemingly tiny minority of people understand that Creationism vs. Evolution is a false dichotomy? If you want closed-mindedness, it exists on both sides of this issue. Creationists who deny that evolution is possible not only ignore overwhelming scientific evidence* in its favor, but also they have a strong tendency to take the closed-minded and inconsistent view that Genesis is word-for-word literal despite the fact that it was recorded by prophets long after its events occurred, and that Revelation is entirely symbolic. Evolutionists tend to take the closed-minded view that, because evolution happened, it must have happened entirely spontaneously and creationism of any sort must therefore be false.
Intelligent Design actually is a middle ground - the problem is that it's such a bad word because of how it has come up in the USA in the past few years, and that it is usually presented in a way that makes it just as closed-minded and ignorant as the sources of the problem it attempts to address.
Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Genesis tells that God created the heavens, the earth, and life. It doesn't say a word about how he went about it. Evolution explains the process of how life came to be as it is today. It doesn't say a word about the motive.
* - As to Christians in particular who ignore all scientific evidence for evolution and insist it must be false, such as an eons-old fossil record, I have this to say. Assume two facts: (1) God created the earth; and (2) God does not go out of his way to tempt people not to believe in him (which is consistent with my Christian faith, although some may disagree; temptation is the province of the devil, is the basic assumption here). Next, note that overwhelming scientific evidence cultivated from the earth is (assuming that it was "put there," however indirectly, by a higher power; see assumption #1) either (3) not intended to deceive people and therefore reliable; or (4) unreliable and intended to deceive people. It follows immediately from #3 that evolution is a plausible theory and immediately from #4 that either God created a deceptive earth to make people doubt him (which contradicts assumption #2) or the devil played a part in the creation (which contradicts assumption #1). You cannot assume both of the things I did and still claim that evolution is entirely implausible without destroying all of your credibility in the realm of things logical.
The recourse is to resolve the question through your state legislative process. The Supreme Court may have passed the buck, but the Court passed that buck back to where it belongs - the states. If the First Amendment were sufficiently threatened by the legislation, the Court would have taken the case. As it is, the Court by its silence is merely saying that this is something to resolve at the state level. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Times like these, I wish I could use a moderator point for PLUS one, Flamebait.
Sure, they talk about 1.8 million successful commercial transitions. What about the failures? How many companies tried to switch to Windows and either went out of business because of it or ended up limping back to Novell or another platform? ;)
Interesting...no, wait. That other thing - tedious.
Only if you're into cheap copyright infringement. ;)