Okay, there's the thing. What do the Iraqi people have to do with our war, and why are they in peril? By creating a war on "Terrorism", and then bombing innocent civilians and their children until the remaining populous turns to arms in order to fight back, you most certainly ARE giving aid to the enemy (it is a nebulous entity we declared war on).
I have been questioning your fiat declaration of Iraq as a "theater of war" since the beginning of this conversation, and you've not responded to it properly yet. You seem to make the assumption that since we're dropping bombs in Iraq, it's a legitimate theater of war, and that since war is Hell the consequences are both unavoidable and blameless. This is what I've been saying bullshit about the whole time. Being that Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attacks on 20010911, every single terrorist that comes or has come out of Iraq since the invasion was created without cause or provocation by Bush's policies. The very moment that one of these men joins Al Qaeda, the terrorist Bush (and friends) created wholecloth has become material support for Al Qaeda.
I get what you're saying, I am saying that since Iraq is NOT a legitimate theater of war, that the whole "war is Hell" idea doesn't apply. Creating those terrorists was a choice made by Americans, not Arabs. If we were talking about Afghanistan, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but we're not.
If a bunch of Canadians attacked China, and then China attacks my home state here in the U.S., bombing a school and killing my sons, then yes China itself (certainly not Canada) created whatever Hell I can (and would) unleash upon them, and the person who ordered the attack on my homeland would be solely responsible (aside from me myself, of course, the blame would be shared and I would be happy to revel in my part in it in such a case, but no third party could possibly be held accountable).
Now what if the Hell I attempted to unleash was with the very same group of Canadians that attacked China in the first place? Would you consider China's bombing of the U.S. in this case to be helping out the Canadian radicals? What if China started LOSING the war against radical Canadians because of wasting resources in the U.S., even going so far as to divert materials from the fight against the radical Canadians to fight in the U.S.? Is that then aiding the Canadians?
Similar analogy, but from a different perspective. What if the U.S. attacked China, and China attacked Canada because of it and then got stuck in a quagmire in Montreal, making them incapable of attacking YOU effectively? You'd be stoked, right? You'd feel like whoever in China made those decisions was helping you out, bringing you comfort.
Again, if Iraq was anything but elective to GWB, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but it was a choice to attack an innocent nation, and every consequence of that choice need to be laid at the feet of the ones who made it.
Wait, what? Can I have a source on this please? Sounds like a story I'd really like to hear, because as of right now my sympathies lie with Wilson and his wife, but if what you say is true, that situation would change quickly.
Since I seem to not understand, can you explain clearly, and without paragraph after paragraph explaining how stupid I am, what you meant in the first place then? I'm honestly curious.
I'm sorry, you're right. I suppose it comes from the hard time I have of believe that there are actual human beings out there so calloused and morally retarded that they can see no difference between murdering innocent civilians and killing armed murderers.
You've brought me to realize that moral relativism should include a section of "Special Moral Relativity" where there exists a moral frame with no morals whatsoever. Absolutely fucking zero.
If you cannot see how watching your son die when a missile hits an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL inspires more hatred, more action towards revenge than hearing that your wayward son who ran off to "fight the infidels" got killed at his war camp, then you're a fucking lunatic (an assertion I stand by).
You also automatically assume that Iraq (being declared a theater of war, for no reason) is just automatically supposed to be some place where you should expect bombs to be dropped on you. I don't understand. Maybe your (laughable) logic makes some sense if you figure Iraqis are somehow at fault for what a group of Saudis trained in Afghanistan did, but even then, holding a civilian populous hostage for the actions of a tiny TINY minority (of citizens of other nations, remember) that use armed force is unacceptable to the people being punished.
If you don't understand why those two targets are ENTIRELY different, and will have ENTIRELY different social effects on a nation, then you're as mentally retarded as you are morally retarded. Fortunately for you, you know there's a difference, and the only reason you came up with your snide little comparison in the first place is because you're really just a bloodthirsty armchair wanna-be soldier who wants to deliver some "smackdown" to someone who isn't a threat, and only by proxy. In other words, a pussy.
Oh, and just so you know, your 99 IQ doesn't actually mean that you are smarter than 99% of the populous. Stop trying to come up with cute little ways of saying that I'm stupid, we both know it's not true.
You didn't finish reading my post did you? I expounded on my original post, and you've (yet again) completely ignored the substance of argument, which is (for the third time now) you automatically substituted Iraq for Al Qaeda with full knowledge of the false correlation.
You know, the only people I see calling Obama the Messiah, or even acting like it's somehow true, are far right-wingers. I think it's because you're so upset that people like the new guy, the Democrat, the *gasp* black guy better than the political figure for whom YOU have a secret Messiah fetish: Reagan, or maybe even GWB if you're primarily spite motivated.
Get over it, the country wants to head back from the precipice of insanity, and much tension has been lifted. I personally think people believe that he's going to be better than he actually will be, but that falls far short of the Messiah complex people like you like to see.
You're a tool, and BTW, sorry about the lateness of my post, I spent the past several days moving.
Your attempt to switch your tone over to faux-intellectual will not be effective bait. I've seen your style, and debating with you is as effective as banging your head against a steel post, nothing will come of it as the post is incapable of changing its position.
You are so entirely predictable it's funny. Your whole personality seems to be an over-the-top parody of a rampaging wingnut. Your argument style is to declare yourself right by fiat and then to dismiss all evidence to the contrary as bias.
As to why you're on my foes list, you've been there a while, and it's not because I disagree with your opinions (there are many sane right-wingers here that I not only respect, but who actually have swayed my opinions on more than one occasion using logic and reason). I'm not the blind partisan you really really want me to be, because I'm simply better than that.
And the thing about the "ignorant liberal" is cute. Just out of curiosity, is "ignorant" just something you put before "liberal" to show us how reasoned and non-biased you are? Nevermind the fact that I'm not really a liberal, but in your defense I AM a progressive, and you can be forgiven for mistake as the two ideologies share many common points. Can you offer an example of my ignorance? I don't believe you can, as I am aware of where I am ignorant, and either ask clarifying questions when such is the case, or I keep my damn mouth shut.
I really wasn't going to give your temper tantrum this much attention, but I feel bad for you because, unlike most trolls, I think you actually believe the shit you spew.
P.S. Being drunk doesn't excuse you from being a tool, but trying to pretend it does points out what kind of shithead you really are. It's very similar to the "she shouldn't have been wearing the short skirt, it made me horny" defense, to me at least.
P.S.S. Against all better judgment I'm going to address the issue that started my involvement in this conversation ONE MORE TIME. The OP said that Iraqi deaths are increasing terrorist numbers, and you immediately went off on how killing Al Qaeda is a good thing. Iraq != Al Qaeda no matter how badly your worldview requires it to be true. I think you might just have to bite the bullet and for the first time admit that maybe you were a tiny bit wrong.
Don't worry though, you can still pretend you've delivered a "smack-down" to another "ignorant liberal" if your ego requires, I'll pretend to be humbled for you.
I'm not trying to be a smart ass man, but I honestly believe you may be in need of mental help. Seriously, I know you really don't like me, and I honestly don't like you either, but this isn't a sly personal attack, it's honest advice from someone who shouldn't care but does.
Just go have an evaluation done, you'll be better off for it. If you really think I'm just trolling, read your post again while pretending a stranger wrote it and see what you think of the mental state of the person writing it. Your post is rife with illogical connections, subject changing, undeserved aggression and an unfounded arrogance that you wrap yourself in as if it's both some kind of defense from facts and an excuse to say whatever you wish (no matter how baseless) while somehow retaining some imaginary high-ground.
If you're actually just a teenager venting your hormonal emotional state, it would be understandable, but you're not are you? From what I've gathered (admittedly not much to go by for this conclusion) I'd guess you're in your 30s or 40s. Again, I'll suggest that you re-read your post without the automatic assumption that you're right because you're you, as if it is written by a stranger, and take a long hard eye opening look at how you come across, and how your claim of being right most of the time would seem to an outside observer. If you somehow still view everyone else as wrong and foolish while believing you're the perfectly logical and reasonable one, seek professional help immediately before you hurt yourself or someone else.
I honestly think it would be taken MORE seriously. I'm not going to go into a long rant about it, but there's a facet of U.S. sociology that really doesn't want to accept these things as true. The way John Stewart presents the news with comedy is like the sugar that helps the medicine go down. The comedy makes the information more palatable (in a passive reception sense, not a moral acceptability sense) but the information itself still gets disseminated effectively.
And therein lies YOUR problem. It's a reading comprehension issue. Where someone says "Iraq" you see the words "Al Qaeda". This connotation has been proven absurdly false for several years now.
You KNOW all of this, as I've seen it explained to you before. You have such a screaming need to be "right" even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, you start to look like the guy who REALLY DOES believe in the actual Flying Spaghetti Monster, even after having been told of that particular deity's origins.
It's damn near farcical, and would be if it weren't so sad.
The GP said a book on Eistein's Theory of Relativity. I don't think the GP was implying that Einstein is the utmost authority on relativity, but that Einstein is the utmost authority on what Einstein thought about relativity.
I agree with you on this point, but I'd like to point out a couple of principles that can really help actively neutralize the effects of advertising.
Firstly, when the store is out of my preferred brand of $PRODUCT, I shop by desired ingredients, and then by price. Many times I buy store brand, unless I have previous knowledge of some deficiency in this particular store-brand product.
Secondly, when I shop, I actually bring the advertisements to mind, and do my (highly) cynical analysis on the advertising while I'm looking at the product in the relevant section of the store. This won't work for some people (especially people who secretly want to be 'cool', read: conforming to perceived societal expectations), but for others it can greatly mitigate the effects of advertising on purchase decisions.
Thank you very much for the explanation, as you have indeed answered the question I with which I had been engaged.
However, M-M did not invalidate the idea of synthesizing maps that are bijective with conventional ones but which provide flatness at many (even very large) scales...
That makes sense, and being neither a physicist nor a mathematician, I hadn't thought of it that way before.
In other words, if you did an M-M like experiment using *just* the CMBR peak frequencies and the constructive and destructive interference among those, you certainly would notice something like the displacement that M-M had expected to see.
I hadn't thought of that yet either, though in this case I should have, as I had all the information I needed to piece that together myself. I want to again thank you for your explanation, as you've made the universe a bit more clear to me now, and I believe all users should have at least a basic grasp of their operating system.:-D
Well, I don't know about you, but I've never had google kill a member of my family and get its search engine buddies to cover it up.
I get what you're saying, but there's a visceral reason why many people don't trust thugs with a piece of tin on their chest, and I can't think of very many things google could do to inspire that level of raw hatred in its customers.
While, in your frame of reference, you are not moving, in the grand scheme of things you are.
What's the "grand scheme of things" you refer to? Certainly it's not a completely irrelevant inertial frame?
See, the first part of your sentence tells WHY the time machine can move through time without having to cross the space in between to keep up with Earth. I assume the Flux Capacitor (F.C.) becomes the origin point of the inertial frame of reference, allowing the car (not moving at all from the POV of the F.C.) to remain where it is relative to the F.C.. The Earth, moving at 88MPH relative to the F.C. continues to do so, for the whatever fractional part of a second the trip takes from the POV of the F.C. That's why there's all that "braking" at the end of the trip, because the Earth is moving 88MPH underneath you when your jaunt is over.
There is no center of the universe except when something is measured to determine if it is the center of the universe from its own point-of-view, then there is a center, and it's where you measured it from.
I have a question though, if it's true that you can define the center of the universe as the point of observation, doesn't that toss the whole Michaelson-Morley experiment out of the window? I mean, doesn't that experiment rely upon the device NOT existing at the etheric 'center' of the universe?
I've been wondering about that for a while now, can someone more knowledgeable than I fill me in?
If it makes you feel better, you USED to be right, it's just that the release cycle has been tightened a bit to support the mass-produced eyeball candy that is referred to as "cinema" nowadays.
Be legally installed on a poor persons PC without worrying about impacting a small budget?
Be legally installed on every machine in a business network of any size without the need to budget for software purchases?
Be given out on a CD pre-packaged with important data files (manuals and whatnot) for new hires?
Live happily on a thumbdrive, so that you always have the right program available to read the data stored on said thumbdrive? (I don't know if Office2k7 can do this or not honestly).
Be audited by the skilled-and-paranoid among us?
I can go on if needed. Now, can you tell me what features make Office2k7 worth the price difference?
I think the GP just just taking the long way around to get to a punchline that basically says "if we just KILLED all the kids, they'd be safe from EVERYTHING!" It wasn't a rant, it was a setup for a punchline.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, there's the thing. What do the Iraqi people have to do with our war, and why are they in peril? By creating a war on "Terrorism", and then bombing innocent civilians and their children until the remaining populous turns to arms in order to fight back, you most certainly ARE giving aid to the enemy (it is a nebulous entity we declared war on).
I have been questioning your fiat declaration of Iraq as a "theater of war" since the beginning of this conversation, and you've not responded to it properly yet. You seem to make the assumption that since we're dropping bombs in Iraq, it's a legitimate theater of war, and that since war is Hell the consequences are both unavoidable and blameless. This is what I've been saying bullshit about the whole time. Being that Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attacks on 20010911, every single terrorist that comes or has come out of Iraq since the invasion was created without cause or provocation by Bush's policies. The very moment that one of these men joins Al Qaeda, the terrorist Bush (and friends) created wholecloth has become material support for Al Qaeda.
I get what you're saying, I am saying that since Iraq is NOT a legitimate theater of war, that the whole "war is Hell" idea doesn't apply. Creating those terrorists was a choice made by Americans, not Arabs. If we were talking about Afghanistan, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but we're not.
If a bunch of Canadians attacked China, and then China attacks my home state here in the U.S., bombing a school and killing my sons, then yes China itself (certainly not Canada) created whatever Hell I can (and would) unleash upon them, and the person who ordered the attack on my homeland would be solely responsible (aside from me myself, of course, the blame would be shared and I would be happy to revel in my part in it in such a case, but no third party could possibly be held accountable).
Now what if the Hell I attempted to unleash was with the very same group of Canadians that attacked China in the first place? Would you consider China's bombing of the U.S. in this case to be helping out the Canadian radicals? What if China started LOSING the war against radical Canadians because of wasting resources in the U.S., even going so far as to divert materials from the fight against the radical Canadians to fight in the U.S.? Is that then aiding the Canadians?
Similar analogy, but from a different perspective. What if the U.S. attacked China, and China attacked Canada because of it and then got stuck in a quagmire in Montreal, making them incapable of attacking YOU effectively? You'd be stoked, right? You'd feel like whoever in China made those decisions was helping you out, bringing you comfort.
Again, if Iraq was anything but elective to GWB, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but it was a choice to attack an innocent nation, and every consequence of that choice need to be laid at the feet of the ones who made it.
Wait, what? Can I have a source on this please? Sounds like a story I'd really like to hear, because as of right now my sympathies lie with Wilson and his wife, but if what you say is true, that situation would change quickly.
Actually, I think taking down a server farm would be included in the "all-singing, all-dancing" part. I mean, demolishing buildings was...
Since I seem to not understand, can you explain clearly, and without paragraph after paragraph explaining how stupid I am, what you meant in the first place then? I'm honestly curious.
I'm sorry, you're right. I suppose it comes from the hard time I have of believe that there are actual human beings out there so calloused and morally retarded that they can see no difference between murdering innocent civilians and killing armed murderers.
You've brought me to realize that moral relativism should include a section of "Special Moral Relativity" where there exists a moral frame with no morals whatsoever. Absolutely fucking zero.
If you cannot see how watching your son die when a missile hits an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL inspires more hatred, more action towards revenge than hearing that your wayward son who ran off to "fight the infidels" got killed at his war camp, then you're a fucking lunatic (an assertion I stand by).
You also automatically assume that Iraq (being declared a theater of war, for no reason) is just automatically supposed to be some place where you should expect bombs to be dropped on you. I don't understand. Maybe your (laughable) logic makes some sense if you figure Iraqis are somehow at fault for what a group of Saudis trained in Afghanistan did, but even then, holding a civilian populous hostage for the actions of a tiny TINY minority (of citizens of other nations, remember) that use armed force is unacceptable to the people being punished.
If you don't understand why those two targets are ENTIRELY different, and will have ENTIRELY different social effects on a nation, then you're as mentally retarded as you are morally retarded. Fortunately for you, you know there's a difference, and the only reason you came up with your snide little comparison in the first place is because you're really just a bloodthirsty armchair wanna-be soldier who wants to deliver some "smackdown" to someone who isn't a threat, and only by proxy. In other words, a pussy.
Oh, and just so you know, your 99 IQ doesn't actually mean that you are smarter than 99% of the populous. Stop trying to come up with cute little ways of saying that I'm stupid, we both know it's not true.
You know, just because the RIAA and MPAA really don't like Fair Use they haven't gotten rid of it completely.
I'm pretty sure taking notes in a class is the perfect example of copying for educational purposes, don't you think?
You didn't finish reading my post did you? I expounded on my original post, and you've (yet again) completely ignored the substance of argument, which is (for the third time now) you automatically substituted Iraq for Al Qaeda with full knowledge of the false correlation.
You know, the only people I see calling Obama the Messiah, or even acting like it's somehow true, are far right-wingers. I think it's because you're so upset that people like the new guy, the Democrat, the *gasp* black guy better than the political figure for whom YOU have a secret Messiah fetish: Reagan, or maybe even GWB if you're primarily spite motivated.
Get over it, the country wants to head back from the precipice of insanity, and much tension has been lifted. I personally think people believe that he's going to be better than he actually will be, but that falls far short of the Messiah complex people like you like to see.
You're a tool, and BTW, sorry about the lateness of my post, I spent the past several days moving.
Your attempt to switch your tone over to faux-intellectual will not be effective bait. I've seen your style, and debating with you is as effective as banging your head against a steel post, nothing will come of it as the post is incapable of changing its position.
You are so entirely predictable it's funny. Your whole personality seems to be an over-the-top parody of a rampaging wingnut. Your argument style is to declare yourself right by fiat and then to dismiss all evidence to the contrary as bias.
As to why you're on my foes list, you've been there a while, and it's not because I disagree with your opinions (there are many sane right-wingers here that I not only respect, but who actually have swayed my opinions on more than one occasion using logic and reason). I'm not the blind partisan you really really want me to be, because I'm simply better than that.
And the thing about the "ignorant liberal" is cute. Just out of curiosity, is "ignorant" just something you put before "liberal" to show us how reasoned and non-biased you are? Nevermind the fact that I'm not really a liberal, but in your defense I AM a progressive, and you can be forgiven for mistake as the two ideologies share many common points. Can you offer an example of my ignorance? I don't believe you can, as I am aware of where I am ignorant, and either ask clarifying questions when such is the case, or I keep my damn mouth shut.
I really wasn't going to give your temper tantrum this much attention, but I feel bad for you because, unlike most trolls, I think you actually believe the shit you spew.
P.S. Being drunk doesn't excuse you from being a tool, but trying to pretend it does points out what kind of shithead you really are. It's very similar to the "she shouldn't have been wearing the short skirt, it made me horny" defense, to me at least.
P.S.S. Against all better judgment I'm going to address the issue that started my involvement in this conversation ONE MORE TIME. The OP said that Iraqi deaths are increasing terrorist numbers, and you immediately went off on how killing Al Qaeda is a good thing. Iraq != Al Qaeda no matter how badly your worldview requires it to be true. I think you might just have to bite the bullet and for the first time admit that maybe you were a tiny bit wrong.
Don't worry though, you can still pretend you've delivered a "smack-down" to another "ignorant liberal" if your ego requires, I'll pretend to be humbled for you.
Read what you wrote above. Actually read it.
I'm not trying to be a smart ass man, but I honestly believe you may be in need of mental help. Seriously, I know you really don't like me, and I honestly don't like you either, but this isn't a sly personal attack, it's honest advice from someone who shouldn't care but does.
Just go have an evaluation done, you'll be better off for it. If you really think I'm just trolling, read your post again while pretending a stranger wrote it and see what you think of the mental state of the person writing it. Your post is rife with illogical connections, subject changing, undeserved aggression and an unfounded arrogance that you wrap yourself in as if it's both some kind of defense from facts and an excuse to say whatever you wish (no matter how baseless) while somehow retaining some imaginary high-ground.
If you're actually just a teenager venting your hormonal emotional state, it would be understandable, but you're not are you? From what I've gathered (admittedly not much to go by for this conclusion) I'd guess you're in your 30s or 40s. Again, I'll suggest that you re-read your post without the automatic assumption that you're right because you're you, as if it is written by a stranger, and take a long hard eye opening look at how you come across, and how your claim of being right most of the time would seem to an outside observer. If you somehow still view everyone else as wrong and foolish while believing you're the perfectly logical and reasonable one, seek professional help immediately before you hurt yourself or someone else.
I honestly think it would be taken MORE seriously. I'm not going to go into a long rant about it, but there's a facet of U.S. sociology that really doesn't want to accept these things as true. The way John Stewart presents the news with comedy is like the sugar that helps the medicine go down. The comedy makes the information more palatable (in a passive reception sense, not a moral acceptability sense) but the information itself still gets disseminated effectively.
And therein lies YOUR problem. It's a reading comprehension issue. Where someone says "Iraq" you see the words "Al Qaeda". This connotation has been proven absurdly false for several years now.
You KNOW all of this, as I've seen it explained to you before. You have such a screaming need to be "right" even in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, you start to look like the guy who REALLY DOES believe in the actual Flying Spaghetti Monster, even after having been told of that particular deity's origins.
It's damn near farcical, and would be if it weren't so sad.
Sorry about the bold-font typo. That's pretty embarrassing to be pointing out your own typos in such a glaring fashion neomunk, dammit.
The GP said a book on Eistein's Theory of Relativity. I don't think the GP was implying that Einstein is the utmost authority on relativity, but that Einstein is the utmost authority on what Einstein thought about relativity.
I agree with you on this point, but I'd like to point out a couple of principles that can really help actively neutralize the effects of advertising.
Firstly, when the store is out of my preferred brand of $PRODUCT, I shop by desired ingredients, and then by price. Many times I buy store brand, unless I have previous knowledge of some deficiency in this particular store-brand product.
Secondly, when I shop, I actually bring the advertisements to mind, and do my (highly) cynical analysis on the advertising while I'm looking at the product in the relevant section of the store. This won't work for some people (especially people who secretly want to be 'cool', read: conforming to perceived societal expectations), but for others it can greatly mitigate the effects of advertising on purchase decisions.
Thank you very much for the explanation, as you have indeed answered the question I with which I had been engaged.
However, M-M did not invalidate the idea of synthesizing maps that are bijective with conventional ones but which provide flatness at many (even very large) scales...
That makes sense, and being neither a physicist nor a mathematician, I hadn't thought of it that way before.
In other words, if you did an M-M like experiment using *just* the CMBR peak frequencies and the constructive and destructive interference among those, you certainly would notice something like the displacement that M-M had expected to see.
I hadn't thought of that yet either, though in this case I should have, as I had all the information I needed to piece that together myself. I want to again thank you for your explanation, as you've made the universe a bit more clear to me now, and I believe all users should have at least a basic grasp of their operating system. :-D
Well, I don't know about you, but I've never had google kill a member of my family and get its search engine buddies to cover it up.
I get what you're saying, but there's a visceral reason why many people don't trust thugs with a piece of tin on their chest, and I can't think of very many things google could do to inspire that level of raw hatred in its customers.
What if the car were the center of the universe, then what?
It IS for the purposes of the jump.
While, in your frame of reference, you are not moving, in the grand scheme of things you are.
What's the "grand scheme of things" you refer to? Certainly it's not a completely irrelevant inertial frame?
See, the first part of your sentence tells WHY the time machine can move through time without having to cross the space in between to keep up with Earth. I assume the Flux Capacitor (F.C.) becomes the origin point of the inertial frame of reference, allowing the car (not moving at all from the POV of the F.C.) to remain where it is relative to the F.C.. The Earth, moving at 88MPH relative to the F.C. continues to do so, for the whatever fractional part of a second the trip takes from the POV of the F.C. That's why there's all that "braking" at the end of the trip, because the Earth is moving 88MPH underneath you when your jaunt is over.
There is no center of the universe except when something is measured to determine if it is the center of the universe from its own point-of-view, then there is a center, and it's where you measured it from.
I had to explain that to someone recently.
I have a question though, if it's true that you can define the center of the universe as the point of observation, doesn't that toss the whole Michaelson-Morley experiment out of the window? I mean, doesn't that experiment rely upon the device NOT existing at the etheric 'center' of the universe?
I've been wondering about that for a while now, can someone more knowledgeable than I fill me in?
If it makes you feel better, you USED to be right, it's just that the release cycle has been tightened a bit to support the mass-produced eyeball candy that is referred to as "cinema" nowadays.
Be legally installed on a poor persons PC without worrying about impacting a small budget?
Be legally installed on every machine in a business network of any size without the need to budget for software purchases?
Be given out on a CD pre-packaged with important data files (manuals and whatnot) for new hires?
Live happily on a thumbdrive, so that you always have the right program available to read the data stored on said thumbdrive? (I don't know if Office2k7 can do this or not honestly).
Be audited by the skilled-and-paranoid among us?
I can go on if needed. Now, can you tell me what features make Office2k7 worth the price difference?
The link in your is broken. Oh, and thanks for the recommendations on the tools.
I think the GP just just taking the long way around to get to a punchline that basically says "if we just KILLED all the kids, they'd be safe from EVERYTHING!" It wasn't a rant, it was a setup for a punchline.
Well, then we'd have political kabuki on C-SPAN and political bukkake on your channel. :-)