except that you'll have a very hard time finding allies for the next war...

Gulf War I the U.S. had lots of allies. Gulf War II not as many or as committed. The difference? Bush I used Statesmanship to build the alliance. Bush II snubbed allies and went on constantly about how the U.S. didn't need anyone's help. He was lucky not to alienate ALL the U.S. allies instead of only some of them.

The next wars allies will depend on the why of the war and the statesmanship or lack of it from the then President.

There's something a bit wrong with this metaphor. You'd think that blood would be a fairly good fertilizer. It's mostly water, of course, but it has a significant organic component that's already broken up into single-cell packets which will decay quickly. So it should be good plant food.

Feed me Seymour.

1/ Militaristic government gets their burgeoning scientific population to fake up a lot of "papers" then when everyone ignores them they continue on doing their real research which everyone discounts even when it leaks.

2/ ???

3/ Apply to military/industrial complex

4/ Rule the WORLD!!!

I'd say that the people who think The Creationist Museum are a pretty neat idea are the real enemies of civilization.

I'll disagree.

The real enemies are those who would force their religion on others. Such as the recent surge of attempts to put Creationism in Science classes. The groups over lap but are not the same. It is when they try to enforce their religious views on others they are dangerous to society. Merely holding those views doesn't make them dangerous.

I have never had an explanation from those who claim that God gave man free will as to why they then try to use their religion to compel obedience to their standards. God gave free will but then tells you not to use it or suffer eternal damnation?

I think they should make it ODF Office.

This is incorrect. The FBI only has investigative jurisdiction over federal crimes, thus differentiating them from local police departments. The RCMP and the Calgary police department enforce the exact same set of laws - Criminal Code of Canada, and they have identical investigative jurisdictions. While the RCMP is a national police force, it is not the equivalent of the FBI.

Simply put, RCMP hands out parking tickets but the FBI does not.

It depends where you are in Canada. Some Provinces don't have their own Police and the RCMP does that role. Ontario for a counter example has the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) and the RCMP are purely Federal here. Even the OPP is restricted in cities with their own police departments. In Ontario the RCMP won't be handing out parking tickets, in Cities with their own police neither will the OPP. Other provinces differ.

So in short it depends on the Province and City on whether the RCMP has local policing roles or not.

Sure it does. Atheists stake their eternal future on the presumption that God does not exist. They live their whole lives doing what they want, and rejecting the concept that there could be anyone or anything greater than themselves. If they are wrong, and there turns out to be a judgement day they will spend eternity burning in hell. That takes a great deal of faith (or ignorance take your pick).

Theists gamble their eternity on the presumption that they picked the right religion.

I believe that if there is in deed a God worth worshipping that he/she/it will judge people on more than their faith but on their actions. A just God would not condemn people for eternity if they were good people.

(people not doing auto- or frequent updates, for some reason or other).

Among the reasons for not doing auto updates are patches from Microsoft hosing your system.

A couple of personal examples:

An update to IE made it impossible for ANY program to access the internet with that computer. Why an IE update was able to block other programs was never clear but shows why the integration of programs for marketing reasons is a bad idea.

Another one "updated" a driver for the motherboard to an older version that predated that motherboard and BSOD'd the machine.

Carbon dating the same artifact can return results that vary by 100,000's of years.

You need to check the accuracy of the source you use for your claims as carbon dating is not capable of measuring ages in the 100,000's of years. The limit is in the vicinity of 60,000 years.

Abrams is free to write his own Roddenberry-esque universe that includes different physical laws, different events, different characters, and of course lots of lens flare.

What annoys a lot of fans is that Abrams did not do as you said. Instead of creating his own he like Berman and Braga before him messed with Roddenberry's work.

Others did truly create their own and shows like Babylon 5, Firefly and Stargate were born. They do things their own way and Trek fans can still appreciate them because they are not screwing up what Roddenberry did.

I took two variants of that test and ended with two different results INTJ and ESFP. If seems I am right on the edge in all four categories and just slightly different questions gives the opposite results.

Why i,j,k and not a,b,c?

You create your first variable to increment something, is it odd to use the first letter of the word increment? You then create another variable to do the same thing, would it be odd that your NEXT variable would use the NEXT letter in the alphabet and so on?

and his brain is in a jar ?!?

I think it is in its original container, a JarJar.

The Linux Foundation's largest financier is IBM. Therefore, it's obvious that they'll dismiss complaints over IBM's anticompetitive behavior and its overall hypocrisy.

That is an assumption. They could very well agree with IBM merely because IBM in their view is right.

You don't know that the Linux Foundation wouldn't oppose IBM if they felt IBM was wrong and lose IBM's backing willingly in that case. Organizations have done such things in the past.

You merely assume that they are opposing you for monetary reasons but provide no proof

Concerning Groklaw, I don't want to make claims as to who funds it (although a lot of people have previously - not in this discussion here but elsewhere - voiced theories that might make sense), but there's no doubt that it's been slavishly loyal to IBM all along.

Again no evidence merely assumptions and innuendo.

Your assumption that anyone who backs your opponents must be paid by those opponents and therefore unwilling to oppose them says much about your thought modes. Don't you ever go against your financial interests and stand on principal? If you do why do you assume that others do not merely because they are on the other side of the issue? Can you not conceive of the idea that others might sincerely oppose you based on their principals and understanding of the situation and the possibility that they might in fact be right and you wrong?