Unfortunately academia was taken over by quacks a long time ago..

Except that those terms are subjective and, really, based on emotions.. Atoms are not.

SJWs do not apply it equally however..

True - though most states usually sort that out at the unemployment office as either being fired "for cause", or just being fired. The latter means you can collect a check, while (in most states) the former means that you cannot.

You think it's just an American phenomenon... how naive of you.

...not when it's bound good and hard to a closed-source operating system and closed-source tools, it ain't.

1) Last I checked, MS SQL Server does not run on OSX or Linux, and .NET does not run anywhere near Postgres, Oracle, MySQL, etc... so why are you saying "database" up there?

2) GP forgot to mention pricing on MS Office in the pricing squeeze (sure, you can get Office 365... subscription models are effing delicious to MS, especially when compared to set-pricing for licenses that may or may not renew within the next 3 years).

Sockpuppetting yourself isn't convincing.

Furthermore, you didn't establish why a "why" was needed.

Why is not needed for causation, little one. "Why" is needed for moral judgement.

Your sad attempts at trolling fail because you lack the wit to actually challenge my arguments. All you've got is your ignorance of your own failure an annoying indifference to being proven wrong.

As I've said many times... You're the black knight. I can hack off your arms and legs... and you'll sit there on the ground challenging me to a fight as if you didn't already lose.

He's one person. Frankly his views on software are outmoded, outdated, and far too rigid. He's not really the advocate I want any more because he's too much like a zealot.

...and how much of that is usable on any non-Microsoft platform? A percentage would be fine as an answer.

They're not doing it out of a sense of freedom or charity, so forgive me if I don't swoon with joy...

Are you saying that viagra doesn't give you an erection or did you just concede?

Because if it does CAUSE an errection then you have causation.

Causation does not require you understand a thing merely that you know X input leads to Y output. What happens inbetween is not required for causation.

What you're transparnetly attempting is to throw my own words back in my face to catch me in hypocrisy and self contradiction.

The problem you're going to run into here is that I don't make those sorts of errors. The error you are attempting to exploit does not exist.

When I asked for a WHY, that was not linked to causation. The WHY was required for moral judgment.

And in any case, I'm not especially attached to some study out of france about grades given to children. It doesn't especially matter. The only point was to show that there are datums that suggest the winds blow in other directions.

I don't need to prove female preference. I merely need to undermine the argument that suggests that male preference exists.

I don't need to defend the article at all... I just throw it out there like a leaf in the wind. Where it goes is none of my concern.

All you'll do by undermining my position is leave us with an inconclusive gray.

I am blowing on houses of cards. I like to watch them flutter and fall.

Small correction...

Microsoft has been accelerating its "open" source offerings. Certifications be damned, licenses and formats such as SharedSource and Open XML are not open. The vast majority of anything else they've done in that vein has almost all been focused on sucking in devs to the .NET world (which itself is anything but open.)

...what? First, I'm not talking about logic, I'm talking about the rules of search and seizure of evidence in the US criminal justice system. Second, your "logic" fails to account for the qualitative difference between body parts and inanimate objects. And finally, no, what makes something seizable as evidence is the reasonable suspicion that it was used in the commission of a crime.

If you did have a "rape tool," like say a coil of rope, no, it cannot just be seized from you at random "just because maybe you could use it for rapin'." However, if you announce to the world in a public place that you were in the process of using the rope for rape, then, yeah, it should be examined to see if it was used in the commission of rape. "Flyin' back from raping with my trusty rapin' rope." *You* created a reasonable suspicion that you were engaged in rape, and the evidence of such a crime was in plain view of police officers who are lawfully present. If you don't want it seized, don't talk about how you're using it for rape.

If you don't want your laptop seized as evidence you were using it to poke around in aircraft control systems you have no authorization to be in, don't tweet about how you're poking around in aircraft control systems you have no authorization to be in.