That's already in the news media, along with other lies.

Religion does whatever it wants. People wanted to advance humanity and still maintain whatever beliefs they had, so they did. That's all there is to it.

If you want to understand where dinosaurs come from (or went), just make some crap up. You already have the end in mind, God has to be right. So find some random verse that mentions some random creature like a Leviathan and BOOM, dinosaurs and God. Solved.

If religious minded people ever started with the premise, "maybe I'm wrong about god", how different would everything look from a religious perspective?
Think of all the ridiculous theories like Young Earth that would instantly vanish.

Religion always starts with an unfounded premise and builds on that premise (God exists). Science starts from nothing and works its way to a logical, empirical truth. They're only reconcilable in the way some religious people just take from Science whatever they please and discard the rest, creating these ugly Frankenstein-like theories that mesh science and religion in a desperate, pathetic attempt to reconcile God and the observable reality.

I'm not sure I understand this statement, there are plenty of religious scientists that try to validate their faith based on scientific principles, they're just a joke.

To me that's the real problem, religious minded people who start with a premise they want to be true and then pasting together evidence until they feel comfortable.
This makes entirely no sense from a scientific perspective. How can use scientific principles to help validate something that you have no concrete evidence to even hint at its existence. The only evidence they have is the inability to disprove, once and for all, the existence of a supreme being.

You have to hand it to the religious though, if wanting something to be true could will it in to existence, they could create a god.

Seems pointless to pay off Google when that info could easily be yanked in to Federal jurisdiction.

If I could know that my info was 100% private I would pay the price, but that just doesn't seem realistic at all.

As long as the info exists period, someone will use it if the need arises IMHO.

In college, I bought Office 2007 for $10 through our subsidy program. I could have easily gotten by with Open Office, but at that price, why?
At work, I have Office 2010 on all my devices. I rarely use any specific MS Office feature, but my corporation provides it, so why not use it?

So lets say 10 years from now when all my MS Office DVDs are antiquated, I start my own business.
I'm no longer in school or part of a corporation and I need the variety of rich formatting features MS Office provides since I am doing everything on my own.

I would have to pay $150 for the software I previously always had access to, but never needed until now.

All that to say, if the majority of people get MS from work or school at next to no cost, and the rest pirate.
Why can't Microsoft lower individual purchasing costs when they're obviously making most of their money from massive enterprise purchases of MS Office.

Do they just like seeing my face when my parents tell me they once again purchases a full priced
copy of MS Office so they can type up store lists in Word and create the occasion budget in Excel?

I mean that's all it is right? It's a gimmick, no one in their right mind goes out and buys MS Office Full Retail unless they're incredibly ignorant or senile.

I literally feel like MS leaves the price super high just for the people dumb enough to pay it.

I think the point is that "networking" doesn't make one a prodigy or a flame (if we're keeping with the analogy).

I mean great, so happy he ducked the system, but there's not shortage of talented people being destroyed by the education system that would have the exact same story if they were brave enough to simply step out of the lemming line...

It isn't exactly the same scenario as someone who's freakishly brilliant getting a lot of fame and then one day melting down in a suicide. It's more like a Mark Zuckerberg scenario, a little bit of talent, a lot of "right place at the right time"...I mean networking.

I would settle for completely paperless processes involving external actors such as clients or customers.

Its my observation that a lot of the organizations that require me to print something hold massive monopoly such as a loan company or service company. On a recent student loan consolidation app I had to wait 2 weeks for a paper application to be mailed to me only to find out later that the paper app was then scanned in to a computer...the entire process lasted 6-8 weeks thanks to snail mail and the result was an electronic application.

My skill in importing signatures in to PDFs that I handily draw in MS Paint is pretty good too...such a crying shame.

Make them too large to swallow I guess /buckyballs

I concur sir, I concur.

a re-imagining of the first three episodes (most recently made movies) that still haunt my every thought of a galaxy far away...

As disturbing as it is to think what could happen to the franchise, its far less disturbing knowing that jaded old Mr. Lucas wont be behind it. Episodes I-III were a mockery of film making and I really have to agree with Plinkett .

Thinking about it, I'm not even sure who I would trust to continue or re-imagine the series...maybe Peter Jackson?

I think I should have used a /sarcasm at the end of my post, it was mostly meant in humor. I think there's definitely potential, but you have to admit the irony here.

Didn't realize this double posted, please delete. Thanks