But that doesn't make his opinion wrong. Generally, the calm and neutral opinion is the correct one in situations like this.

Since you seem to want to learn, I believe what you are trying to say is:
"Ask him if he knows what a PHB is." OR "Ask him whether or not he knows what a PHB is."

My guess is that it's like a position I've worked before. You have your IT guy who needs to know all the technical stuff and he, of course, has to have a boss (everyone has to have a supervisor except CEOs and people at very small businesses, that's just life). Now, this boss likely supervises multiple people and the IT guy is only one of them. In these cases, the boss doesn't need to know everything about IT, but he needs to know enough to adequately manage said IT guy.

Alternatively, this could be a situation like one my friend is in. He does web development and everyone else in his office is in sales. He helps out sometimes if they need computer help, but he mostly just does his web development (the main office actually handles most of the IT stuff, they are a satellite office). His boss (again, he has a boss, what a shocker) has to know enough about the tools he uses for web development to accurately judge his performance, have some idea of what is reasonably possible in a reasonable amount of time, and potentially hire my friend's replacement if he leaves. He doesn't have to be an expert, he just has to be familiar (or technically savvy enough to BECOME familiar).

That's just wrong. I have employees who would need to be in on the interview to replace me. They aren't qualified to do my job (you don't actually have to know statistics to be an IT Support Specialist, as an example...management is only a portion of my job), but they would A) need to be able to interact with the person who replaces me and B)need to be there to help confirm answers to any technical questions that get asked. My boss doesn't know enough to judge the answers to some of the questions someone in my position would need to know and he'd prefer to hire someone who knows what they are doing.

A government with a lot of power (although not unlimited) over the organization that has a lot of power (although not unlimited) over the internet has said they want to keep that power and not give it to OTHER governments. One of the reasons a lot of people support that is that, although this government has abused its power before, it has a history of abusing its power LESS than most other governments.

That wouldn't stop just because the UN had control.

That's why I mentioned the rest of the numbers, so you could see why it was relatively small. If we had the numbers (1 2 3 4 5 6 1000 2000 4500 9000 10000 15000 15001 15002), then using your logic (that 6/14 is all that matters) the 6 would not be a relatively small member of that set. The other things (less than 50% of the next largest margin of victory, 32% of the average, 35% of the median) are what put it in context and allow you to see that it is relatively small.

And....Obama won by 7.3% in 2004, Clinton won by 5.6% and 8.5%, GHWB won by 7.7%, Reagan won by 18.2% and 9.7%, and LBJ won by 22.6%. That covers every election since the earliest one you mentioned (Kennedy), to the most recent election. This puts this 2.5% victory as the 6th smallest out of 14 elections since that time and it is less than HALF the margin of victory of the next smallest election. It is also 32% of the average(7.87) and 39% of the median(6.42) since Kennedy. So, it is relatively rather small, even in modern elections. It's not small if you only count "modern" as since GWB, but if you go earlier than that, it is definitely rather small.

The trouble with this idea is that if you remove the religious foundation then the current generation of fuckers will come crashing down, sure, but the next generation will FIND a place. It doesn't have to be religion. It can be anything. The masses are stupid and the corrupt, power-hungry assholes will always find a way to take advantage of them. You assume that getting rid of religion will get rid of the corruption. All it will do is make those who want the power go a different route to get there. The classic example is Stalin.

The article illustrates no such thing. The article illustrates that we have an idiot on the house committee on science, space, and technology. We need to stop THAT. I couldn't care less if someone in that position is religious, as long as they aren't idiots that ignore science (the two aren't mutually exclusive...it's only the fundamentalist Christians and the atheists that don't think things through that believe that).

Your response would be more appropriate if the law was still as it was in 1787. As it is, things have changed a bit since then.

But what you're saying is that appearances are all that matters. Which is not the case. You're assuming, again, that the distance traveled is the same, when it's not.

I can make it look like I break the laws of physics by "magic" using misdirection and tricks, but that doesn't mean that they are broken. And that's all this is, a misdirection. If I'm traveling using a warp drive and warping space, then you THINK I'm traveling from point A to point C using path A-B-C (which is X light years long) when in reality, I've warped space in such a manner that I'm traveling using path A-C or A-D-C or A-Q-C (which is Y light years long). It does not appear to ANYONE that I've traveled faster than light, as long as they understand what's going on. You're basically saying that by observing understanding technology that they don't understand, someone can break physics.

If you are standing on one side of a wall that is 2 light-years long (1 light-year in either direction) and I am standing on the other, but there is a camera transmitting a view of me to you. You are sure that there are no doors in the wall (for whatever reason, you feel you know this is a fact). You then watch me walk beside the wall towards one end, leave the view of the camera, and then you see me walking towards you on your side of the wall, you've "observed" me going faster than light. In reality, I just used the door that you didn't know about, but you don't understand that that is possible. Did we just break physics? No. We just used technology you didn't understand to change the distance I had to travel to get from point A (my side of the wall) to point B (your side of the wall).

But they have short memories. They complain about privacy issues when Facebook makes a mistake, like changing everyone's privacy settings, that gets publicized. Then most of them forget about the issue and stop complaining. They complain about the ads occasionally, then continue on with their day. They complain about the changes to the UI/UX for a little while and then one of two things TENDS to happen: Facebook changes the UI again, as they realize their original change was a bad one OR most users realize they actually like the new way better, once they are used to it.

How many complaints have you seen recently? I'm betting less than you did a few months ago and the ones you are seeing are likely about A)Timeline, because they have recently been switched over or B)a select few who still complain about FB changing their displayed email. Non-geeks complain for a little while and then stop.

Why do you think this? If anything, the trend is that each '#1' social networking site is lasting longer. Friendster was only there (in the US) for around 2 years. MySpace lasted what, 3 years at the top? Facebook is on its 8th year and has been top for around 4. It will likely last a few more years as the #1 site, just from inertia alone. As these sites learn more and more what users want/don't want, they will continue to last a while.

Social networking sites are not like 'normal' tech. If you come out with a better social networking site, you will attract an initial group of people. Those people then have to convince their friends to move to your site from another site. People are on Facebook because people are on Facebook. Facebook would likely have to do something truly unpopular at about the same time another social networking site started getting its initial base at users in order to go away. Once that happens, people will move to the new site. Then, once that site has enough of a base, the pattern will repeat. If anything, I'd guess social networks will become MORE stable as years go on.

It all depends on the definition of a 'copycat product' to you. It's all in the level of 'copying.' To take it to a couple of extremes for illustrative purposes:

It is not a loss for consumers that Toyota cannot make a truck that is 100% exactly like a particular model of the Dodge Ram. That encourages Toyota to continue to innovate.

It WOULD BE a loss for America if someone patented the wheel and all other vehicles had to just find some way to get around without it. While this would encourage people to try to find a new type of vehicle...cars and trucks as we know them would be controlled by one company and until someone was able to discover a vehicle that is as affordable as a car, as mobile as a car, etc. we would be at that company's mercy if we wanted to travel.

That's how people not being able to make 'copycat products' could be a loss to the consumers. Obviously, this isn't as bad as a patent on the wheel, but in my mind (and the minds of many others, obviously), it crossed the line between the two situations where enforcing patents goes from "encouraging innovation" to "pushing companies away from the best, obvious solutions because someone else already patented them."