You're close - but the whole point of relativity is that there is no "absolute time". With one caveat (see below) It's ALL relative to the observer. There are some observers (specifically those roughly motionless with respect to the earth and the two black holes, like us) for whom "then" and "now" are separated by 3.8b years. There are (or could be) other observers (specifically those traveling at something close to the speed of light in along a line between the black holes and us) for whom the two events are separated by far less time. For someone traveling along that line at the speed of light, the two events would be simultaneous.

The only hard and fast rule is that space-time is divided into 3 zones:
* The absolute past - events within (or on the surface of) the light-cone leading up to here-and-now
* The absolute future - events within (or on the surface of) the light-cone starting at here-and-now
* Everything else - events in neither light cone, which means they cannot affect us and we cannot affect them. Depending on an observer's motion relative to us and such an event, someone might see the event as happening at the same time as the here-and-now, or before, or after. It doesn't matter, because such an event is not causally connected to the here-and-now in either direction.

The interesting thing is that the vast majority of the universe is in the "everything else" zone.... contemplate that one for a while...

I've never read any of her books, and I only have the vaguest idea of her ideology! But I must admit, that's the only flaw in your argument - had I ever read a single one of her books, all the rest of your accusations would undoubtedly follow.

It must really suck to have the technology of an adult, the vocabulary of a teenager, and the reasoning capability of a toddler.

Can you imagine if "fire" had to undergo that sort of analysis? Sure, it might keep people warm - but it's going to kill thousands every year and main many thousands more. Clearly it's got to be banned; it's simply far too dangerous to be allowed.

I disagree - I actually think it's more like craftsmanship. I think Jeff Atwood sums it up pretty well:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2005/05/bridges-software-engineering-and-god.html

Really? Cause I think just about everybody has lots of doubts as they die, especially if it's a slow, inevitable, death:
- Is there a God?
- Have I been a good person?
- Will anyone remember me?
- Should I have stolen that truck full of Cobalt-60?

Yes, because anything reported on Fox is automatically incorrect. Nelson Mandela must be so relived to hear that his death has been reported on Fox - that means he must still be alive!

I'm thinking we need a new version of Godwin's Law, whereby the first person to make an unprovoked (indeed totally unconnected) claim that someone is an Ayn Rand disciple automatically loses.

Can someone tell me how the parent gets from the GP to vomiting on a pathetic Ayn Rand Coo Coo face?

That's why I completely ignore the news: the very definition of news is "stuff that hardly ever happens" which means it's not a big danger.

What if someone gave you absolutely irrefutable proof that there's no such thing as free will, but you chose not to believe it?

1) Resist urge to kill coworkers
2) Wait for slow-ass software on slow-ass hardware connected by slow-ass networks to slow-ass databases

I heard that vaccines cause Mass Psychogenic Illnesses in children - pass it on!

"Should"? Does that mean anything more than "the guy writing the sentence wishes that PCs included only free software"?

Personally, I think the majority of Ferrari's "should" be given away for free. I think I'll talk to the DOT about enforcing my personal preferences on other people.

It's far worse than that - I heard that many schools require students to read copyrighted books, thereby forcing them to be exposed to text which they cannot re-use in mashups or whatever. Oh the humanity!

Apparently it considers quantum effects, too - at high speeds I was able to tunnel through the fence, but then I didn't have enough room get to back up to speed to tunnel out!

OK, let me be clearer: it's not just the job they've been assigned, it's the job I want them to be doing, and which I pay them to do. (OK, we can quibble about whether we're getting our money's worth or not, but that's a separate argument)

I don't think it's at all bad to try to find out what's actually going on in another country. Are you seriously suggesting that any country should just take every other country's gov't (friendly or hostile) at face value? I hope not: they'd be fools to do it, and seriously neglecting their responsibilities. I don't know about other countries, but the US gov't (and more particularly the people within in) is explicitly given the duty of protecting citizens from enemies. The first step is to find out who your enemies actually are, and asking them is kind of pointless - you have to snoop around and try to find out what's actually going on.