It's not much different that current attempts to re-write history. But I digress. I find a Russian re-write interesting. As if to say, "You've all misunderstood the former Soviet Republic!?" Could be something subliminal.

One thing he used to tell in class is, "Ask them why the world didn't end in 1942." Give that a try. Get well versed in their history and just ask them questions about it. Eventually you'll likely be marked and ignored. You could also try the Mad TV approach. Tell them to come in, you were just about to start an Amway meeting.

Hey, I'm just glad Obama's president and all this stuff has come to an end. No wait...

Oh please. Wikileaks stepped off the high-horse of nobility when they started wielding their information as a weapon regardless of it's relevance. So yeah, it's war. But when you start talking about going after them, suddenly it's not war. It's conspiracy. You can't have it both ways. Anonymous exist due to vast numbers of minions and the anonymity of it's core. But in the grand scheme of things are they any better than terrorists with masks over their faces? I realize the ends-justify-the-means is popular among youth and geekdom, in some cases but there are costs. That said, while I may applaud some of what they do (Wikileaks and Anon) I'm not going to lower myself to the blind, juvenile stupidity of thinking everything they do is good. Neither are without serious flaws and Assange is no messiah. There seems to be no one willing to point out bad that may very well exist in the so-called good. For the acts that are illegal and clearly a violation of other's rights, both Wikileaks and Anonymous should be tried. For what good they may do, I have no problem giving a hats off.

JW's anyone? One of my college professors was an expert on cults. He particularly spent time exposing Jehovah's Witnesses.He once said, "They haven't been to my door in over 20 years."

"Of course, anyone who believes such attempts to discredit Haggis and Wright probably also believes that Julian Assange is a rapist."

Yeah, because the two cases are soooo similar.

Anyone who would setup that hideous new photo viewer is capable of most any evil.

Commentary is also subjective, though. And can be fraught with mistakes or omissions purposefully to express a point of view. Then again, even pure journalism can't tell the whole story, only give different perspectives. In the end, I'd rather have several perspectives from say witnesses than commentary from an author if I want the news. That's not to say that I wouldn't find the commentary valuable but I would want the story first.

"The purchase will increase AOL's news portfolio"

The Huffington Post is news? I always thought of it as a mega-blog of commentary. Perhaps there belays a shift in our cultural thinking as traditional journalism dies and commentary from biases become the norm and thus the only thing we can call "news."

Someone has written malware that will "Bingify" both of your browsers even if you're only in one. It put a Bing search bar in both Firefox and IE despite only being in Firefox on my roomie's computer. After some searching, I found out to just uninstall "Search Toolbar" from Add/Remove. (Very generic name). It uninstalled but the Bingification remained AND it stripped the file menu from Firefox. I eventually just backed up his bookmarks and re-installed Firefox from scratch. Not saying Microsoft is doing this but I wonder who stands to gain from it?

Which one. There are lots of clouds and which type? Cumulus? Status? Cirrus? Cumulonimbus? I would assume the latter if they're putting everyone's there. I mean, it's the largest type.

I wish! No, she's all too real.

That's one way to get it gaining steam. Call it "cloud based." Because the "Internet" isn't cool anymore. It's got to be "the cloud!" Marketing...

I wonder if my wife has used this. 'Cuz I never really told her why.

People writing mistake-ridden text are already more literate, and are more likely to improve in the future, than those who don't write at all.

This isn't logical. It's like saying that people that build un-square and un-level furniture are still better carpenters than those who build nothing. First, there may be plenty of people who don't build who have more knowledge and have built before. Or that people who write poorly worded novels are still better writers than those who don't write at all. You don't know the reason for those who aren't writing, building, or whatever. You know nothing about them.

I would come closer to saying the opposite, in fact, in regards to Facebook.