"I love what you've done with the people on your mission! So fancy."
"oh, that's fine, but YOUR mission is so much cleaner and free of human interference, it's great!"

The only problem with your logic is that no one said "Yahoo is cool again", except for the original poster, who, despite his use of a question mark, was the first to introduce the idea of "Yahoo is cool again", so I was wondering how he even got to that thought, interrogative or not.

Yes, you're right. What do you propose to do about it?

Sure, anyone can just "cite" a reason. That doesn't mean it's going to work.

Anyway, I was only addressing the previous poster who made that blanket statement about "When you are playing fast and loose with your customers" - they aren't.

Doesn't matter much, as the number of people using Firefox has been steadily dropping for the past couple of years. It's not like this change will affect that; however, it does seem that Yahoo is a little late with this strategy, if they're trying to use to boost numbers.

There's always a slight chance that if a user that's used to using Google suddenly sees Yahoo is the default search engine, they'll get annoyed and switch browsers. But I suspect most people in that situation would either figure out how to change back to Google, or just shrug and say "oh well", as you said.

Either way, at this point, I don't see this helping Yahoo at all, and it could potentially slightly accelerate Firefox's fall. A lose-lose.

Not sure how you got from your first 4 points to "Yahoo is cool again"; it's pretty clear that Yahoo is so uncool at this point that they're making a desperate effort to get cool again by paying Mozilla. I have my doubts about this strategy working.

It's a stretch to say that Uber is doing even half of these, if that's what you're inferring. I'm an Uber customer and I have exactly zero complaints about Uber playing "fast and loose" with me.

Do I wish that one senior VP wasn't a total douchebag? yes, that'd be great. But if I refused to use the products and services of every company that had a douchebag senior VP in their ranks, I'd probably have to move to Alaska and start learning how to build everything myself.

I addressed the fact that you conveniently switched from "guns" to just "rifles." Nice job avoiding that giant hole in your argument yet again.

Of course, it's highly unlike Trayvon Martin would have ended up killing Zimmerman by slamming his head into the sidewalk. Meanwhile, one gunshot did kill Martin.

I'm not debating whether Martin or Zimmerman were right/wrong. But it's interesting that you bring up a case that actually illustrates the point that guns are the most dangerous weapon, and enable killing where there probably wouldn't be any without guns, or at least, there wouldn't be any in the vast majority of cases. If Zimmerman didn't have a gun on him, it's likely that no one would be dead, because he probably would never have gotten out of his car.

And enough with your phony "rifles kill less people" stat. I think I addressed that enough above. Only an idiot would not see through your cherry-picking.

I can see this "rifles rifles rifles" mantra is something that's being driven home to you guys reading the pro-gun blogs. I'd like to thank you for making me aware of this bogus cherry-picking statistic. (Rifles, of course, are a small subset of firearms) You don't want to debate why guns are more dangerous than knives. You just want to first claim "oh people will just kill with knives instead of guns" and then do a quick bait-and-switch from "guns" to "rifles" when trying to support the first point.

Does that kind of tactic work when debating people who are actually paying attention? Or do you try to avoid that kind of debate entirely?

Your assumption that I'd like to see rifles or shotguns taken away from people is completely wrong, and based on your wish to cite the above statistics. The argument is about the lethality of knives vs. guns in general - and then you go and cherry-pick a "rifles vs. knives" statistic that obviously has been regurgitated on pro-gun websites ad nauseum, in order to prove a point that no one was even arguing.

If for one minute I thought you were looking to really debate, I'd engage further, but you're obviously just interested in being dishonest about what the debate even is.

Conveniently, of course, that's "rifle" killings, not killing with guns in general. Nice cherry-pick. It's like someone saying that far more people die in Volvos than in Lamborghinis. While technically true, it means nothing regarding the safety of either car.

Your contribution to the conversation is based on a total lie. At least mine was honest.

uh, citation needed. Also, what's the % of knife attacks that end in a fatality vs. the % of shootings that end in a fatality?

Your one-liner sounds suspiciously like a made-up statistic found on some pro-gun blog. Thanks for contributing absolutely no common sense to the discussion., because you're too busy defending your rabid "don't away my guns!" quasi-religion.

if I had points, I'd mod you insightful AND funny. The best kind of post. thank you sir.

That's an oft-repeated theme that sounds great in its simplicity, but the sad reality is, we're so addicted to oil as a fuel for our economy that from the standpoint of the US, at least, it WOULD affect us to a great degree if we simply ignored an army of extremists taking over one Arab country after another.

You can debate whether it was a good idea to become so dependent on a region with a culture so different from (and occasionally extremely hostile to) our own, but remember it took most of a century to get to where we are today - and now that we're here, like it or not, it most certainly IS in our interest to fight in the middle east. It's not a great option, and it's a big lie when politicians say we're not over there fighting because of the oil, but from a national security/economic standpoint, it beats the alternative of looking the other way and eventually getting fucked.