...does one lug around a ton and a half of bacon? And without stopping somewhere and just gorging on the stuff?

So has anyone else noticed that "Potential Indicators of Terrorist Activities" and "Pain In The Ass" have the same starting letters if you turn them into acronyms?

Aww, I feel for you, I really do. It just doesn't change the fact that you're an idiot. A superannuated idiot, for sure, but then idiocy like yours knows no boundaries of sex, age, or race.

From reading the article, apparently even deselecting automatic updates isn't enough, because part of the constantly-updating TOS reads:

Nah, idiots like you are always wrong. You can't even spell Paracelsus' name right.

Wow, did someone rewrite the laws of physics as regards the chemical properties of solid water when I wasn't looking? Goddamn, that must mean that comets don't actually exist, because they are, after all, agglomerations of dust, rock, and... wow, look at that! ice, totally exposed to the vacuum of space, and couldn't possibly survive long enough for our obviously ignorant, non-creationist "scientists" to observe them and catalog four thousand one hundred and eighty-five of them.

And I guess Jupiter's moon Europa is shot, too, because it's just so much ice and rock at what might as well be the partial vacuum of 0.1 Pa. It's incredible that our ignorant, non-creationist astronomers can still see it in their telescopes, considering that ice evaporates in a vacuum. Wow, they must have such incredible imaginations!

Only if you define "religiot" as someone who follows a religion. :P

If it's not targeted at them but they're the only ones getting hit, then the people deploying the DRM have really shitty aim.

TL;DR: Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak! Whoosh!

Ah, but proper, intelligent communication, both written and spoken, are. Knowledge of usage, syntax, and grammar are necessary to be able to decode what the other person is saying and contribute intelligently to a conversation, unlike, say, dropping the word linguistics in a totally off-topic, tangential response and using meaningless junk phrases.

Attacking what someone says as a "meaningless junk phrase" is hardly conducive to fostering discussion, especially when one uses meaningless junk phrases, too. When was the last time you waved your hand in someone's face and said "Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" and got anything close to resembling a meaningful response? Did your calendar list "idiolect" as your word for the day and made it so that you had to find any way at all to inject it into a conversation?

If you're trying to get your posts modded Informative or Interesting, the least you can do is use a proper a href reference instead of leaving people wondering if you're using some made-up word from your idiolect and having to use the autodetect feature of the google translator. Oh, and drop the ad-hominem attacks, too. Attacking a poster does not make up for a lack of relevant content in a post.

That's the thing, though: the "rights-owners" act as if the people who want to pay are pirates themselves, or potential pirates. DRM doesn't convince people to pay for a product; rather, it's more likely to convince people that it's not worth the hassle of trying to be good, and end up pirating anyway. DRM is targeted at the people who are paying for the product, rather than the pirates who are going to hack the product anyway and never would have bought it in the first place.

"So does this mean I'm pregnant?"

...and how exactly do you know this? Watch a Powerpoint presentation somewhere?

I am not your brother. I am quite certain of my parentage, thank you, and I rather doubt that I am in any way related to you as I've never had to utilize critical faculties to distinguish between my mother and sister.

As to not having any arguments, perhaps I did not present my points in the form of a bulleted list, but have you ever heard of the phrase "reading and comprehension?" I know that heavy dependence on letting some hate-mongering bible-thumping preacher do your thinking for you generally renders you unable to derive ideas from context, but this is slashdot. At any rate, I shall restate my arguments, in the form of nested comments, carefully indicating the actual questions raised (though they may not necessarily be in the form of a question) in an attempt to see if you have any form of analytical thinking ability left:

Obviously, you read a slashdot headline and felt it attacked your religion, so you broke out your colors and attacked atheism. Nowhere, at any time, does the article mention atheism in the specific context (yeah, yeah, I know, it's not your thing) of atheism ("cool and analytical") versus religion ("superstition and general dumbassery"). Nor, for that matter, does it mention anything about failing to distinguish between your mother and your sister, but then again that particular failing may be yours in particular. Rather, it posits opposition between analytical thinking and religion. If your arguments so far are any indication, however, it is proof of the study's thesis.

Just in case you don't get it yet, which I fear is a virtual certainty, I am not calling you an idiot. I am merely implying it. I am also implying that I would like to see you make an even bigger fool of yourself than you already have. Your knee-jerk reaction at what you perceive to be an attack on religion is so tragically pathetic, it's funny.

So, what do you fear?

I assume you mean "analytic," but hey, that's okay. The whole "suffer not a witch to live thing" probably hampers you when it comes to proper spelling.

I'm really curious, though: what do religion and thinking, intuitive or otherwise, have to do with distinguishing your mother from your sister? Not that I'm implying that you would need to be able to do so as a matter of life, death, or proper informed choice when it came to deciding on a boudoir to enter, but inquiring minds would like to know why this is so obviously important in your belief system that you would feel the pressing need to share that with us.

I hope you mean "atheists," or otherwise we're going to be stuck here in an endless loop trying to resolve a definition error. That's okay, though: endless unresolved loops, like singing hallelujah forever at the foot of your imaginary patriarchal deity-figure, virtually guarantee your immortality. That is, until the eternal unceasing ennui causes you to jump into the nearest black hole.

It is quite obvious, however, that you are attempting to assert via intuitive leap that, as analytic thinking decreases religious belief (and vice-versa, as is obviously the case with you), atheism reduces intuition. That is sadly, however, not the case as far as I can tell, especially since atheists in general tend to do more thinking, analytical or intuitive, than the merely religious.

Ah, ending a statement with prayer, a classically religious way to end. I shall do the same: may the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you with a sense of the ridiculous, especially since a levitating ball of pasta and marinara sauce is so much more palatable a deity than an infantile murdering sociopath who always needs money.