He also happens to be an outspoken critic of the current movement demanding "'Net Neutrality" by FCC / government regulation. He makes some good points, too. I won't repeat them here, because I always get hammered and flamed when I point out the flaws in the proposals in this space.

I don't mind it, but I don't bend over and hope for lube just to get more.

Because there was very little choice for the insurance companies. Because ALL cars could be stolen like that.

But, unlike with the problems of the old days, there is a tool that can easily remedy the problem of the keyless car. It's called a key.

I bet you could buy a policy through some website that has automated approval. Hopefully those insurance companies have some brains at some point too.

Note that articles of impeachment were drafted in the U.S. House of Representatives and a committee meeting held to draft the legislation needed to bring the issue in front of the entire U.S. House of Representatives. That was far more than simply being on the brink.... it most certainly would have happened. The only thing that kept Nixon from being impeached was his resignation that made such an effort moot.

What's scary is that what got Nixon on the brink of impeachment would today easily be squelched in a few days citing national security and the rest is swept aside with the reporters being labeled terrorists.

If quality is the issue, or deceit, or pestering you with ads for other software of mine, or about 99% of the rest of the reasons why Apple would reject the app, then yes, you would certainly be better off without it.

The problem is that 1% that's left. The software that simply must not exist because Apple doesn't want it to exist.

Well, then one has to wonder where that kind of movement is coming from. Some sort of anti-age-of-enlightenment rebellion against a society turning away from god and instead proposing a world view that everyone who doesn't outright reject any form of science has to consider bullshit? Last time I saw something like this, i.e. a "if we want you to believe a little we have to make you believe a lot" doctrine where they tried to go overboard just to eventually end up with what they wanted were the Khmer Rouge. And we remember how THAT ended...

I didn't see anything about a "Throw tomatoes at scientists" workshop.

Seriously, the best way to combat something like this is to just ignore it. Showing up to cause a scene and throw rotten fruit just gives them a reason to think their ideas are a threat. Unless you think they actually are.

Whoa, better not try to crack a joke when it comes to religious matters, that's serious business, it seems even here at /.

But ok, you caught me. Usually it's my gambit to lure self proclaimed bible knowitalls who cling to the KJV as "the one true bible" and then slap them with your number 5.

Ok, ok. I don't have anything better to do right now anyway, I might as well.

The first divergence here is probably that the US, unlike the "evolutionists", didn't cause the problem in the first place. Afghanistan was just yet another one of the usual "one up" things between the US and Russia. Just like a lot of similar bickerings in the 80s, mostly in middle America. Some pro-Russian fighters against some pro-US fighters. The usual gambit was that some marxist government comes to power and some anti-marxists get armed and funded by the US to fight them. Similar in Afghanistan.

The Afghan war (let's call it "Russian Afghan war" to tell it apart from the current one) had a few differences to the other ones. Basically one could say it was the Russian version of Vietnam. This time they were the ones that send "advisers" to train the local sympathizers and, when this didn't suffice, soldiers, while the US were the ones that funded the guerrillas and let them do hit-and-run attacks from neighboring countries. But the main difference was that the US also funneled everyone who wanted to fight in this "holy war" against the "godless marxists" into the general area. It may surprise you, but few of the mujaheddin were actually natives of Afghanistan. The general promise was that they would get to have their very own Islamist paradise, all they had to do is fight the Russian devils for it.

That, together with the Stingers, really put a dent into the Russian war efforts. How do you fight someone who simply cannot lose, no matter what? If you know an answer, the US military might need that advice urgently. It's too late for the Russians, though.

To make a long story short, the US of course lost interest in the whole mess when Russia, or rather the Soviet Union, folded in the cold war poker. Why bother supporting a country somewhere in some godforsaken corner of the world when the enemy you wanted to fight by supporting them doesn't exist anymore?

Now, as one may assume, it doesn't sit well with people when you make them fight your war, promise them to aid them when they won it and then, when they finally do, you just shrug and walk away, telling them they can kiss your fat ass 'cause you don't give a shit about them anymore.

So. And now, to come back to our problem at hand, please show me how the parallel you drew does remotely fit. Did the "atheists" put the religious into that "prison"? Did they promise them anything? Did they pretend to be their allies only to sever the alliance when it was no longer convenient?

Does ANYTHING remotely fit in that parallel?

Ouch. Maybe try again with a comparison that's not so far off that it would take a wall of text to even remotely inform you where you err?

Fine by me, that way I only gotta port it to one platform. Should also make support easier. So if you want my app, get Android. If you don't have one, sucks to be you.

Seriously, I won't bend over backwards just to appease the maker of some hardware. It's not like I depend on the sales. You offer me a platform I want to develop on and I will develop for it. It's not the other way 'round.

Probably that, despite all the oddity, the cosplay, the heated discussion on whether this or that imaginary figure is more powerful and all the other stuff that appears scary to an outsides, I do not know a SINGLE fantasy geek (over the age of 10, at least) who'd consider anything of his favorite fantasy real, or even having an impact on their life.

Let alone letting their fantasy creation dictate how they should lead their lives...

Huh? Yeah, but the ones that do do get sent to the insane asylum. But that's the big difference here. If I say I have an imaginary friend and he tells me how I have to live my life, I get sent to therapy. Do it with 2000 other idiots and you have a cult, with 2,000,000 you have a religion. And then it's a-ok suddenly for some reason.

Even the RomCath decided in the meantime that literal interpretation of the Bible is a no-go and that creation didn't happen 6000something years ago. They still cling to a maker, but they're tentatively embracing the Big Bang theory. They just claim that it was God who pulled the trigger for it.