Dang. Typo broke the first, more-punchline-worthy, Schlock link.

I'm really begining to hate the keyboard on this new laptop.

This actually looks good to me. Most helicopters can be shot down with a rifle. They are huge engines with large fuel tanks and large, whirling blades, and it is not that difficult to get them to destroy themselves with their own momentum, height, or fuel.

I concur. Helicopters are a collection of single-points-of-failure, disasters waiting to happen. (Particularly the pilot - they have to be continuously controlled and crash almost instantly if anything incapacitates him.) Their vulnerability is justified only because their extreme usefulness oughtweighs it. With eight rotors I'd be surprised if this vehicle couldn't at least come to ground safely with at least two of them destroyed, and the multicopter approach has been under autonomous computer control from the start - made practical only by the automation.

I envision this thing's missions as being primarily extreme rough-country ground transport, with short hops to bypass otherwise impassible terrain, reach otherwise inaccessible destinations or targets, attack from above, or put on a burst of speed when time is of the essence. Think a truck-sized "super jeep" ala Superman. Being primarily a ground vehicle lets it perform longer missions and reduces its visibility and vulnerability compared to a helicopter.

Just because you CAN fly doesn't mean you DO fly all the time. As is pointed out in the webcomic Schlock Mercenary: "Do you know what they call flying soldiers on the battlefield?" ... "Skeet!"

There is no difference. People are also searching for "proof" of God, and theories and experiments to prove HIS nature. The fact is, dark matter is theoretical and unprovable, and may not exist at all, because our limited viewpoint cannot allow for us to discover this truth.

"They only reason physicists came up with it in the first place is because... they did experiments and observed space, and noticed that there was too much gravity compared to observable objects"

This is 100% true, but flawed logic. They assume that which is not in evidence. They created a "force" (god) to account for things they observed (miracles), that they couldn't explain otherwise. The only thing they have done is cloaked it in "sciency" language to mask the fact that they have done the very thing that they make fun of religious people of doing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Assuming "Time" is a single dimension. We assume it, because that is what we can observe from our limited viewpoint. Time may not be single dimension.

"We know that the universe itself is a finite age"

We don't "know" this. We assume it based on the facts we have as we understand them. There are a couple conditions (assumptions), 1) Time is a single dimension, 2) Dark Matter exists (we have no proof). There are good reasons to believe that time is not single dimension, which interestingly enough would negate the need for Dark Matter, while also explaining redshift light in a non-expanding universe that has always existed.

As humans, we assume things not in evidence, based on what we know. But if what we "know" is wrong, then our assumptions are likely to also be wrong.

By your example, we have NO good example of how people should behave. All humans are critically flawed, and therefore we should not act in any way other than how we want. Selfishness is the end result of your argumentative point. There is no perfection in the human condition. Period.

Of course, that is kind of the point in the Bible, if you can get beyond your own bigotry and ignorance, taking stories (literal or figurative) out of context and extrapolating your own flawed viewpoint out of them. Having read the whole book series of book, including the apocryphal, I see it for what it is, a tale of flawed people who need redemption.

Of course if you're perfect, you don't need redemption. And if you're not perfect, and don't want redemption because you like your flaws, well then you're part of the problem, and not a solution.

Physics has their own version of "God", it is called "dark matter". They believe it exists because this magical material is used to fill in the voids of all the problems they have with their current models. It has never been seen (thus "dark") they believe it exists (thus "matter") but they cannot confirm or deny it via scientific proof.

But since is is cloaked in "scientific" terminology, they count it as science, even though it clearly is not subject to the scientific method.

Such a limited view of justice, such that justice doesn't exist except your version of justice, which by definition isn't justice but revenge. Which is how you view others definitions of justice, and thus, is exactly what you typed here.

Simply put (because I realize you probably can't understand the above), your view of "god" is limited because you can't (don't) believe in one. Because you don't believe, it jades your viewpoint in such a way to support your view.

Here's a thought, any god that forces people to be "good" doesn't believe in free will. That makes one a dictator and evil. Benevolence allows choice, but holds people responsible for their choices(Justice). You have chosen, shouldn't you be responsible for your choice ... for eternity? OR would you rather be forced to comply to doing things against your will, simply so you won't spend eternity being held responsible for your choice?

But then again, that is the whole liberal mindset, freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want and avoid consequences at whatever cost. Blaming others for their own failures.

Such Compassion from a liberal. Color me shocked.

"desperate, poor, and ignorant"

There is no excuse in modern educated society to being "ignorant". None. Even if you are ignorant, getting a computer connected to the internet should eliminate ignorance. Again, there is no excuse. If you have an email address, and a smart phone (as suggested by the Submission), you have no excuse to being ignorant.

I don't count ignorance as an excuse for anything any more. People choose to be ignorant because they spend too much time on silly things (pop culture) and not enough time paying attention to the world around them. Ignorance is bliss, it is easy, it is lazy.

It is very easy to take advantage of people who don't care.

Yes, they are. Unrestrained legalism isn't the virtue that you think it is. It is the means of tyranny uses to creep into our world. But you're okay with tyranny, as long as it is your kind of tyranny, and that is a pity.

Dictionary.com says it best ...

and

My first Grammar Nazi post

IS not a word. Stop using it. Thank you.

A lot of that hardware does not have Linux drivers either.

So write one!

(Ba-dah-bing! Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week.)

Seriously, though. If you're buying hardware with an embedded Windows OS as a necessary component, that's what you signed up for. Take that into account when negotiating with vendors for the replacement.

I never thought I'd see the day that anyone would claim Windows Vista was the pinnacle of OS innovation...

Looks to me like the claim was that XP was the pinacle of OS innovation AT MICROSOFT.

After that they jumped the shark with creeping featureitis and failure to support (or provide an adequte, clean, easy upgrade path for) important functionality.

Nothing was said about OS innovation OUTSIDE of Microsoft.

There's also the issue of whether OS innovation was even a Good Thing (TM) for the users of the functionality of the time. (It can still be enabling and yet be a net loss if its costs outweigh its benefits.)