You must be new here. What sites were you reading yesterday before you stumbled into slashdot for the first time?

That is a bit of an oversimplification, there.

For one, Al Gore is still a Baptist.

More to the point, however, his quote that you love to bring up

Is referring not to individuals but to the shared human condition. He is saying that laws can be made that improve upon humanity. We have seen in times past what happens when laws are discarded in the interest of profit acceleration, he is saying we can do better by instead implementing laws that are interested in improving the situation for all people. He isn't saying that we can take a wicked person and make them righteous or anything to that extreme but rather that we can make a better world for all people through conscientious governance.

You like to talk about that as if it matters. The Second Bill of Rights is not even marginally close to being as important in relation to current government as the "Axis of Evil" speech, yet you talk about the former all the time and the latter pretty well never.

So then why do you insist on trying to manage it? Just because you want to sell it doesn't mean you aren't managing it.

Well, the last of the list you have repeatedly demonstrated no functioning understanding of. The first of the list you throw around as a universal label for things you don't like. How is the second related to the first and last? I doubt you will respond to that question.

I really can't process A/C's incoherence, sorry.

Thebes is in decline because OediPOTUS is a M'F'er.

When proper faith in the Almighty is replaced by a belief in the state, e.g. Al Gore:

But this is only a distilled expression of the lousy theology exhibited in the Second Bill of Rights. Managed liberty is not liberty; Progressivism/Statism/Socialism (you have to understand that these greased pigs resist all labels) is but an ersatz substitute for the real thing, and must be rejected.

Firefox, bagel and lox
Breakfast of champions handy
And aftershave that makes men brave
When over Macho Grande
Burma Shave

If only you would be so kind as to tell me what that "ism" means to you, then perhaps we could discuss the matter.

There is ambiguity here, yes.

Statism is really more of a disease than a party.

Then is it really a decline? You've been dancing around Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem for so long now. . .

I do not recall ever having accused you of having your own party. I merely stated that you are very much a proud member of a party. The statement of "your party" does not indicate ownership, but rather membership.

What privilege are you accusing me of accusing you of having?

You regularly accuse me of being a member of an established party. I could provide cases of you doing so but you won't read them.

I never accused you of accusing me of having any power within a party, though you have in that wonderful snippet of nonsense again indicated that you believe me to be a part of a party.

Considering most of your "isms" are based on peculiar new meanings of (generally root) words, I have no idea what you might be trying to accuse me of there. I would love for you to tell me what "statism" means to you, but I don't have any reason to expect that you will do so.

Well, if I didn't have Christ, I'd be in a gutter.

I'm mainly driving toward doing an AWS certification, but what I don't want to do is some kind of configuration boo-boo and get slapped with a $500 bill or something for random faffing about.
I'm saying that the sunk costs of a phat box to try some of these stylings offline, then push the configuration to AWS, at least seems less risky.

Wait, I thought you were just giving it the plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. What's it gonna be, man?

Wait: you get to accuse me of having my own party, accuse me of having privilege, then accuse me of insisting that you are a member of some established party? I don't remember saying you were the DNC chair, for all your utterances do rival those of Wasserman-Schultz for incoherence.
If you want an accusation, I think you're a defender of statism.

Hundreds of millions of potential customers will have this technology on Apple's [single] platform. Keyword: "Single."

Seeing how NFC typically needs hardware support, it would be starting with this generation of devices, and unless Apple does something different from the usual "downgrade existing top tier models and drop the bottom" then only the top end and most expensive models for the next couple years will have it.

Unless they sell a lower-priced iWatch or some other dongle that "expands" the existing iPhone range to support NFC (which would actually be pretty smart of them, so I wouldn't be surprised) or unless the last couple generations of devices have sold with disabled NFC hardware buried inside, it's not unreasonable to say that there will be NFC versus non-NFC fragmentation for at least another year.