Do you have any real world experience doing so?

I'm in the same boat. Not a whole lot of demand for IT professionals, but I can design and run a permaculture style farm, build a stone house, cast scrap aluminum into a metal working shop, build sterling engines and steam turbines, deliver the level of medical care you'd expect of a combat medic, manufacture rudimentary chemicals from raw materials for use in peace and in war, hunt with a bow and arrow, trap game, fish, track and fight hand to hand. Among other things.

And, I can use rhetoric to inspire men to follow my leadership and organize them effectively when they do.

I think I'd do quite well.

I have been a staunch supporter of Firefox for many years.

However, I cannot continue to use their browser in good conscience.

I believe that it is of vital importance to humanity that we continue to subsidize and support the nuclear family.

I recognize that the purpose of marriage is to support nuclear families.

Marriage is not a contract between two people. Marriage is a contract that a man and a woman make with their community.

The man and woman agree that they will be loyal to each other and in exchange, society creates structures to support their union.

In this way, resources are dedicated to funding the future of the human race.

I have always been a supporter of the rights of the GLBT community to have sexual relations with whomever they wish, and to live without fear as they do so. I continue to support such rights.

I also have always been happy to support the multitude of tax breaks and other social benefits granted married couples, and shoulder a greater burden. I recognize that one day, I will wish to retire, and the children they raise will be the ones caring for me in my old age.

I discovered, in my experience as a financial adviser, that these tax breaks are often exploited by married couples who do not and never intend to have children, allowing them to live more decadent lifestyles.

I consider this to be a great crime against us all. Those resources have an important purpose. I expect a return from the money I invest in married couples, and that return is children.

I have believed for a long time that married couples who do not have children within a certain reasonable period of time should have their marriage annulled as a non-fruitful union, as was been done for hundreds of years of our history.

I believe that couples with children who get divorced before those children are adult members of society should be forced to repay society for breach of contract. Their children end up with significantly higher levels of social and psychological impairment, and drag society down.

I consider marriage of homosexuals to be tantamount to theft. They are stealing resources that were intended for young families, resources that are in part mine.

If you reject the position that marriage has a purpose and generates a return for society in exchange for services rendered, you must then acknowledge that marriage is prejudicial against single people.

It is not right that I should live in a two bedroom apartment with my male roommate, and shoulder a greater tax burden than a gay couple across the hall, simply because they have formalized their sexual union.

Marriage is not about love. People do not need to be married to be in love. This is about resource allocation.

And so, after the dramatic statement that Mozilla has made as an organisation in their treatment of Brendan Eich, I have decided that I will no longer use their browser or endorse it to others.

Also, I will no longer test the software I develop with their browser. In this way, I will contribute to making Firefox deliver a substandard user experience to those who do choose to support them.

When homosexuals get married, they cross the line from outsiders who do no harm to aggressors who must be defended against, and Mozilla are also on the other side of that line.

I consider this to be a reasonable position.

Because of the way the people at Mozilla treated Brendan Eich.

This!!

These are all problems that may be solved with technology, not science. Design, not discovery.

The fact that science is focused on such esoteric stuff that is so far removed from relevance to the human condition was a big part of his point.

These things are interesting, but it doesn't really matter too much if we discover them or not, in the grand scheme of things.

Like I've said before, people who think science is the right tool for every problem domain are not as smart as they think they are.

Kind of counter productive, in this case... Hollywood has made a huge noise about this sort of issue for such a long time that most people have had the topic forced into their consciousness and are aware that copyright infringement IS NOT theft.

So, their natural reaction is going to be "I know you are fucking with my head and you're making me angry."

But no one likes having someone take credit for their work. That's an issue that touches even the guy flipping burgers. If they framed the issue accurately, they'd get more sympathy for their position.

They do this because they want people in general to relate to them. If people do not relate to them, they will not stand beside them.

The vast majority of people are completely immune to copyright infringement. They don't make a living selling people permission to copy. Therefore, when they hear "We must do something about copyright infringement!", their reaction is "Meh, doesn't affect me."

Just about everybody is vulnerable to theft. Most people have a shirt on their back and would be cold if someone took it. Therefore, when they hear "We must do something about theft!", their reaction is "Yeah, I don't want anyone stealing my shirt! I'm with you!"

This is their motive for trying to confuse people about the issue.

Even "freetards" care about people claiming other peoples work as their own. It's not that he stole, it's that he lied.

Ok, you clearly are trolling. The line you quoted says, an orbit is a path around a point in space. Not an object. A point. And, in the case of our planet that point is the barycenter of the Sun and the Earth. Not sure what your agenda is here, but I'm content that any third party reading this exchange will understand, so I think I've done enough here.

No, YOU are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

If you find it hard to comprehend things you read, here are some pictures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

Ok then... the Earth does not orbit the Sun, it orbits the barycenter of the Sun and the Earth.

If you want to be precise about it, the Earth does not rotate around the Sun.

Rather, the Sun and the Earth rotate around their mutual center of gravity, or barycenter. Same goes for the other planets. The barycenter of the Sun and the Earth is within the Sun, but is not at the center of the Sun. The barycenter of the Sun and Jupiter, on the other hand, is not contained within the Sun at all.

I think the guy was intending to express his skepticism that we will ever see this happen. Nuclear fusion is the new Duke Nukem Forever.