English was and always will be a language of universal communication. The origins of the language comes from taking words from other languages and making use of them. That is why we have phrases like "cease and desist" and "breaking and entering", which are not sets of two different things, but phrases to denote that they have the exact same meaning. We have just lost the original understanding of the phrases.

The end result is that you can Yoda Speak and completely understand it, even though it seems awkward: "Away put your weapon". It is also why English is such a hard language to learn for a second language.

Staff? You're kidding me? This will be automated with scripts. You're nuts if you're depending on a human to hit "submit" button on website for a high value domain name. Scripts, properly executed, will be within milliseconds (ie, margin of error) of the exact time needed. This solves NOTHING.

It only took some forty years to discredit. In the meantime it was taught as fact and people even got their PhD's on the subject. My point wasn't that it was eventually refuted, but rather it fit your description of "religion" and yet was held as "science" for YEARS. It took nearly 80 years to rid textbook references to Piltdown Man as evidence of evolution. In fact, there are plenty of textbooks that contain what we now know are errors, but haven't been corrected, and are still being taught as fact. Heck, gravity is still taught as a "law" even though it only works only most of the time (outliers are such a bitch).

I'm not arguing for creationism, but rather against the smugness of many who hold the science view, as being perfect and void of errors. Even your reply here completely ignores that I was making a direct comparison between your previous point and obvious errors (lies) in science.

AGW is a perfect case of not having the actual data and basing all knowledge held by a very very select few, who have been caught manipulating the data and "cherry picking". According to various experts, the earth is much cooler than predicted by most of their models. And if AGW is true, and Al Gore is a prime promoter of it, then why did he just buy a beach house? He either doesn't believe what he is peddling or he is crazy. I'll let you figure out which .. His carbon footprint is much larger than mine.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html#s91253

Actually, the best option is to edit the EULA before agreeing to it. One sided contracts are not contracts.

Well, Network Security/NetOps isn't anywhere close to minor software development in terms of skills. Perhaps you really need to fill two positions. Trying to find the magic person that can do both seems improbable at best. If that position was filled previously, you should have paid them more (and kept them happy) because of how rare those skills were.

I know that my skills are such that anything requiring "minor software development" is a no go. I don't like coding (and hence, not good at it), and have long since stopped trying to stay up on the latest programming languages. However, I can tell those that do like coding exactly what I want/need because I at least understand the concept of what it takes to actually code.

Trying to mix unrelated skills is going to be a tough nut to crack. You may have to hire the primary job, and ignore the secondary. If you've lived 6 months without both, you're in trouble .. or you don't need either. Figure it out.

The problem is falsely representing what a theory is in the first place, before beginning to criticize it.

Piltdown Man. -- falsely representing a theory in the first place. People were correct to criticize it, from the beginning, as it was false from the beginning. The problem is, your over simplification is still wrong. Care to try again? How can one begin to understand that it was wrong when only a few had access to ALL the data on the damn thing?

In this case, your example is wrong, because it is not applicable. Mandarin has a known structure and grammar, however I'm sure there is Chinese Poetry that violates normative structure / grammar, as much poetry often does. THIS is the outlier that says there are exceptions. And it would be right to criticize the grammar of the poetry, but also one must understand that it violates the normative grammar and such with a purpose.

This is the same problem with UEA and AGW debate, only a few had access to the information and yet we are supposed to have faith that they are representing the data accurately, and not fudging it along the way (which they were caught doing). Again the problem isn't the data, it is the access to the data, and who "controls it". Science loves to live in ivory towers, above the "common man".

And then, there is you, who didn't even answer any actual points raised, only reiterating a flawed analogy.

The problem with Blackberry is that it required (at one point) a server component for Enterprise. And it was EXPENSIVE (at the time). Meanwhile Apple used ActiveSync and now Android does as well, which allows for "security" that most enterprises actually need.

However, what is MISSING that Blackberry had YEARS ago was app management that is still better than anything Apple or Google offer. We are actively looking at MDM that can manage Apple and/or Android and so far, we've got nothing worthwhile to choose from. Apple's MDM is pretty good, but it is based on Apple's model, and not any enterprise.

If HP or any other company wanted the Enterprise market for Smart Devices, they could be had in a second. My guess, is the market is too fluid to build anything that will work in three years.

That, and the whole BYOD in the enterprise is really starting to take off. Why pay for smartphones when your employees will buy something else anyways (and not want what you bought)?

And Evolutionists have NEVER falsified data to prove their point. Right? Evolutionists never hide data that is outlying points that don't fit their current model ... right?

IF you say, that both sides have falsified data, then we can start having a discussion. Until then, implying one side is perfect while the other side manipulates data to suit their needs is misguided and as wrong as you imply about creationists and over simplification.

I remember being taught that fossilization took thousands of years. Is that true? Why would science say such a thing with certainty when it is not accurate at all? Science auto corrects itself over time, but it has proposed plenty of things that were in error and continues to do so even today.

First Century Christians were, for the most part, Jews, practicing Judaism of the day. Today, most Christians are NOT Jews, and practicing the sun god cult of Rome.

I tell people to buy the least expensive acceptable model. Save the $ for the next purchase or else something worthwhile. My reason? Laptops, cheap ones, usually will do everything people want. AND when the crap goes south in a year, after the warranty is gone, you won't be as heart broken as if you spent upwards of $2000 for a really really nice laptop with all the bells and whistles.

Right now, you can get a Core i3 2.3 Ghz with 4-6 GB ram for about $500-600. Really, what more is a non-techie gonna need? I get people dropbox or box or some other cloud storage for their "stuff", and quite frankly, most people will be just fine with something like that. There are exceptions, but really, most people would be fine with that.

At that price range, you can buy 3 laptops for the price of the Macs people are recommending above.