The article is about slashing 78% of US employees at IBM. That's not a sign of a healthy company.

Unless you manage the server yourself I'm not sure what all this stuff is. I use XP at home and Win7 at work. It's the same. It's an OS. You run stuff and it runs. The only difference I see is that the gui looks a little different, configuration stuff is in slightly different places and I occasionally accidentally rotate my damn monitor when I hit ctrl+alt+left when I mean to hit ctrl+left.

Nevertheless, the next time I upgrade my home machine I'll go win7 for the 64 bit support. If you don't need more than 4gb of ram then I'd say just stick with XP.

So my personal space doesn't matter? I'm overly sensitive because I feel violated when another man slides his hands over me and slaps my groin several times? (Seriously, in my first rape, one slap of the groin wasn't enough. He had to go up my legs then slap it then go up my legs from behind and slap it twice more.)

What would you call it? Am I allowed to use the word "assault" or do my feelings of violation just not matter at all?

I'll make sure to ask you next time I have an emotional reaction to find out if I'm allowed to feel badly about it or not. I mean, I wouldn't want to have any feelings that are disallowed.

The enemy (the TSA and their traitorous allies) are perfectly happy to call us all terrorist lovers for objecting to pat downs and scans. Please don't make their life easier by trying to be reasonable toward them.

It is rape. It is a serious violation of my personal space and it serves no useful purpose other than to scare people into being scanned. Just because they aren't shoving a broomstick up my ass doesn't mean it's not rape.

For my part, I won't fly more than once a year. I've laid down the law with my wife that any vacation we take must be within a reasonable driving distance. Two rapes a year (one each way) at xmas when I go see my parents is more than enough.

Either they're dangerous or they're not. If they're dangerous then the planes need to be fixed to prevent terrorists from using this to cause problems. If they're not then stop adding one more pointless annoyance to plane travel which is already one of the least enjoyable activities that people undergo voluntarily.

Furthermore, if low em is ok, but badly shielded devices are a problem then the solution is simple. Have em sensors around the plane. If any of the sensors detects excessive em, the stewardess will come over with a hand detector and find the jackass with the bad device. You could probably set that up on each plane for less than the cost of a few plane tickets.

The proper solution is not to berate people for wanting to be able to pass the time using the devices they always use to pass the time. Plane travel fucking sucks. There's no reason to make it one bit worse than it needs to be.

The wikipedia page on his religious views is pretty explicit on these points. He gave some interesting quotes, but ultimately he didn't believe in a personal god and called himself an agnostic. That actually makes him a Deist, which is fine.

Believing in a god that created the universe doesn't hurt anything. It's a harmless belief. However, it is not scientific to believe that god regularly changes the rules of the universe in order to help or hurt individual people or groups. It's not testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Believing in something like that is the opposite of being scientific.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that people can compartmentalize. A person can have strict scientific beliefs when working on their car's engine or when writing code or designing electronics and then still believe nonsense about things they have no personal control over.

It's fine to believe religious nonsense about biology just so long as you aren't a doctor, biologist, or voter.

You're trying to define innovate to mean the same thing as invent. That's not what it means. It means "Make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products.". It's hard to argue that Apple doesn't do this. They find markets where there's room for improvement in the products and then release a product which is better is some way.

It's better to use some other leader that rose to power as a result of massive fraud which can be used as a comparison rather than Hitler. Using Hitler invariably invites people to spout off about Godwin even if the comparison is perfectly apt with regard to the illegal electioneering.

There are plenty: Putin, Bush Jr 2000, many middle east leaders, Kim Jung Il, etc.

I don't see how it devalues the media. If everyone on Earth has free use of a particular song, that song is likely worth more given that it's so well known. It would be useful in movies as a background song in the same way that Turn Turn Turn is used because everyone knows it and knows what they're supposed to feel when it is played. It can be played by bar bands. It can be used in mix tapes. The original singers could perform the song and sell more concert tickets. The economy would likely improve due to increased usage of the song.

If everyone on earth has an extra dollar, each of those dollars has less purchasing power than before. The economy would get worse as a result.

In short, a copyright term of 2 years for songs would probably result in a much larger positive economic impact, while allowing the copying of money after any period of time would always cause a negative economic impact.

Apple looks at markets that have crappy products and makes good ones. Anyone who comes in after Apple will have to show that their product is not just a me too product. Google was able to do this with Android by filling various niches with a high quality product which the iPhone wasn't addressing. Then they moved into direct competition by releasing high end phones that compete directly. It didn't hurt that Google still has a respected name.

Microsoft didn't do that. They released a high end product which competed directly with the iPod but which didn't really look as good (to most people) and came with the baggage of the Microsoft name (the name is either neutral or negative. I don't know anyone who considers it a positive.). That was the first impression and they never did anything with the Zune that was big enough to warrant second looks from most people.

There will always be people who defend any product, but the fact is that Microsoft is just no good at designing flashy products. Heck, they're not even good at making good me too products. It took years before Windows had a GUI that was as good as the Mac. Steve Jobs was angry at Google because Google has people who can look at a good product and do it just as well or better. He wasn't angry at Microsoft at that point because the people there are good but not great. He always said they put no soul in their products.