18 years ago I messed up my back, 8 years ago I did it again. The second time around didnt have the results of the first. I live with constant pain while awake unless laying down.
Pain is depressing, it ruins your attitude and life. I have learned to live with it, with pain pills to manage the pain. When sent to pain management every so often to get the pain medication adjusted methadone is always pushed, I am also low income. I have done a lot of study of pain drugs and will always tell the doctor that is one medication I want to avoid. At present I am on Percoset (oxycodone/acetaminophen). While it isnt as cheap as the methadone on my crappy insurance, my life is way more important than the $10 a month extra it costs me.
But the problem may not be the drug itself but the idea that some people in pain have that they can avoid pain completely. This isnt always the case when you are on these types of medication. You can control pain, you can moderate pain. But if you think that if I take a pill or two extra it will get rid of it altogether you are on a slippery slope. My brother tried that, he ended up taking more and more pills because over time your body starts resisting them. Thats where the danger lies. You take so many that you end up killing yourself by overdose, like my brother did at 36.

At least you got a point I agree with, in fact I was going to post on the exact same thing. When a person of faith is in a debate where the basis of the discussion is facts its a loosing proposition. Because a lot of religion teaches is a fruit of faith, in other words we except it because of the faith we have.
That's unfortunately as far as I can agree with you. Because it isnt God that decides who is punished for the individual sinning. He even gives them the clear path to not be punished for sin. It is only the persons fault that it happens. An example, A parent puts a cookie on a plate and sets it on a table. The parent tells the child that if they eat the cookie they will be punished. If the child eats the cookie and is punished, is it the parents fault? No.

I agree, the best and most lasting upgrade was when I ditched the pre installed Windows Media Center 32bit for Ubuntu 64bit almost 6 years ago. I never went back. Windows isnt installed on any computer in my house, even my wife's laptop runs Ubuntu, and my daughters desktop runs Mint. The ability to stop such foolishness as virus scan and scanners, not having to remove the constant buildup of crud, and file systems that dont need defraging has saved me more time to do what I like.

"If your coworker walks away from his desk, will you jump on the opportunity to go through his GMail account?"

No, because its on their machine and you would be "searching through what isnt clearly visible on someone elses property. But if they were reading it on an open radio transmitter and you heard them on your radio while searching through the stations there would be no problem.

Yes like
1. Spend money to run anti programs to fill in the holes left by bad code.
2. Dont download anything.
3. Dont use IE.
4. or simply unplug the computer from the internet.

But most people refuse to do any of those things. Then again they could just give Microsoft the boot.

The lead in says its "a bug in most deployed versions of Linux"

Then says in the excerpt " in the upcoming 2.6.32 release candidate of the Linux kernel"

Its a release candidate, therefore it cant be in "most deployed versions".
The newest version of Ubuntu (karmic) for instance only uses 2.6.31.

That depends on the wording of the patent. If I use consists of, yes specific things need to be there. If I use includes, it may only be one of the things I describe. Also patents on mechanical devices are quite different in there requirements that software or business patents. A device would indeed cover a specific "thing" needed to implement an idea. But in software specific coding is not needed. For that we have copyright, there is no copyright for devices.
Dont think I am for patents, or giving a all inclusive definition. The original person I replied to was confusing copyright and patents. Just dealing with software patents and not devices (hardware). Dont split hairs on a different example.

Thats an even more complex explanation of patent vs copyright. I seriously doubt those that cant even get that patents dont cover words will get that. I was trying to explain that patents cover, say for the sake of explaining, the idea of a scrollbar in a browser, vs the way its coded. Not that thats what this patents covered.

They didn't lift code from i4i. It appears you can't see past your hatred of Microsoft. Oh wait, this is Slashdot.

Your right this is slashdot, also home to some of the worlds biggest Microsoft fanboy's, and/or possibly astoturfers.
What you missed in all this was that you are confusing Copyright and a patent. So here is where you are going off.
1. Patents cover ideas.
2. Copyrights cover the specific use of language.

To infringe on a patent you do not have to copy anything but the idea. It doesn't matter if the words or code are the same or not. But that you implemented the patented idea.