And if exercise and eating right is so good for you, why does the gov't spend millions trying to get people to start and/or continue such practices?

Come on - you can't deduce anything one way or the other from the existence of advertising. Don't get me wrong, I think smoking is a nasty habit and I wish people would stop doing it, for everyone's sake. Similarly, I think using bad logic is a nasty habit, and I wish people would stop doing that, too.

It's not physically possible to smoke in a vacuum, is it? There's nothing to support combustion, unless maybe your cigarettes contain a built-in oxidizer of some sort.

Oh wait, I get it - you mean like in a vacuum cleaner! Of course. But be careful in there - those dust bunnies are surprisingly flammable!

I agree completely, and I think this simple logical principle should be extended to other areas. For example, if you don't like armed robbery, don't rob anyone. But don't go passing legislation to keep other people from engaging in armed robbery - that's a private decision between a man and his gun dealer, and it's really no one else's business.

Title says it all (sorry, I couldn't resist)

Have you ever seen an actual Apollo spacecraft? Live and up close? They're amazingly rickety and primitive looking; I'd be afraid to take one out on the highway, never mind all the way to the moon.

When I saw the Apollo 16 (in Huntsville AL), I thought of that scene in star wars where they rescue the princess from the death star and she sees the millennium falcon and says "You came here in that? You're braver than I thought!".

Factors like, say, how much the non-lowest-bidder was willing to contribute to the selection committee's re-election campaigns?

Of course, the selection committee will say the contributions had nothing to do with picking that vendor - they looked at the company's skills and track record, and decided that, all things considered, this really is the best overall value even if it's not the lowest bid.

The difference is that google is very forgiving and will do a decent job of finding stuff no matter what you type in. A CLI requires a very specific (typically very unforgiving) format, which you can't figure out without using another unforgiving CLI ("man pages", anyone?) to explain the first one. And sometimes you have to use a 3rd CLI command ("more" or "less", depending on how clever your devs think they are) to slow down the instructions being displayed by the 2nd CLI so that you can learn how to use the 1st CLI.

Yes, that's exactly like google.

Just because something uses the keyboard doesn't make it a CLI.

I bet 90% of google users don't know about "site:" etc. And they manage just fine without it.

None of those are really command lines... A real google CLI would be more like:

$ google --type=images --keywords="cats" --image-size=medium --safesearch=off

...and I hope we can all see that while linux people might feel right at home, the average user would go to bing or yahoo or whatever in a matter of seconds.

...and this attitude is precisely why it will NEVER be "the year of Linux on the desktop".

I know it's hard to imagine, but there are actually people out there (a majority, in fact) who use computers to get a job done, and have no interest in picking up the skills to "compile it there own damn selves" - just as there are people who drive a car but have no interest in the details of an internal combustion engine. You can diss them all you want (and I'm sure you will), but unless there's a realistic way for these people to use the software, they're just going to keep buying windows. And companies are going to keep writing software for windows. And hardware manufacturers are going to keep writing drivers for windows. And linux is never going to replace windows.

Did you know that "strap-on" spelled backwards is "no parts"? Seems appropriate, eh?

Dunno if you've noticed, but even "permanent" ends to wars aren't really permanent. WWI ended definitively with the Treaty of Versailles (not some "temporary cease fire"), but that didn't stop WWII from happening.

All wars that aren't actively being pursued have "ended" in some sense, and any war that has "ended" (in any sense) can restart at any time. The various types of "ends" to wars may be of interest to people who publish dictionaries, but they have no real-world significance.

This is starting to sound like the "if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" or "is a virus alive?" type questions, which are incredibly stupid because people act like they're talking about actual things, when in fact they're just arguing over definitions of words ("sound" and "alive", respectively).

The question isn't "can war exist without nation-states"; the question is whether hostilities between non-nation-states should be called war or not. The answer doesn't change the fact that group A is trying to kill group B, and you can reasonably expect group B to try to prevent that.

Now possibly it has legal ramifications because the word "war" has been used sloppily in treaties, etc, but none of that changes the reality of people killing and/or defending. Besides, there isn't a clear definition of "nation-state", so even if we can't redefine "war" we'll just re-define "nation-state" to mean whatever we need it to mean in order to fit the offensive / defensive actions we think are appropriate into whichever subset of the treaties we'd like to continue to pretend matter.

You know the best part about having a philosophy degree?

You don't just ask people "Would you like fries with that?" - you ask "Why would you like fries with that?"

Pls explain your logic.

Just to be clear, I don't believe in god, but I don't see how logic can disprove god.