Except that morals vary widely based upon your ethnic background, social status, nationalism, etc., etc., etc., that when taken as a whole, morality is nothing more than a gigantic gray zone.

Look at it this way. Here in the west, we all know Hitler was evil - he committed mass murder on a scale larger than anyone had thought possible. He's the modern-day devil, the evilest of the evil, the wrongest of the wrong. Right?

So what do you think Hitler thought of this? Or other high-raking Nazis? He didn't think what he was doing was right - he knew it. In his gut, in his mind, he knew he had to execute on this final solution. Was he alone in this thought? Probably not. Hell, at least some Germans must have agreed with him.

Look, my point here is when it comes to morality, there is no "right" and "wrong" - no good, no evil. For every action you consider to be wrong, someone out there probably considers it to be right. This means that morality, as a whole, is often nothing more than differing viewpoints - which makes it nothing more than a giant gray zone.

Now, your point about the community having a say is completely correct - but the problem with your morality statement ("Inside every man's head (the sane ones) is a morality calling out that says "this is WRONG") comes once you realize that the community, as a whole, can hold some pretty fucked up morals. My previous example (hi, Godwin) is a pretty solid example of people holding some fucked up morals.

That is, until, you realize that to them, your morals are probably pretty fucked up to.

"You were so busy wondering if you could do it, you never stopped to think if you should."

Good sir, I ask you - Do you want another Jurassic Park on your hands?!

Clearly, he lost his kernel virginity.

What has every new edition of Windows been other than a slightly better UI coupled with more support for more hardware? I mean, 2 out of 3 of your points are about UI, and from what I've been able to tell (also currently running the beta) it makes a fairly large difference. Finding windows/using more windows at once isn't a problem with the new taskbar, and as you said, it is slightly leaner than Vista was.

So why would anybody upgrade? Because the only real reason people ever upgraded their (Windows) OS was security (adjustable UAC helps with that tremendously) and UI. So, yeah, it really is "So much better" to those who don't realize how minimal of a change this is. In fact, its still "So much better" for those who do know how minimal the change is. Hell, I was an XP holdout til the beta. I even have an XP partition on my drive, which I've used all of three times. The UI in 7 just keeps driving me back towards it, and I feel that's the same reason people will upgrade.

That's not to say that Vista couldn't be essentially 7 - in fact, with a simple service pack, it really would be just a slightly beefier version - but since that won't happen, expect people to flock to 7.

The UI is the frontend to the entire OS. Even minimal changes, especially good, solid minimal changes (e.g., the taskbar), make a huge difference in the overall "feel" of the OS. Furthermore, they help increase the usability of the OS - and coupled with running faster, these two seemingly small changes can really help increase productivity on the OS.

So, sure, aside from all these things... why would anybody upgrade? Because only an idiot would discount these things.

You know, I really cannot grasp the concept of war crimes. Not that I can't understand their intention - limit the horrors of war - but I can't understand the point. War is not a civilized, rational action. War is barbaric - war is what humanity does best, but mostly, there are no rules to war. When the end result is that either you or your enemy is dead, you cannot possibly enforce rules - so what's the point? It's just an excuse for people to say "oh those Hamas terrorists are commit war crimes, they're evil". They're not evil - they're sick motherfuckers, they're monsters to hide amongst civilians, but you know what? They think it's their best shot at winning. They will stop at no end to destroy Israel, and if you think crying "war crimes" is going to do a damn thing, you're completely foolish. It's not a game. You don't respawn, you don't take turns, you don't follow any rulebook. Just because you make it illegal to hide amongst civilians as a militant doesn't mean terrorists are going to stop. It's called winning, you don't do it by following the "rules."

Rules. If you think rules matter to anyone fighting a war, if you think there is some sort of standards in mass murder, you may want to rethink just exactly what war is. Sheesh. You might as well outlaw terrorism (I'm sure it already is) - I'm sure that'll stop it in its tracks.

After all, you can't break the rules.

Note: I am not a Hamas supporter, and I'm not an Israel supporter. I've given up on that part of the world. Furthermore, I do not believe in the concept of "good and evil". Sure, maybe you could say Hamas is evil by our standards - but by their standards, they're the epitome of good. Who's to say who's right? God? I don't believe in him either, but both their gods would accuse the others of being "evil". So no, I believe in nothing more than opposing viewpoints. Everyone has their own set of morals, their own idea of good vs. evil - and when looked at from a unbiased point of view (impossible, but one can try), when accounting for all the different ideas/standards of good vs. evil, good and evil lose any meaning. Hitler thought the holocaust was a good and noble task - pretty sure everyone else thought he was the most evil person to ever live.

Do you really think the ISP is going to favor you over the RIAA? Your faith in ISPs (the people against net-neutrality, the people that wish to impose asinine caps (e.g., Australia)) is fairly astounding.

What do you think is easier, potentially being taken to court by the RIAA (or at the very least, bothered by them) or just disabling your connection?