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.

I'd like to volunteer to spend a month in space - purely for scientific purposes, you understand.

The secret to a long life is actually very simple: Keep Breathing. That's all there is to it!

Of course Canada is a state; they just think they're a country. It's kinda cute, actually - like when little kids play grown-up. Just don't try to tell them they're not really a country, or they'll get all upset about it.

No one really wants a free market; everyone wants to "level the playing field" - in a direction that completely coincidentally benefits them at the expense of others.

That's not to say that a free market is bad, just that fox is no more and no less hypocritical than most other companies.

Yes, getting 100+ miles high is the easy part - getting that high with 17,000 MPH of sideways velocity is where it gets tricky. Without that much sideways velocity, you just fall back down.

Yes, those greedy bastards - providing money to startups who otherwise might never get off the ground. I hate people like that!

P.S. The hip term is "vulture capitalists" - if you're going to be snarky, at least do it right.

Phones? You had phones? Why, back in my day, we had to yell really loud!

(now get off my lawn!)

Yes, that was my first thought - extending my mouse's lifespan would be great, because I hate trying to find another one when the buttons stop working or the wheel stutters.

But NOOOOO, it's not anything useful like that - just some crap about making people live forever.

Wow... yes, that's pointless.

Excel has certain settings (e.g. selected page, column widths, etc) that are saved with the document, but which do not cause the dirty bit to be set when they are changed. This way you can open a spreadsheet and look around, but it doesn't prompt you to save unless you change something "important". It seems like "last printed date" should be treated similarly.

True, modern radio buttons don't have the same tactile feel as old-fashioned ones do - but computer "radio buttons" have never had that tactile feel, so in that sense they're actually more like modern radio buttons than they were like old-fashioned ones. The analogy is getting more accurate, not less.

And yes, I remember the partial-press phenomenon - but I always thought of that as a harmless "bug" due to the mechanical nature of the mechanism, not a "feature" to be emulated. Certainly computer "radio buttons" have never exhibited that sort of behavior.

Instinctively saving (which I tend to do about every other sentence) without changing the name first has the same effect - I finally learned (after screwing up WAY too many times) to ALWAYS change the name FIRST ("save as..."), and THEN make the changes and save again. That usage pattern is now burned into my brain, to the point that I get nervous when I see someone else modifying a template without doing a "save as" first!

What I don't understand is why word thinks that printing a document constitutes some sort of change, and it asks me to save (even if the doc is in my "temporary internet files" folder!)

OK, I get that printing might (might!) adjust the pagination or whatever, but surely any moron can see that any such changes are changes it made on my behalf, not changes I actually made! Yet year after year this bug remains...