Oh, and for the record, 1 cubic meter of water is *NOT* 1 liter.

1 centimeter cube = 1 gram = 1 milliliter (at 20 degrees at sea level)

1 liter = 10cm x 10cm x 10cm cube.

I was raised using both systems (Metric and Imperial).

Each system has its pros and cons.

I know that water freezes at 0 and boils at 100 (C).

I know that studs must be 16 inches on center and a standard sheet of drywall is 4 feet by 8 feet.

I know my weight in lbs, my height in feet and inches.

If you do any sort of contracting in Canada, you use imperial, because its much easier to say "Cut the stud to 7'5 1/4"" rather than "Cut the stud to 2.26695meters".

And if you *do* use metric for contracting, you end up using up to 3 decimal places constantly, because 2.266 is a lot different than 2.260.

The systems have their places. Saying that one is better than the other is very subjective and context sensitive.

I don't want the Office Ribbon.

I've never used it. I saw it used once. My wife hates it, and actually switched *back* to a pirated version of office from a legit version of 2007 just to be rid of it.

I don't want fancy pretty graphics or Aeroglass.

Fortunately, I'm a Linux user, and so I wont have to worry about that.

Want to send Mozilla a message? Switch. Choose a browser like Opera that values functionality over form.

The power users are the ones that pushed Firefox into the main stream to begin with. Whats going to happen if Mozilla suddenly loses their support?

Many places in Canada also do this. I read the story and wondered what the big deal was.

I believe even Bell Canada now charges for paper statements, and they have an opt-in system for paper bills, instead of opt-out. Now Bell didn't introduce this system all at once either. They did it quietly and grandfathered it in. Any new customers or existing customers who made changes to their accounts were told that they would be charged if they wanted paper. Existing customers that did nothing could continue receiving the paper statements free of charge.

I thought that was a great way to introduce it.

How is this a troll?

I agree. I personally don't care how pretty the browser is, and don't really like the Windows 7/Vista graphics interface.

What will it look like in Linux? Thats what I want to know.

I don't like the overly simplified interface, I think it makes it seem like they think their users are idiots. I don't use google chrome for much the same reason.

I don't believe that.

Morally justifying it in your own mind shows that there is some kind of Psychosis at work, on some level.

KNOWING that the act is evil, but doing it anyways because you *want* to, because you think that the world is better off that way. Thats what I would define as true evil. Knowingly and intentionally committing an act that the general population believes to be morally wrong, without regard to all others involved, and without regard to the consequences of the action.

The figures in history that are painted as true evil, and not just simple psychopaths, have full knowledge that what they are doing is wrong. They know full well that there are consequences to the action. They do it anyways, without regard to themselves or anybody else.

Disintegrating a populated orphanage with high explosives for fun is not evil, its psychotic.

Disintegrating a populated orphanage with high explosives because you truly and firmly believe that the world is better off without those orphans, and then convincing the world to see it from your point of view, and getting away with it.

*THAT* is pure evil.

I disagree with this. I've spent a long time in the industry, and am pretty much the only "tech enabled" person in amongst many friends and family. Many of them use the computer recreationally, and without a care as to what harms may become of them. To the layman, the computer is just a tool, and to most of them, there is no perceived risk to themselves. Thus, when I try to inform them of the risks they take, or try to teach them safer browsing habits, good housekeeping, etc. It is often met with indifference, and sometimes hostility. People don't like to be told they are wrong, especially when most people use the computer in the way they think is correct, and in most cases, the only way they know how.

Many people are intimidated by computers, and to have somebody who is deeply involved in computers try to teach them best-practices, is sometimes insulting.

So yeah, we may feel we have a responsibility to protect those that know less than us, but in reality, instilling that knowledge is not always easy, practical, or even sometimes possible.

So no, I don't agree, I don't think we've failed. I think we're doing the best job we know how to do, in the face of at times massive and gross ignorance. Resistance does not mean I've given up. But I have learned over time which people are worth taking the time to teach, and which people are not worth the effort.

There is no link, because the OP is totally incorrect.

The CRTC just finished net neutrality hearings with pretty much every major ISP involved. Their decision I believe is still pending, but no law, statement, or otherwise has ever been made that deems Broadband an essential service.

If it were an essential service, there would be much more strict regulation in place, ISP's would not be allowed to throttle service, and We would be *MUCH* happier with broadband in Canada.

Unfortunately, Canada is slipping when it comes to broadband penetration, cell phone service, and pretty much every other aspect of the modern world.

If you're going to poke fun at Canadian culture, at least spell it right, Eh?

Indeed, there is a presumption of innocence.

But the presumption of innocence is simply a matter of law. It refers to who carries the onus of proof.

In a matter of criminal law, the onus of proof is on the state, thus the *presumption* of innocence.

This does not mean that you committed no crime until proven otherwise. Many people commit crimes and are not proven guilty.

As a matter of ethics, those people are *NOT* innocent of the crime.

As a matter of law, they are *NOT GUILTY*.

Don't get the 2 confused.

Small nitpick, but aquittal != innocent.

Aquittal simply means there was not enough evidence to find them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I would have voted for this option, but I'm a CYP2D6 zero metabolizer, so most common opiates don't work on me.

It makes day-surgery absolute hell.

I was trying to plug something into an outlet that was behind my bed. Couldn't see the outlet, used my finger to guide the plug into the outlet... didn't move my finger fast enough, got a mild shock.

In retrospect, I should have just moved the bed. :)