Name one other browser that even makes an attempt at supporting Group Policy.

Now you know why MS is the number one browser in enterprise today.

If you are naive enough to believe that MSIE stole the game from Netscrape, then I have to hope that you are simply too young to remember Netscrape 4.0. IE crushed the market because 'Netscape' simply SUCKED. IE keeps the enterprise because nobody else has bothered with GP. Change is *hard*. As a sysadmin, any time you can be certain that 90%+ of all settings for an app are the same across your enterprise, you JUMP at the chance.

If you are naive enough to believe that ANY browser is "secure" then you are simply an idiot, and age can be no excuse at all - unless you're 12 or younger, I suppose. If you, personally, are targeted by a remotely skilled script-kiddie, your secrets belong to the world. Unless you PAY ATTENTION, and keep your entire environment up to date, patched, and locked down to the highest degree you can manage. And then you stand a *chance*.

Finally: This has absolutely nothing to do with anticompetitive behavior. While we could argue if it is just an idiotic knee-jerk reaction, YOU would come up short, should you search for evidence supporting any argument that relates to monopoly practices. Choice. Exists. Period. Chrome, FF, Opera, Lynx. Three of those are all various degrees of 'better than' the current version of IE. ALL FOUR are various *orders of magnitude* better than IE6 on XP. Which is what this breach is about.

Yeah. IE6. Can't think where I might pick me up something better than THAT.

No, buying the game means I liked the game. I could not give a crap about how they con or bribe the reviewers, I don't care if it is made by sony, MS, blizzard or adolf hitler for that matter. If the game is fun (and it is) and is well made (it is) then I am more than happy to pay for it regardless of how they treat the scumbag media.

And furthermore, there is a difference between hating a person and hating their actions, hence the saying "love the sinner, hate the sin". I strongly disagree with the statement "God hates fags", while maintaining that the bible's condemnation of homosexual acts is ever relevant.

For the umpteenth time, WHAT MAKES CHRISTIANITY'S THEOLOGY IMMORAL? I have repeatedly asked you this, and all you do is talk about misbehaving popes.

If you want to show me that Christian theology is immoral, you must show me examples of New Testament teachings which are immoral. How many times do I have to ask you for these examples before you give even one?

So you're telling me that in order for Christianity to be moral, every single one of its members must obey its precepts perfectly, without fail? Or even just that its leaders must obey its precepts perfectly?

That's ludicrous. It's unrealistic to expect someone to be perfect in this life. We are inherently imperfect beings.

I do not disagree that the Catholic Church has twisted Christianity (as taught by the Bible) into something hypocritical, but the original Christianity taught by the Bible does not have that problem.

Any plan for self-improvement fails if you don't follow it. Don't blame the instructions, blame the person failing to follow them.

Your complaint seems to be "Christianity can't be valid, simply because so many people fail to follow its directions." That's a whopper of a logical fallacy.

Sure they would. That wasn't my point. In any case, I can quote their own history books to show them they're wrong.

See, any true religion will be internally consistent - none of its doctrines will contradict any of its other doctrines.

I am fully willing to have my church's doctrines examined in that light. I am willing to stake my reputation on my religion's doctrines being internally self-consistent.

It has been my observation that Catholic doctrines are quite far from self-consistent - even a cursory reading of their histories is enough to see it. I am quite willing to provide examples if you wish.

The stuff I do at work is for warehouses, and the people who are best at it are good at the tech side, but it's incredibly important to understand what a warehouse actually does, and the level of experience of typical users. I've made various clever improvements to standard query screens on our systems, but about 50% of users go to a stock list screen and page through all the records until they find the one they're after. That's definitely not the best way to find a record, but it's what half the users do since it requires less thought.

We had a really clever PhD guy here who vastly improved the core screen technology while working on one of my projects. Once he had done with that, I got him to work using his new core screens, writing one of the screens to guide a warehouse process. That was a bit of a disaster - he didn't really understand what the warehouse workers did and how to make things easier for them.

Hopefully he's now working for a bigger company that can keep him working on the stuff where all that technical knowledge is more useful. But I think for large sections of programming, it's just as important to understand the people and the domain.

Your way off base. Openess and forkability has zero to do with spaghetti code and readability; your semantic argument is bogus. It has everything to do with the GPL License; which in a nutshell your free to do. Of the GPL projects that have forked (that I am aware of), the fundamental reason for the event was due to lousy management or unresponsiveness.

Sony owns Columbia Pictures and MGM. In fact, the big difference between Columbia and the five other members of the MPAA is that Columbia doesn't share a corporate parent with a U.S. television news outlet.

"Racism won't be truly a thing of the past."

There, I fixed that for you. While judging people by the color of their skin, their religious affiliation, etc. is not a very pretty part of human nature, it is human nature. One can make significant progress through self-awareness and personal growth to overcome it's negative aspects, but eliminating it entirely simply isn't going to happen. That doesn't mean we should just accept it, or even foster it, but it is important to understand it. Understanding the problem is always the first part in addressing it. If you asses racism and think "Oh, we can eliminate it. How should we start", you have already made an EPIC FAIL in the analysis of the problem, so any solution you try to implement will necessarily fail as a logical consequence.

Wait, what do monkeys have to do with race? Is it because she's black and therefore anything said against her must be viewed through the lens of racism?