Exactly. I suggested to one of the higher ups that they should make sure ALL passwords were changed, including (but not limited to) VPN access, Outlook 'master account' access, Server passwords, local user logins, and domain account access. I seriously doubt that this was done, and if it was done, I doubt it was done in a timely fashion. When half the IT department leaves within 2 weeks, the other half is left scrambling and the management is typically too stupid to know what to do. Personally, I didn't see any point in ever checking to see if my previous passwords were changed. It was no longer my responsibility.

I was completely disappointed with Tron: Legacy. Visuals were lacking the effects I would have expected. Dialog was horrendous. And the whole plot thing was pitiful.

Whereas the original Tron had tons of computer references and lingo, and even felt like it was inside a computer, Legacy really lacked in all of those areas. I left wondering why they bothered doing the sequel.

Oh, so nobody told you that the actor on television wasn't really a doctor?

As it happens, there are also 'real scientists' who disagree with those you list (realclimate.org's misinformation)(US Senate Minority Report)(Wikipedia (I know, its wikipedia....)).

At least the commercials using a fat actor portraying a doctor on television have the fine print at the bottom that states the fat actor isn't actually a doctor. How come we can't get Al Gore's speeches about global warming to come with some similar notation that he doesn't agree with nor follow the advice he spouts?

If Al Gore, one of the great leaders of the global warming movement, refuses to take his own advice, how credible is he?

Who is to say that his idea is the best choice?

Explain how a carbon offset works. All it does is transfer wealth. No one actually takes different actions then what they were going to do originally. Al Gore still travels by private jet. The bushman he pays carbon offsets to continues to live his lifestyle. How does this accomplish anything to benefit the Earth?

So which statement (or which time) was she correct? Because she stated to avoid only the interior of the potato, only the exterior of the potato and she also said to eat the entire potato. And she mentioned NOTHING about green potatoes.

Attempting to take the strawman argument out of this, I'm simply saying that humankind doesn't understand all of the implications of what it does until MUCH further down the road. What we would assume to be a solution now might cause further issues down the road. So I'll give my question a go again to see if I can remove the strawman:

How do we know that the "pursued solution" to Global Warming wouldn't cause more problems than it would supposedly fix?

Hmm. Of all 1,880 imperiled species in the United States, 49% are endangered because of introduced species alone or because of their impact combined with other forces. (http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/simberloff.html) Seems our meddling (by introducing a species, which then became an invasive species) caused a few more problems than we anticipated. Are you sure you now want to just blindly attempt to make changes to climate? Shouldn't we pause to determine if what we do could cause MORE problems then what is currently happening?

The problem that I've had is this. When I was much younger, my grandmother exclaimed that eating the outside of a potato was unhealthy. She had scientific studies backing her that it was bad for your health. A couple years go by and she then states that the scientists claimed that eating the skin of the potato was the ONLY healthy portion of the potato. In other words, the complete opposite of what was once believed. She later changed this again, stating that eating all parts of the potato were okay, so long as done only in moderation (imagine that... moderation). I've heard similar science about the egg. Are you supposed to eat only the yolk? Or only the white part? Eat all of the egg, but watch how many you consume? Seems that even within the scientific community, there are those who are for and there are those who are against. If those doing the science can't make up their minds, why is it wrong that I continue to disbelieve?

I understand that there is global warming. I also understand that there is global cooling. There's that whole cyclic thing going on. What I have a hard time swallowing is that those claiming global warming is due to humans refrain from modifying THEIR behavior, while exclaiming its MY responsibility to change mine. Why is it acceptable for Al Gore to travel in his jet? How does paying someone else (who doesn't have much C02 footprint to begin with) prevent this global warming due to humans? That is what I cannot grasp. Please, someone explain to me this. As explained by Pat Sajak (of all people, I wouldn't have expected Pat!) in the link provided by Attila Dimedici, why not set the example rather then pointing the finger everyone except yourself?

As soon as I read the article summary, I knew this would be a stupid David Thorne clip. How is it that I'm the only one who can't stand the dude? And why is /. now partaking in this?

That's a great idea, except that you likely don't realize that moving away would require you to lose a considerable sum of money. Who in their right mind would purchase your house?

Actually, if you've seen the prices for Lego pieces these days, I don't know if this printer would be much cheaper than a normal inkjet.

Don't forget that Hotmail (or is it Windows Live or Windows Hotmail Live or Windows Live Mail? I can never remember!) STILL doesn't support IMAP. So while Microsoft is busy trying to integrate most Microsoft Office products (Outlook integration requires an annual fee along with additional software), they continue to lag behind the competition in other areas.

Luckily with my wife, there's no need to look at Playboy.