I haven't tried the new one, but I've been running the consumer preview since it was released on an Acer netbook. It seems to run better than the previous Windows 7 home that was on it. I've also used Win8 on a Samsung Series 7 tablet. On the netbook, I don't really see a difference between it and previous versions of Windows. The Start screen works with the mouse and the Metro apps work like I would expect and the desktop apps are the same as Windows 7. On the tablet the touch interface takes some time to get used to. The swiping to switch between apps "feels" different. The Start screen works well and the metro apps are good for touch interface. The desktop interface works reasonably well with touch, but a stylus improves the experience.

Is it the Ford MyTouch which is royally screwed up or the Sync? I have the Sync in my Ford Fusion and it works great. I haven't had any problems with it since I bought it in 2010. If you look around they hired someone else to wrap a new UI on top of the system and it turned into a big cluster.

Ah, so there it is.

If only individual people are allowed these rights then newspaper editorial boards cannot endorse a candidate. Political parties as we know them are now defunct as well. Who gave them the power to speak in endorsement for the people? Does the DNC or RNC only get to speak if their chosen person won 100% of the primary vote?

Or do you mean to say that some corporations are special while others are not?

Although with that last statement I must somewhat agree with your point for unions. Some people who have their money taken have no say in the matter due to the work rules in some places, so that is unfair.

To say that an assemblage of people cannot pool their resources for speech borders on the absurd. To say that by filing the papers they have created an extra person is distorting the matter. A group of people assembled in common cause has the right to speak otherwise the very notion of assemblage is meaningless. One voice can be powerful, but a group with the same goal is much more powerful. Look at the Tea Party or OWS. What is the difference between these groups and the corporations? All have a vested interest in the politics and governance of the nation. All are collections of people, that may or may not agree with every single issue, but yet the larger bodies have the ability to speak, to spread their ideas, their goals. If someone does not like what the collective is saying they can leave it and disavow membership and then go about their business.

As far as speech backed by dollars, all speech is backed by dollars. As in everything the time I can take to rail on about an issue depends on my ability to pay for the needs to do so. Whether that is the food and drink to survive, the cardboard to write my message on, the computer and internet access to spread my message across the world, the printing press to make pamphlets, or the access to the radio spectrum to get my voice and image out to the people.

The question you seem to be asking is should groups who pool their resources and create much deeper pockets than any one person can be allowed to use that money for political speech. The answer has to be yes, because to deny that to one group creates an environment where some assemblies of people are more deserving of rights than others. What walks on four legs cannot be better than walks on two legs just because we say it is so.

Again, does the First Amendment apply to a group of people? I would have to say yes, otherwise what good is a peaceful assembly. Therefor it follows that corporations have the rights enshrined such as speech, press, and petition of government. The other rights enshrined speak to the people who make up such an assemblage.

BeOS was more or less dead by the time it even came near Microsoft. I dual booted it along with Win98, and it was a great OS, but Apple both before and after Jobs' return put a bullet it in its brain. They ported to x86 where it eventually died.

So blaming only Microsoft is a little slanted.

Love and Respect.

My wife and I went to a group that discussed successful marriages and the main theme was the difference between men and women. Women love, men respect; so when the woman wants love it can be hard for the man to provide that and vice versa.

It boils down to that when an argument happens the man feels disrectped by the woman's tone or actions and the man reciprocates by being colder and more distant; which further feeds the cycle. One of the example that was given was to take a diet book for example. If the woman gives a man a diet book he doesn't really care, because he doesn't see that as a slight. But that might not be the case if the man gave it to the woman; should could see that as an attack on her appearance, or a rejection of her for who she is right now. But if the woman were to keep pushing the book as opposed to leting the man do what he wanted with it, then that starts to come across as demanding and disrespectful of the man's decisions.

The solution was presented as being the bigger person and realizing whats happening. Saying "I'm sorry. Was what I said unloving/disrepectful?" and then trying to work on those issues. Trying to untie yourself from the cycle and try to discuss it in a calm and loving/respectful way.

The course also talked about the needs of men and women. I found that to be accurate as well. Women need face to face time. If you aren't looking at her, she thinks you aren't paying attention. Men need sholder to sholder time, he may not be talking but he appreciates the company.

The group was a church affiliated group, and the class was based off of http://www.loveandrespect.com/ There are Christian overtones but the basic message was men and women are different, here are ways they are different, and how to handle those differences.

Well Kahless was generated as Kirk thought he should look like. Since Kirk new smooth head klingons, Kahless was a smooth headed klingon.

But when they made the money that was invested they already paid taxes on it.

So if I take my net earnings and then invest them and then pay the taxes on that I'm a bad guy? I paid taxes on my income, then I turned around and used that money in a productive way and paid more taxes. It sounds like I'm a great guy.

So the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights, but the 2nd is a collective right given to a group?

You claim the first clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", overrides the second which states "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So People references militia in this situtaion but when the same clause is used in the 4th amendment it refers to actual individuals?

I'm going to disagree with the notion that the people who enjoyed the right to bear personal arms, who saw such arms used in the defense of libery, would then limit their distribution to a subset of people deemed "the militia"