They should also disable the Adobe Download Manager (Adobe DLM). For any of you that have downloaded Adobe Reader 9 (with Firefox) recently, you would have noticed that they make you install a Firefox add-on instead of just linking you to the binary.

It's proprietary and full of ads! Just what I wanted, an extension that checks for updates of my Adobe Reader software. Uninstalled. The Firefox team should send a message. Firefox add-ons are not yours to take over like the Windows startup.

Until metaphysics and prescriptive ethics are generally rejected, I think there are more than enough perils in academic philosophy already.

Your argument only works if we concede and use your definition of "planet". The majority of English speakers don't though.

What scientists decide to consider planets or not is of a categorical nature; it has no bearing on the facts themselves but only on how they can be expressed.

Whether Pluto is a planet is a categorical claim, not to be confused with facts (unless you're just using "facts" very loosely). If you ignore this distinction, you will end up doing metaphysics/mysticism.

Depends completely on CPU/GPU setup. Try putting a HD 4870 card in an old X2 3800+ box, see how that goes. But I guess you've never shipped any games.

*If you play video games.

Maybe, but you're ignoring the value you would get out of your original investment. That's three years you've had a good computer vs. three years with a subpar one. Besides, laptops aren't really what we're talking about, since they cannot fit a decent graphics card.

Missing: ability to play any recent games at more than 30 fps. The Phenom II destroys Athlon 64 X2, and i7 destroys Phenom II. Think about that.

I've heard the bang-for-your-buck argument in favor of Phenom II, but I don't think it holds up when you consider that an i7 (920) setup is only $300-$400 more, will last much longer than a Phenom II, and presently blows it out of the water in CPU-intensive tasks (especially when OC'd). When you spread that money over two or three years, in the long run its a better deal to just upgrade to the X58 chipset.

I don't really see the point of using the term 'analytic' to describe a historical tradition if it's not going to mark a distinction of some kind. Virtually every contemporary philosopher claims to be 'analytic', even if their methods vary wildly. When people start calling Plantinga an analytic philosopher, you know the term has lost most of its meaning. What I'm talking about is the tradition that focuses on analysis, which would include Frege, the Vienna philosophers, Quine, and others. However, my claims may be a bit biased since my department is a top school in history of philosophy and philosophy of religion and only has 3 or 4 professors (out of 25) that are trained to teach 'analytic' topics.

To be exact, you're not getting the same effect. High-impact exercises build bone density. Astronauts who exercise in space lose bone density no matter how much they exercise, and the same is true of people on earth as they get older.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but academia is still tied up with traditional philosophical issues. There are only a few departments in the US that I know of that are mostly analytic. This includes UMich, Pittsburgh, MIT, and Rutgers. I'm sure there are others. The problem is that most people get into philosophy because the "old questions" interest them. Most of the interesting issues in philosophy of science, logic, and language are just not that interesting to people. Most people want to focus on metaphysics, ethics, and other questionable areas.

Even that might be a stretch. In my experience methodological differences divide philosophers as much as they unite them via syllogistic reasoning. The philosopher that rejects metaphysics will reason much differently than those that don't. He will focus on linguistic analysis rather than the study of objects and properties. This is a pretty divisive methodological difference IMHO.