The Dean

Avira's free version uses the exact same engine, and virus definitions, as their paid product. Same for Avast, I believe. The paid versions add more bells and whistles, usually a firewall, email scanner, etc. If you look at an independent AV testing site like AV Comparatives, you will see Avira's detection and cleaning rates are consistently among the highest of all tested AV products (typically it is top 3). To make this even more impressive, Avira typically chooses not to use their most recent version, but rather their old version for testing. (Avira's current version is 10, but the tests use version 9.) In the most recently published results (August 2010) for On-Demand Scanning and Detection, Avira received a grade of "Advanced +) and it detected 99.8% of the malware being tested. (Avast also received "Advanced +" and detected 99.3%.) http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_od_aug2010.pdf This is just one example of an AV test. They also have a "Retroactive/Proactive" test. The past test in May, Avira again received "Advanced +" and had better detection rates than McAfee, Norton and most other AV products. And, remember, this is using the out of date Avira product. http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report26.pdf Now there is more to an AV than simply these tests results. Avira free has an updating issue at times, because all the free users are competing for limited server access. This usually happens when there is a very big update and usually only lasts a day or two. It also shows one popup a day (after updating) hawking it's paid version. Anyway, without getting too deep on this, Avira and Avast are fine products and better than nearly all paid AV products. ESET Nod32 is a very good paid AV and GData is getting good reviews, but I have yet to use it. Same for Sunbelt's VIPRE. McAfee is total garbage. Norton isn't that much better, though it has improved from a couple of years ago. Still I would steer clear.

Screw 'em.

You could bottle the stupidity in this thread and make a WMD.

But was the dope the reason for the accident? I'm thinking he may have munched a few Neon Carrot crayons before getting behind the wheel. (The florescents are the worst, I hear.) Do they test for that yet? They should. Are you hopped up on florescents? Because it sounds like you are all hopped up on florescent crayons.

Crayons?

He won't be there for any other pick.

I've done the first part.

You may be missing my point. I never asserted that only whites were racist. I was saying it is typically whites who claim racism no longer exists, or who dismiss any suggestion that race plays a factor in our society. Racists come in all colors. As to Luck vs Newton, I think Luck is one of the very few QBs that comes to the NFL with very little risk of being a bust. He could get hurt, of course. But I don't think this is a guy who you worry about making the transition to the NFL. He may not end up being the best QB in the league, but I'm fairly certain he will be a quality NFL starter. It's rare I have that kind of certainty about any college player, and even rarer when it is a QB. Newton is the most talented of any QB to come out in years, IMO. He's FAR ahead of where Tebow was last year, with better QB skills, IMO. But as has been noted, he has only really performed at this level for one year. I don't think he has ever had the opportunity to face a team twice. He hasn't had the opportunity to deal with much adversity as a player. The transition time might be a bit longer for him, and he enters the draft with some risk. Still his upside is enormous. If he comes out and is still on the board when the Bills draft, I'd be thrilled if they picked him.

How could they leave ME off that list?

Of course not. But do you think the majority of those who don't think he is a franchise QB hold that belief because he is white? Irish? Has a beard? I have no problem with the correction, but I don't think many Hispanic or Black people think racism is dead. They know it isn't.

Like I said, a mook (your friend, that is). Compared to some places I have lived (specifically Long Island and here in Florida) Buffalo doesn't seem as racist to me. But let's be very clear. Racism is very alive and thriving in the USA despite what many (white people) may think.

I don't think that's snobbery (although demanding a cicerone may be, not that there is anything wrong with that), that's just good sense. It also extends to other kinds of establishments. There is a local sports bar. 15-20 TVs, all the sports packages. Whenever I go in to request a particular game (Sabres, for example) nobody knows how to use the DTV schedule, program the TVs, etc. WTF?

Correct...for the most part. Of course there will be some mooks who will boo more quickly, or perhaps never cheer for a QB, simply because of the amount of melanin in his skin. But other than that, there is no reason to think a black QB won't be accepted in Buffalo.

I don't see how this is relevant to the conversation. Some guy wrote a song about Maybin and Maybin put it on his website. What a jerk! When I think of "put up or shut up", I'm thinking a guy is complaining, mouthing off, etc. As far as I know, Maybin has sucked, but he hasn't mouthed off in any way. I don't get the "shut up" part.

I understand the "put up" part. It is overdue. But I don't get the "shut up" part. Has he been jawing somewhere?

In a heartbeat. If he or Luck are available when the Bills draft I would have no problem with them taking either. Newton is a monster! My only real concern is how he will handle professional success. But I think he has what it takes to play the game at a very high level, in the pros. I also agree he should sit a year or two. But I think just about every rookie QB should sit a year or two.

My suggestion would be to drink. Or smoke. Or both.

She wasn't allowed. Your parents/grandparents and you were.

Crayons has a new handle? Never get into an legitimate exchange with Crayons.

Thanks for the props. I used this avatar a long time ago, but it was time to break it out again. And you are correct. Price does not equal quality, in wine or just about anything else for that matter. There are prestige brands that command a big premium based on things other than quality/taste. Typically wine investors/collectors and serious snobs who have to have the latest/most expensive/hottest thing. As with cigars (among other things) I look to the ratings of the pros, sometimes those of consumers and look to my favorite vendors for input. In the end though, it's all about what you like. If you find a good rating source that you usually agree with, but even more importantly understand, it can be very valuable. And, by "understand" I mean this: After reading reviews from some sources, I usually have a good idea if I will like the product (cigar, movie, wine, etc) irrespective of whether they loved it or simply liked it (it's tougher if they hate it). If they are good at their job, and if I understand their taste, I can usually translate that to my taste. As a (now) poor schmuck, I rarely drop over $20 on a bottle I haven't that I haven't researched a bit, unless a trusted shop keeper, or friend with similar tastes, really raves about it. I'm rarely burned these days. At the lower end, it's a bit dicier...but fun. So you buy a bottle for $7 and it isn't that good. Big deal. It's it's really good, it's a BIG DEAL!

I like their draft beer site. It has links to the brewery and the Beer Advocate rating page. I notice they don't have Newcastle listed. I'd be surprised if they don't carry it. They do have Samuel Smith's Nut Brown Ale, though. That's a great beer with food, IMO.

That's very true at the lower end and somewhat true for average priced wines. You can find terrific wine at a low price point, but it's rolling the dice if you don't know what you are doing. You can also pay $20 or more for some very average wine. Typically though, at the higher end, you know the wine will be good, especially if you are familiar with (and like the wine from) the brand/winemaker. Whether it's worth the high price tag is another issue...but the wine will almost always be good. Top wineries and winemakers are pretty careful to not release bad wine.

I have had legitimate shine two or three times. The only time I actually enjoyed it, I was visiting my sister-in-law and nieces/nephews at their house at top of a long dirt road that bordered on the Smoky Mountains (Cataloochee) in NC. One of the neighbors was an old-time shiner. It was probably about 130 proof, I imagine. Rough for sure, but it actually had flavor. I'm sure the experience helped the experience, if you get my drift.

Ah. Now it makes sense. I really wasn't paying any attention to the time (other than game time, that is).