Movie "Sucker Punch" ridden with Illuminati mind control symbolism.

Yesterday I read an article my girlfriend showed me about a movie she saw which someone on YouTube pointed out subliminally alluded to the Illuminati's MKUltra Monarch Mind Control. She gave the article a read-over and I did too, and decided it was worthy enough to dedicate a full blog post to.

Here's the link: http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/sucker-punch-or-how-to-make-monarch-mind-control-sexy-7-2/

I may place a new focus on the concept of drawn-out explanations of full shows', movies', games', companies' and industries' Illuminati-symbolic meanings. Many of these findings will also be routed to Complete List of Illuminati Symbolism when I find time.

Thanks for reading.

MW3 Infection Sucks: Get rid of throwing knives.

Animal-like speed, senses, reflexes and CQC characteristics are staples of the zombie strategy. Survivors have culturally been known for having ranged weaponry with limited ammunition. What makes the zombie concept fun is assaulting a team in hordes and having the agility to dodge gunfire while quickly closing the gap on your targets, striking too swiftly for them to resist or escape. Survivors meanwhile should focus on how to keep zombies from closing said gaps while conserving ammo and sticking together.

MW3's Infection mode gives zombies throwing knives, which breaks the CQC rule and allows them to take out survivors instantly from a respectable distance. This doesn't pan out well because zombies, being disposable in large numbers, can get an angle on the survivors' holdout and start off every life by pot-shotting with throwing knives until they kill someone - which isn't hard to do at all.

There's not much else to say. Most matches I played in MW3's Infection ended with zombies slaughtering survivors each round; it was hardly a contest. The throwing knives were the problem. In fact, zombies would often chuck their knives right from the outset and kill survivors before they could organize themselves on the other side of the map. This is not how Infection should be played. But why should anyone be surprised? The game mode was a blatant afterthought; the rest of the game was recycled garbage from MW2.

L4D2 got the zombie projectile concept down and functional. Smokers and Spitters couldn't snipe survivors because they required CQC to maximize ranged damage.

Leave Infection mode to the developers that know what they're doing; we'll leave the copy-paste garbage with you, IW.

Arrogant New Ageists

Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of very nice and open-minded New Ageists. It's just the ones riding the ego-blimp I can't stand. We can all agree any belief has its members with a mind's eye resembling an asshole sphincter - opening to shit on everyone, and closing to everything inbound. Occasionally they fart out their opinions loudly where they don't belong, and when disdain's publicly expressed in response, Arrogant_Fuckhead01 pretends it wasn't his idea.

Actually though, the stronger-willed ones are what really irritate me, because you can't piss them off, or toy with their emotions, or easily make them walk into their own logical flaws. This often happens with fortunately calm, intelligent people who use both in defense of an unfortunately illogical stance. Just what we need - convincing people expatiating bullshit. No matter what's 'right' about an argument, they always have to put their fuck where their fuck is unwanted by finding everything wrong with everyone else's views but doing the exact opposite with their own - because proactively putting your foot down on others' toes shows them who knows their shit, right? When you corner them, they just kinda stand there, Stonewall Jackson, never admitting defeat (even when they know they're wrong,) and seldom reaching out to understand others' views sincerely. If it can boost their reputation and sustain their zeppelin ego, they'll do it, man - rock out the 16 alternate accounts and make it appear everyone loves you so dearly. It's like they're 12-year-olds using spirituality as an expression of over-inflated self-importance built up by the influence from the anime, videogames and movies they're overexposed to. "I must be cool, calm, and sound like I know what the fuck I'm talking about, because that's what Cloud Strife does, and Master Chief, and all the other cool, important, non-fiction people I look up to."

Don't confuse this with steadfast calmness coming from an open-minded individual who's simply stating their firmest convictions but without the edge of ego. I have the fullest respect for people following this manner, because even if they're wrong, I've been there and know what it's like. As long as you're not being an ego-shit, I'm generally cool with you, you know?

...And this is exactly what chased me off boards like David Icke's Forums and Godlike Productions, eventually settling in YouTube comment sections where I could find the most open-minded people to trade ideas with, ironically. There are assholes there too, but it's more tolerable somehow when each BLAAAHHFUCKYOU comment's contained to 500 characters maximum. Forces them to leave out all the excess expletives that initially added up to some 1500+ characters before they finished ranting.

You know what I think?... Well you might not care, but I'll care so you don't have to, and say it anyway. I think these particular New Ageists are just religious radicalists blinded by this arrogance fueled by self-acknowledging a status as 'awakened to the truth' and above 99% of the world while everyone else is considered 'dumb fucking sheeple', just the way most of them are taught to think. When you question them, they sometimes take this attitude of "Isn't it obvious?" and tell you that's how it is, that's how it is. When you ask them about other matters, you usually get, "Meditate and the answer will arise," and, "You will know when you are meant to." It's absurdly reminiscent to religion and government, never giving you a straight answer and almost always offering an excuse not to concern yourself searching for the answer to your questions, like it'll just happen upon you at some point in the future, so "don't worry, don't bother with it." It's a somewhat euphemistic way of saying you're not in control of your fate. Which I don't buy, and never will. But they act as if it should be a self-evident knockout punch, and if you don't 'get it', clearly you didn't believe hard enough. Otherwise, you may as well go worship the religion of Fuk'Awf.

The nature of weaker-minded spiritualists is noted by frequent runs (like chronic diarrhea) to the nearest website on spirituality to perform routine emotional airstrikes on the 'Spiritual Truth' forum with claims broader than the obese Americans around me as to how reality really works - because they're the world's rightest person for about five minutes, until someone else finishes their 26-paragraph thread, 1,500 characters each, on another seemingly entropic version of reality's workings.

Some New Ageists - or conspiracy theorists, or spiritualists, or religious individuals, or even atheists for that matter - don't seem to understand that echoing extravagant 'truths' about our government or spiritual reality doesn't suddenly, consequently dismiss them from being imprisoned by any of the media-programmed macros in the average human's thought process. But it's that assumption which seems to form the feeling they're incontrovertibly right while maintaining total blindness to the reality of being as much affected as the rest of us. There's no slavery greater than the one convincing us we're free.

Of course, anyone questioning them's obviously a part of the machine and either too blinded to 'get it', or you're hiding yourself from the 'connected dots' and 'sense' of it all to avoid the 'truth' and generate continuity in your 'operations'. I can see this turning into a genocide. I really can.

Seeing how some of these spiritualists exhibit religious behavior sort of leaves me sickened, wanting to go back to eating the media's bullshit than trying to hold hands with spirituality when it's become grounds for crazed self-importance in a world where the imagined possibilities are just too close to reality on our HDTVs despite the boring, limited lives we often live.

I suppose it doesn't matter in the end. It's not like arrogant New Ageists are any worse than violent Muslims and homophobic Christians.

Why Facebook will never have a 'Dislike' button.

I keep seeing people complaining FB needs an Dislike button.

What people don't understand is, a Dislike button would give popular kids within groups of school friends the ability to harass particular, unpopular or misfit kids by stalking their profile and Disliking all of their content. This could potentially result in increased suicide rates, school shootings, blackmail, damaged and severed relationships, general crime and chaos, and parents suing Zuckerberg as a result. Some people build their careers around FB... you can imagine the destructive power of a Dislike button.

FB's better off as it is now, where the absence of Likes indicates fewer people like it, but without the frostbitten statements of disapproval - let alone where everyone can see them.

"You can't hit me, I'm a girl!"

^ That's a good example of something wrong with the world: women combating sexism with sexism and blacks fighting racism with racism, among many other examples of hypocrisy of the likes - because fire extinguishes fire, of course. "Your ancestors mistreated mine! Watch out, Cracker Jack honky bitch!" And of course it's wrong to say "Nigger!" back. There's really nothing a whitie can respond with, actually - like, what, apologize for my ancestors? This isn't the Bible; I can't be fucked to apologize for something I didn't do.

I seriously doubt that'll blow my mind away.

But it's okay for blacks to toss it around and women to hit men, so white dudes are getting chewed out for shit our ancestors did both ways. I don't care about the privilege to use "Nigger" in front of a black person; it's one word my social vocabulary can survive without. What bothers me is when a white person who clearly isn't racist puts the word out in harmless context, and suddenly every black friend of his shits him out in assorted chunks of white meat in the women's wall-mount latrines (because women have penises) while Deyquan can shout it along 8 Mile where nobody has a 9th mile to give about it.

That's because everyone knows blacks aren't being racist when they use it. Context, context. Am I racist for using the word in this article? No, I wouldn't use it to anyone's face, but we all know that instantly makes me a pussy. More profiling, more fun! I'm sexist and racist for my ancestors and a pussy for being peaceful. Because violence is good - until you hit a woman, but even if you haven't, you're the reason your grandfather hit his wife Luann.

So if you asked me, the top picture's sexism 'justified' behind a front of historic abuse. Incensed women protest for equal rights, then claim their gender has an unspoken immunity to male aggression - which doesn't work vice versa. This, and the frequent "All men are full of shit!" and it's obvious to me this is no different than blacks administering 'equal rights' by returning the racial hatred against a generation of white folk who had no involvement with their families' previous racial conflicts. It's happened to me before, I know what this is.

There's also religion. I know the most about Christianity, so I pick bones with the rib-woman concept of Eve while Adam, a man, is a full-bodied individual. I won't ignore other religions' misogynistic implications though, like polygamy and male dominance, and my girlfriend's Nepali Hindu family. Her father claims men are perfectly pure while women 'stain like ink on a white sheet', where everyone knows the 'wrong' they do because they're so 'easily dirtied'. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. (I like to argue their culture's men aren't so 'easily dirtied' because they're already full of shit.)

Women don't have it quite as easy as men. I'll admit it. I know it's much easier in the U.S. but it can still be kinda bothersome to know your gender's the poster child for sex as a whole. The bullshit comes full-circle in more rings than the Olympics logo: Porn, religion, mainstream rap music, and public sexualism are just four of them. It's extended into football and alcohol, both being objects of male interest, so naturally women are used with both to grab men's attention easier. Marketing sex is perfectly fine in my eyes, until it starts unhealthy trends - then we've opened the gateway to imbalanced treatment toward a group of people. In this case, the audience most targeted, affected or produced by sexualized ads seem to be the misogynistic ones. Reminds me of a recent American Apparel ad featuring gay couples kissing, which I had to smile at, because the influence is positive: accepting gays as they are.

Surely you've noticed the criticism the average American male shares for the shape of a woman's body, demanding hourglass figures with fake tits and the whole deal. Well, word to women: Only the fake dudes want a fake woman. So be proud of that body and don't let the assholes convince you the nice ones don't exist. But don't act like bitches to every one of us too; that just creates more assholes out of otherwise nice guys. Likewise, you assholes need to let up on the women, 'cause you're helping increase the population of bitches. A vicious cycle... another full circle, another ring.

Here's a conflict of maturity: I laugh at discriminatory jokes, because I take'm as jokes. But some people think they're actually serious, and either get offended or follow by example. That's what bothers me about these 'jokes' now... I can't be sure who's being affected in what ways anymore. It's sad. I'm concerned that after enough people claim, "It's just a joke, I'm just kidding," everyone will use that as a grounds for discriminatory treatment. It only looks innocent on the surface.

Because women are nothing more than the rib of a man.

If you doubt it's a realistic prediction, have a look at religion using innocent excuses for all the shit they do and believe. They just say their loving God told them to do it. "Our righteous, fair Lord God commands you to treat women second to men."  The bad part is, you can't reason with them by asking why, because they'll pull the God-works-in-mysterious-ways card, and, "True faith doesn't ask why." So it's horrible the Nazis never questioned their duties, but it's alright to unquestioningly kill others for some fundamentalist wolrdview, like Nazism wasn't something similar to that. "Our all-loving, all-forgiving, righteous and fair Lord God says Muslims and Hindus are idolators; that's why we killed them. It was for a good cause! Don't they get it?" Yeah: You might deserve to fucking die if you aren't sorry for it. But instead, we should all be sorry for Adam and Eve eating the Forbidden Fruit even though we didn't do it, right?... Just like blaming all men for women's past conflicts, and all whites for Jim Crow. I didn't do that shit. You can't fix what isn't broken, so blame the people perpetuating that bullshit, not me.

Sitting on blame and just pointing fingers won't solve anything by itself though. Back to fire vs. fire, blacks beating the shit out of the problematic whites will only prove those whites are right when they 'niggrify' blacks as violent, unintelligent people. Remember Martin Luther King Jr? He nailed it. And then he proved he was right when he succeeded. Same with Rosa Parks, and she was a woman, man, she had it twice as bad.

I get it. Only pussies drink Budweiser.

But some people are fixated on everyone in a certain gender, or color, culture, etc. being all the same. I don't shed a tear of sympathy for anyone looking at it that way. I'll hit a black woman if in defense for myself or another. I'll also hit a white male to defend a black woman. I'm more likely to go off on a white dude than a black woman, to kinda honest. But if I'm expected to let myself get beat to shit and be taken advantage of because I'm a white dude myself... well... maybe I'm the one who should be protesting instead.

You shouldn't have to fear God.

I'm a non-religious spiritualist. I'm not involved in any institutional belief including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.

                                                                                                                                                      

It's wrong for the sinful, imperfect creations of a 'perfect' God to hit their children for refusing to return their love, but it's okay for an infinitely patient, benevolent, forgiving and loving God to burn his 'beloved children' for eternity for the same reason.

This is obviously an allusion to Christianity and related beliefs. I mention that because that's where the idea of 'fearing God' sprang up.

So to those people, I go on to ask if, in any healthy relationship with anyone they love - anyone - they feel there should be fear. That goes for parents, children, siblings, friends, best friends, soul mates, brothers-in-arms, and any other kind of relationship established on the grounds of trust, open hearts, freely giving, and unconditional love, all in the best interest to protect and ensure the best for those subject to said feelings.

When they say "No," case dismissed. I've nothing to argue. But when I get a "Yes," it bothers me profusely. So I ask "Why?" I always get a conglomerate of responses adding up to something like, "You should fear God the way you fear authority, like you feared your parents as a child. Fear is necessary to protect you, because they know what they're doing and don't expect you to interfere. Just as fear is necessary to survive in the wilderness, to run from threats."

I understand where someone's coming from with this. But I've noticed it's usually carried on the minds of those raised under harsh parenting, where hitting a child was justified on, "Because I love you." And being children, we don't usually question what we're told. So we come up with things like this steam-pressed onto our mental chalkboard into adulthood, where the dogma's recycled on the children of those adults. "That's how my parents raised me, so that's how it should be, and my own children won't have it any other way." I would know, my girlfriend's parents came up under Hindu culture and that's a rule of parenting where they're from: strike fear into your children to ease the parenting process. (Rather than lovingly guide them and treat them with the respect you're expected to treat anyone else.) Notice, they're Hindu. Striking fear into one's children is acceptable because their gods do the same. As with Christianity, "God does it, so as a godly parent, I shall follow by example." Notice the ties to religion. Goes full-circle back to fearing God originating with religion. It passes down through children via parenting through fear hosted onto the belief systems which are drilled into childrens' minds before they're of age to question it. These are the same people who've garnered impossible magnitudes of bloodshed through religious wars in name of fearing a 'loving' God. Because bloodshed resultant of outright denial of others' perspectives is loving, right?

I've been through all the mills online arguing with the dogmatic, whether theistic or not. Yes, even atheists have had this problem, and it's usually rooted on mainstream science and the idea of survival; "In nature, fear is naturally used to avoid harm. Thus, to avoid harm to my child, I raise him under fear. I raise him to fear the world, and I moreover raise him to fear me, because if he doesn't listen to me, I'll give him something to be afraid of." Because that's more intelligent than raising your child to calmly focus, maintain self-control, and rationally analyze the best solution to avoiding a potentially dangerous situation. Right?

If fear is designed to avoid harm by means of running from said threat or retaliating against it, why should I fear God? How can I become closer to a God whom I'm expected to run from or retaliate against?... Or does God intend to harm me? "He will, if you don't fear Him." But why? "Don't ask questions, you'll burn in Hell. Surely you're afraid of that!"

We don't need to be afraid to avoid harm when we can rationally react to dangerous situations instead. We don't even need fear to react impulsively. We don't need fear at all, period. Ever. Fear's saved people, granted. So has pure coincidence. So has embracing lies. So have so many other systems of thought which a thinking human knows isn't right. How many times has fear killed people who reacted on fearful impulse instead of steadfast, rational quickness? Panicking, crashing into things, self-injury hand-in-hand with collateral damage, stabbing oneself into that sharp outcropping their adrenaline-clouded mind didn't process, or falling off that ravine that wasn't there, or running in front of a moving vehicle that seemed stationary in the only instance you consciously noticed it... These instances don't save people, man.

Getting verbally and mentally defensive with someone results of fear. This causes problems in peoples' relationships, the physical catastrophes in the previous paragraph just happening on a mental level. Running from your problems by avoiding the person who 'threatened' you. Angrily and/or hatefully making impulsive remarks and outlashes from those dark emotions which you wouldn't've said in your rational mind. "I hate you!" when, you actually love them. "I wish I'd never met you! Never speak to me again!" when, you wouldn't know what to do without them. "Fuck you!" when you've nothing more constructive to say.

It's this understanding of fear which is why I feel fear can never be used as grounds for love. Fear is weakness... as I see it. And I believe that's how it truly is. I believe fear's the root of all evil, including the 'sin' religious individuals dread.

My stepmom's mentally fucked.

This post is totally off the norm for what I usually post on here, so if you're looking for conspiracy theory and spirituality, check the blog index in the right-hand panel and don't waste your time with this one.

My stepmom never seems to think of anyone but herself. I could go up to her and actually comment nonchalantly on how her head's shaped like a dick and that's probably where it's all gone to if she hasn't found hers since after she hit 250 lbs. decades ago before I met her. She absent-mindedly bumbles around, muttering pointless shit irrelevant to anyone but the devout gossipers of her degree - nobody else I've ever heard of. But what always leaves me pissed is her treatment toward my dad and I, like we're literally retarded. No, literally, you don't understand, this woman's not right. I've been charged with handling the trash the past eleven years, and, well... she feels she has to... reexplain... the process... every time... I take it out. "Honey, I need you to pull the handles out, remove the trash bag, tie it up, replace the liner, and take the old bag to the garage because it's smelly and smells bad and, whoa, it stinks up this place." Thanks, Mom. And, look - it's not as if this happened once and I just got pissed, like, "Hell nah, blog this shit!", it happens every single day. With everything she asks of me. Everything. Every morning, you'd think I was asking unspoken questions. How do I change my shirt, Mom? "Pull your arms through the sleeves and lift your dirty, dirty shirt off and leave it in the hamper." Christ. If 'birds of a feather flock together' like she says, I think she just pretends to see herself in us since nobody else is stupid enough for her to fit in with. Must also be the reason she acts like we're sharing her experiences at any given moment. She's cold, so we should wear coats. She's hungry, so we should eat. She's tired, so we should sleep. She needs to shit? I need to shit! I farted, did she fart? "Noooo, honey, I don't fart." Did you clog the toilet? "Noooo, I'd never do that." She loses her cell phone often, so my dad suggested gluing it to her ass because she talks so much shit. In chunks and pieces. Reminds me of a favorite line from nights of prank-calling with a Duke Nukem soundboard: "Your face, your ass, what's the difference?"

Don't get me wrong, I know I'm talking a lot of shit myself here. But that's the thing. I've been nice to her. She gets mean when her immature projections of conditional love don't reel in rewards of some kind. And the saddest part is... she often doesn't mean harm or offense because she just does it subconsciously... so she never sees the wrong in her actions. All these years of trying to help and explain it to her doesn't connect at all. So what'm I supposed to do? I can't be mad at her because she didn't mean it, I can't tell her to stop because she isn't hurting anyone, I can't intrude on her right to speak her thoughts, but I can't fucking stand her endless noise.

But I think she says all these random, pointless things and plays 20 Questions every time she sees us not because she cares, but because, again, she only thinks of herself. How do I know?... Well, when her questions go ignored, she usually doesn't ask again. It's like she never asked. When I ask why she wanted to know, she shrugs. No rhyme, no reason. Just said it for noooooo fucking reason at all. If it's any help, her questions are as hollow as her statements: "Were there very many kids walking home from school while you were out shopping at Food Lion?" Oh, yeah! I went to Food Lion to play a pedophiliac gangster, I remember now! "Was the cashier nice?" Oh, of course she was. "Was she black?" But I don't know anyone in living memory who fucks a give about the shit she fucks gives about. I might be slightly lydsexic timesomes.

When she makes us dinner, cleans the bathroom and does the laundry and dishes, unbelievably, I think she's only thinking of herself. I know this because her absent-minded, immature little self gets mad when we want to do it ourselves. The average, intelligent onlooker absorbing the meaning of my words here (unlikely) would probably quip it's because she feels inadequate in our eyes when we want to take over her self-assigned roles of service which she prides on and performs skillfully without second thought. But if you knew her as I did, you might rather find it's because she wants control, for my father and I dependent on her to do these for us and moreover feel indebted to her on top of these personal feelings of inadequacy I already have for being 19 and not serving my own food each night. The other worry she has is, we're retarded and wouldn't do it right. I can't fix a sandwich without apparently snuffing the heater pilot, flipping the bathtub upside-down, flooding the toilet, cutting my hand off with a perfectly-cut dick-shaped shard of the guest-bathroom's mirror, then using that to smash the neighbor's windows and set the garage up in an oil fire - with no oil. There's just no reason for her paranoia. I don't think she even realizes she's doing it. She already has power as it is; we don't know what she puts in the food, cleans our clothes with, or what fuckery her choice of dishwasher detergent does to our food-ware.

We're not worried she'd pull a smartass move, but make a dumbass mistake. Gets drunk every time she makes dinner. Would you want some drunk, absent-minded fuck trying to measure how much oil to add to the pan under how much heat with what amounts of whatever exotic spices she throws in there? Plus she wastes our money on food we don't need or ever eat - not that we can, because it's all for her cooking. So, why not - give us food poisoning, stomach abscesses and burn the house down in one sitting. Maybe she'll burn too from all that wine - she's already going to Hell anyway.


Of course, my dad and I will be blamed because we're men. "Its bcuz shes a woman, n u treat her lke shyt! phuck!!!!1!1!1!!111!1111" Yeah, believe it. You must be sexist yourself if you're gonna jump to those kinds of conclusions.

Maybe later I'll come back and add some qualms about my dad.

R.I.P. Steve Jobs, Apple Co-Founder

October 5th, 2011 - Steve Jobs has passed away due apparently to a long-fought battle with pancreatic cancer.

Steve's best known as Apple's co-founder and thus the inventor of the iPod, iPhone and iPad. This dude revolutionized mobile technology and is also known as the mind behind the Macintosh PC operating system for Apple's less-portable machines.

As it may be known, he's been Bill Gates' nemesis in the computer industry, and if it weren't for this guy, Microsoft may never've conceived Windows. We have Steve to owe for much of what Microsoft does these days, or neither company might've lasted. Of course, as Windows overwhelmingly outsold Mac, Apple turned to more inventive technology - the various i-products we love these days.

I'm not massively educated in the whole deal between Jobs and Gates, but I know they've had suing rounds in the past over copyright infringements with respect to the ideas used in their operating systems.

I've never been a fan of Macintosh or iPod. They're well-made but not my niche, nor my style, and with some crucial flaws in the operating systems, I've avoided them in favor of using my Rumor Touch for music and phoning purposes. I've also always felt Apple's tried to make more money off its clientele than it needed, with overhyped re-releases of old technology with a minor bump up from their predecessors and ill durability. While I've passed up on iPod, Windows has been my operating system for power computing and probably always will be for the while they maintain their current way of doing things. Perhaps with Jobs' passing, Mac can surpass Windows one day. That's not an insult to Jobs; he did what he did well and he appealed to the mobile market better than the desktop industry, but perhaps Tim Cook will play differently.

Jobs resigned to chairman status and put Cook as the CEO of Apple back in August when his health complications were beginning to take uglier turns. This perhaps was due to knowing the Apple stock could crash if he died as the CEO himself. He saw his death coming, it's just a shame he had to die at 56 with as much access as he should've had to medical technology in overcoming his ills with the kind of bank account he must've had. But then, he was loyal to Apple, after all those decades and such a loyal following, and probably didn't want to draw too much funding from what could be used for the company's survival. These are trying times, after all. The economy's looking like shit and it's getting worse. Surely Jobs was aware of this.

He also had a unique way of looking at things. I know he's made a few intelligent statements that could change peoples' outlooks on how things should work. The one I remember best is when he told his team back in the 80's, I believe, that if they could cut down Mac's boot time by just five seconds, and multiply those five seconds by x number of boots multiplied by the number of machines sold, they could spare many lifetimes' worth just in the form of quicker boot speeds. Basically, the construction of an operating system from 0's and 1's became a full-blown task to save millions of peoples' lives. I thought it was a brilliant way to motivate his team.

A pain will be felt in this man's passing.

Of course, perhaps he didn't die after all... Perhaps, he only stepped out to develop the iHeaven. He'll be back, no worries...

...We only wish...

                                                                                                                            

Apple's changed over the years...

iPod's changed...

And then we had the iPad...

Let's hope Tim knows what he's doing.