Apoc wrote:

Since when am I a liar?

Since you say Vista was a mistake.

Everybody I know hates Vista why? It's unstable, it's slow and it has two useless programs that hate each other and that just messes everything around. But you want to know the one thing I hate, NO BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY!

I'm getting rather annoyed at this questiona and especailly when people start to post maths

Windows went out to make a a OS that failed, but failed at making a failing OS, which is what that sentence means

*sigh*

And for the third time you can't bring maths into logic because they don't mix . You can't just substitute words into algebra, maths just doesn't work that way (unless it's discrete maths).

Ok lets run with how your maths works right?

So:

since a * operator = trying to
the opposite of * is / (divide)
so the "equation" x / x = -x

However something divided by itself is equal to 1 so the equation x / x = 1

Which contradicts the original statement -x * -x = x. This is called Inverse Error

Since when am I a liar?

Since you say Vista was a mistake.

Apoc wrote:

A perfect example of failing to fail is Windows Vista

Since when did Microsoft go to make a OS that failed.

Since they made Vista

Apoc wrote:

A perfect example of failing to fail is Windows Vista

Since when did Microsoft go to make a OS that failed.

Since they didn't do that for a long time.

XP > Vista
W7 > Vista
XP = W7 (???)
-----

Aah, getting too off-topic.
Still, I think everything is right, but the most obvious one is success.
Fail is negative, so call it -x
-x ۰ -x = x, so positive = success, but still I disagree that it's the only solution.

A perfect example of failing to fail is Windows Vista

Since when did Microsoft go to make a OS that failed.

Fail to fail? That means you suck at life! JK. Logically, it would mean you succeed.

Logically you still fail since you failed to achieve your objective