As opposed the fucking scientists, idjit.

Yes, because one would never actually want to read what the experts in any field have to say, but rather go to some blog populated by people who have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.

Me, if I get a tumor, I'm going to go straight to my nearest witch doctor.

The contradiction is due to the cherry picking of data that is the source of this Koch Brothers-bought-and-paid for meme.

That it runs TF2 well isn't saying much. That wasn't very intense when it came out and it is very old. TF2 runs great on integrated Intel cards. Try a game that is a heavier hitter, and uses more modern API calls. Then you'll see issues.

Se what you are really saying is "A problem can be fixed by throwing enough hardware at it." Your GPU and CPU are unimaginably powerful compared to what was available in 2007. So of course it runs well, it could be running at 25% efficiency and still run well because your monitor's scan rate is the limiting factor.

However that's not so easy to do with new games that push the envelope. You can't just throw tons of hardware at them because they are already pushing the high end hardware that is out. So efficiency matters. If the driver is slow, you are going to have poor performance.

Further there is the issue of crashing. AMD drivers seem to have a tendency to 'asplode when you start throwing some of the new features at them. These features are there for a reason, they allow greater detail, more efficient rendering, new visuals, etc. If you can't support them, then that's an issue.

If you want a real test, fire up Metro Last Light Redux, see how that works.

I honestly don't comprehend this. The "Unix philosophy" was always about the toolset, and never, so far as I was aware, applied in such a way to the kernel. Why should it? There are a number of different *nix kernels; from RTOS-types to limited hypervisors to monolithic kernels to microkernels (and hybrids of the two), to compatibility layers running on top of completely alien kernels like POSIX on top VMS and CYGWIN on Windows.

Or, to put it simply, that particular defense of systemd is fucking retarded.

And what exactly would stop me, for instance, from using "non-approved" encryption for, say, my VPN end points?

"Oh that's an old version, we aren't going to patch the bug." Really? That's an acceptable response that something that's 3 years old is too old to patch? But somehow, taking 100 days to patch a product that's 5 years old (in 7's case) is too long? Much easier to deal with patch issues if you just declare you only support the latest greatest and require everyone to upgrade all the time, no matter the issues.

MS's response is particularly understandable given the complexity of doing regression testing on the wide variety of hardware, software, and patch sets the patch might need to be applied against. If they released it and it caused issues, well then people would cry even more about how shitty they were for not testing it.

I think you are right about the mud slinging/political office: What with Chrome books Google now wishes to directly attack MS. They want to make Windows look bad, and thus make their own product look good by comparison. This isn't motivated by being a good citizen, it is motivated by something else.

For that matter one can get all conspiracy theorist and say maybe they chose their reporting date knowing MS's patch cycle to try and create just such a situation.

Reading David Cameron's speech from a few days ago, it drives home just how stunningly ignorant of technology the majority of politicians are. How would one even limit encryption? Ban mathematicians and programmers? The British government, in particular, is being run by possibly one of the stupidest people to ever be in charge of a modern democracy.

It's called BSD, and most of or production servers will be running it this year.

What if I put up a sign in my front yard saying "Fuck the Pope's mother."

Does the Pope have a right to come and punch me in the face?

What if I do it in my house? Does he still have a right to kick in the door and punch me, or gun me down?

Aldrin is a hero, the hoaxer is a very annoying moron. While technically that shouldn't matter, justice should be truly blind, it isn't. Nobody wanted to find Aldrin guilty of any wrong doing, so any plausible explanation was taken to make sure he got off.

And why can't he say it's okay to blaspheme? If Yahweh is all-powerful as he appears to believe, then what possible harm could come from some mere mortal insulting him?

What he should be saying is "Punching people in the nose because they have offended you is evil, and people who believe that is an appropriate response are the most repugnant creatures on earth."

So the consequences of free use of free speech is you get gunned down?

That kinda makes not free.