Lol, no. You're comparing the version of a kernel (Linux) with a distribution or flavour (FreeBSD). Slackware Linux 1.0 was released July 17th, 1993. Yggdrasil Linux was released in 1992.

It's free as in beer. You have it for free when you buy an Apple product, while OEMs actually buy Windows licences, that's the point. Microsoft cannot say that it's free, since they get money from the OEMs, Apple can. It's not hard to understand.

I'm with you on this, however you must be aware that a lot of different species can actually interbreed. It's just that biology is 10% science and 90% fluff.

Sweden is a bit bigger than California, almost 20 times the size of New Jersey. It's also sparsely populated, which should increase cost of infrastructure deployment.

Because the "dictator" was democratically elected, I suppose.

That proves little to nothing. The reason why chimps (and gorillas) are thought to be unable to swim is their buoyancy: a young captive orangutan in a swimming pool is really an extreme case. Factors like water temperature, density and viscosity, not to mention size, depth and shape of the pool (which usually reduce turbulence and waves) compared to a real life river, alongside the fact that captive animals have typically a higher body fat percentage than wild animals (that is they're much less dense) can determine the success or failure of such a test. They should have taken a dozen chimps, thrown them in a muddy river and then see how may survived.

It tends to support more some fringe theories than the mainstream theory and it's written in a slightly misleading way. As an example, the Korean and Japanese languages are generally _not_ included in the Altaic family, while they're overwhelmingly considered isolated languages, but the article fails to emphasize that their inclusion is frowned upon by the experts of both languages. Another fact that is almost overlooked by the article is that many proponents of this language family think that it is a useful classification, but are agnostic about its origin: apart a small hardcore group, most linguists think that the similarities between Turkic, Mongol and Tungusic dialects are adequately explained by their historical proximity and are very dubious about the possibility to even demonstrate their genealogical relations. Here comes the pet theory: the hardcore proponents of the Macro-Altaic language family need the inclusion of some other language to demonstrate that genealogical link, some language that is both old and distant, so to hint at an ancient relation and to discard the idea of a more recent mutual influence; if you can demonstrate that Mongol/Tungusic are related to Japanese and Korean you can say that their relations, not only between those two groups, but even between Mongol, Turkic and Tungusic are probably due to an ancient genesis and not to documented centuries of common life in the steppe. The problem is that none, so far, has given an accepted demonstration of that link, while many have given reasons to believe it's not valid (the more you go back in Japanese and Korean, the more those languages diverge). All these difficulties are overlooked in the article, so to lean toward a Macro-Altaic point of view.

I did a bit of work on the Altaic language page of wikipedia in the past and I can say it's utter garbage, thanks to the pet theory of one user.

Cesium radiated boars were found in northwestern Italy last year(Google translated article), and Chernobyl was blamed. However I still wonder what the cesium levels were before Chernobyl: perhaps it's just that boars are like bananas and tobacco.

From the TFA: "Microsoft's new obstacles in China come as the government reportedly begins ramping up efforts to build the nation's own operating system.".

Oh rly?
Xbox Live Experiencing Issues, PSN Attackers Taking Credit

Well, take a look at these:
https://twitter.com/LizardSquad
http://www.vg247.com/2014/08/25/psn-ddos-hacker-bomb-threats-john-smedley-soe-fbi/

Which was the best in the world at the time and far ahead that of many peoples during the age of conquest.

So NASA spent $1.6 billion for the CRS program, that is for 12 missions [1]. That is $75 million for mission. The payload of the CRS-3 mission, the biggest so far by the way, was 4,605 pounds (the declared maximum is 7,300 lb)[2], in other words $16,200 for pound of payload, including packaging. I'd like to know how does that compare to other space transport services.

The contradiction is that the system is not computable while the model is, that's their reasoning. They know that the model, that is the thesis, is incorrect, otherwise the reductio ad absurdum wouldn't work.