Hey AC, dont worry too much.

You can boot UEFI bios systems into legacy OSes pretty easily with a second stage loader scheme.

Such as GRUB2.

It works in the reverse too-- allowing UEFI expecting OSes to boot on BIOS systems. Since upgrading to a 4tb drive, I had to switch to GPT instead of MBR. I use GRUB2 on the "fake" MBR of the GPT table as the primary loader to satisfy my legacy BIOS's need for a primary boot sector and MBR partition table, and since GRUB2 is GPT aware, it can read the GPT partition table and then chainload the proper bootloader.

Works like a charm.

The real challenge would be getting UEFI expecting OSes that make use of UEFI features after bootup to run on legacy BIOS systems. For that, you need software implementations of UEFI, and those are a pain in the ass.

One way that windows 7 (in particular) slows down, comes from the use of the winSXS folder.

Basically, because the windows software ecosystem is so... Plagued.. with legacy software that expect older versions of system libraries, Microsoft invented a solution to detect those dependencies and satisfy them with those older libaries in a sandbox-- the WinSXS folder.

As time passes, and updates happen, system libraries get updated-- instead of being replaced, they get moved to the winsxs folder and archived. This is so when your bitchy internal-only legacy application that is oh-so-mission-critical that it simply cant be rewritten for a modern OS gets run, it can continue to run.

The downside is that as this treasure trove of old libraries grows, the penalty of the checking routine becomes more and more apparent. (also, it consumes more and more disk space.)

Other forms of slowdown are not specific to windows 7 and newer however.

The registry is a binary file that must be parsed to find entries inside it, and it too can become fragmented. As changes are CONSTANTLY happening to the registry, the (actual) structure of the registry can become more and more byzantine. Since such changes are completely unavoidable with daily use, the slow degradation of this system is also unavoidable unless you boot from a golden image each and every time. This has been a problem since at least the 9x days. Back then, you could automate registry defragmentation with a bootup script because of the complete lack of filesystem security on FAT-- (Tell regedit to dump the registry in its totality into an exported text file, then tell it to rebuild the registry from scratch using that text file dump, then cleanup the temporary files afterwards.) You cant do that with modern flavors of windows because 1) you cant invoke scripts that easily on bootup anymore 2) the registry files are protected with NTFS security descriptors, 3) the OS locks the registry basically as soon as NTLDR finishes, so you cant replace the registry files while live.

There are of course, the other causes of slowdown that come from cumulative misconfigurations that happen from automated updates, but meh.

Even with disk cleanup removing redundancies in the winSXS folder, it can still swell to be over 12gb in size.

A better solution is to turn NTFS compression on for the folder, then defragment the living shit out of it. (NTFS compression causes epic fragmentation.)

You dont want compression turned on as a rule, but when windows is basically warehousing data against an uncertain future, you might as well treat it like a "rarely used, if ever" archival store. The space is more valuable than the access speed in this case.

Just be wary! the compression cycle is very harmful to SSDs, but once compressed, the files dont change, so its fine afterward. Better to do with a disk image on a spinny disk, then port the whole image to the SSD.

Does your other OS hold on to outdated versions of system files for compatibility reasons, like windows 7+ does?

(Note, research the purpose of the WINSXS folder.)

Part of the issue is also that newer versions of windows want to move away from just being an OS, and toward being an entertainment venue all of its own.

That's MS marketing and the UI graphic designers faults though.

Fun little thing to do:

Take a weak kneed intel Atom board, and do some simple office use tests with it with various older versions of windows. Start with NT4, then use Win2k, the XP, then 7, then 8.1. See how the ability to do simple things degrades as the OS expects more and more hardware just to draw the damned UI.

Now, realize that the biggest selling point for new windows versions is NOT a new shiny UI-- but continued security updates. Now you will understand why corporations get bitchy. They have something that works, on the hardware they already have-- but are going to be forced to buy a whole new iteration of hardware, to get updated software that gets updates against security threats-- because otherwise MS does not get money.

If it werent for the lack of security updates, win2k would be ideal for nearly all corporate drone installations.

(Note, there are other useful features that were added with each version of windows, and I am not discounting that. What I am saying is that even with those kernel space and user space feature enhancements, they could have been rolled into service packs for the older products, and you would have had more responsive product overall. The need to reinvent the OS constantly drives the need to constantly make it look different, (to set it apart from its predecessor), which constantly increases the HW requirements. It is pathological.)

Of course not. No one's talking about Youtube's LEGAL obligations here. But it's important to say, "This behavior is unacceptable," and then discuss taking our content elsewhere (Vimeo?).

Youtube isn't hosting videos out of the kindness of their hearts--they get huge chunks of ad revenue, little of which they share with content creators. So, while no one is paying for hosting, Youtube isn't exactly being philanthropic.

I just think about all the folks I've seen who've had their accounts unceremoniously deleted by Youtube due to unspecified "copyright violations." Years' worth of content, gone in an instant (make backups, folks!). Big reason to get "partnered," because then your affiliate network usually has the ability to make Youtube give two fucks. But yeah, building a business on top of Youtube is a bad idea.

I don't think this is so much on Lush, who claims they didn't ask for the URL change. Could be wrong, though.

Full disclosure: Lush bath bombs are the bee's knees.

Ed, is that you?

Actually, in a poll conducted just this last week, 65% of Americans say that NSA surveillance has helped thwart terrorist attacks, and a plurality--49%--say that they believe the benefits outweigh the negatives. So yeah, maybe Americans aren't super thrilled about the fact that the NSA has our dick pics, the same way we're not thrilled that Facebook has licensing rights to all our photos or that Uber tracks our location and uses it to make inferences about our sex lives, but yet, at the end of the day, we're not changing our behavior--neither in the apps that we use nor in the ways that we vote.

Man, I feel dirty linking to the Washington Times, but it was the most recent poll that a two-minute Google search turned up.

McCain isn't running. And if you rule out all Republicans running for President, you're not left with very many prominent Republicans at all...

He really seems to live in his own bubble of self-delusion. The majority of Americans: (1) do not know about NSA surveillance, (2) do not care and (3) have no fucking idea who Edward Snowden is. Just this week, the USA Freedom Act reauthorized these programs, and the only politician who seems to care? Rand Paul, the most hated man in the Senate. I'm sorry, but the consequences of Snowden's leaks have been minimal, and, if the world is saying anything about surveillance, it's not no, it's "Yeah, okay. Whatever."

Okay, so this one had me scratching my head, but I think after reading this analysis, I might have a handle on it:

-This is not a First Amendment issue, but an issue of interpreting a federal statute making threats illegal.

-The issue is not whether a reasonable person would have interpreted what he said as a serious threat.

-The issue is the author's intent, and it matters what the author's intent is, but it's not clear based on the SCOTUS ruling what sort of intent is required to prosecute (actual intent to threaten vs. recklessness--not caring if it was taken as threatening) .

Basically, the long-and-short of it appears to be that SCOTUS just made this shit a hell of a lot more confusing.

Also notable: in 1969 the Supreme Court ruled in Watts v. United States that the following was protected speech:

They contain additional comments, making them transformative in the same way Prince's works were transformative.

From the Answers in Genesis article:

So, before Adam's sin, did animals not eat other animals? Did Tyrannosaurus not only coexist with Adam, but also eat kale? Mighty sharp teeth for peeling a banana, gotta say...