Ummm I can click anywhere in the glass on Firefox, including the area that fills with tabs and it drags just fine...

"because the current 5mbps level needs to rise to 10-15mbps" I wish I could get 5mbps for less than $100 a month. (up to 5mbps is in fact the fastest I can get if I'm willing to pay ~$165 a month) It's not like I live in the middle of nowhere either, I live in the SF bay area. Car analogy: I'm driving a car built in the 90s and they are telling me their new road won't work until people update their 2000 cars to 2010 cars and I already can't afford a 2000 car due to markups and nobody will sell a 2010 car in my neighborhood anyway.

I had some software that wasn't compatible with the newest version of Java. So I kept running an older version until a couple of weeks ago my Diablo3 account got cleared out and an old yahoo account started spewing spam. After using a clean machine on a different network to change passwords etc, I tracked down the problem to an exploit in the old version of Java I was running. I have since fixed it, but the now the older program I was running that needed Java doesn't work. Also before the fix Firefox seemed to think I had about 7 different versions of Java installed that it could possibly use. (although 6 of them were set to disabled). Additionally Java has one of the more obnoxious auto-updaters for windows around, but that's a complaint for a different post.

Is that because they can no longer use their computer because you replaced their operating system? Or is it because last time they called you for help you did something so horrible that they learned never to call you for help again? Or is it because Linux is so magical that they no longer need help?

Rather than quote XKCD for the funnies, I thought I'd dip a little further back and go for Dilbert instead http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2001-10-25/

While the article has some interesting points I find it very hard to take completely seriously due to some fallacious logic. "For every four Americans working a 50-hour week, every week, there's one American who should have a full-time job, but doesn't." This seems to assume that the cost of another employee working 40 hours a week would be identical to the cost saved by cutting the first four employees down to 40 hours. Here's a few problems with that: Even if you are paying the original employees overtime it's still probably cheaper to keep paying them than hiring/training/providing a desk for/medical etc. Also if you decide you need to cut back a little bit it's much easier to end the overtime than it is to fire somebody (which can be fairly expensive). Finally my previous argument may not even apply since the first four may be salaried and not being paid any extra. All that said the increasingly large number of hours worked by people worries me, I just wish the article didn't stick in little bits like this that don't add up. I at least, find this sort of fallacy incredibly damaging towards the article's credibility.

I was on a jury once and was pleasantly surprised at my fellow jurors' intelligence. Everybody there seemed interested in following the process correctly and to the best of our ability. Our discussions were insightful and I feel the experience was a very valuable one for me.

Thank god it's you!

Not exactly, in the towers game you have 3 stacks and you rearrange the pieces by removing the top of a stack and placing it on the top of another stack. The challenge comes from the following rule: a bigger piece can never be placed above a smaller piece.

I understand how we could determine biological sex of the kids that go with the finger markings but I'm not really sure how we determined gender... http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

So instead of shaking down small business for $50 (or $500 or whatever) for a cert we now shake them down for 5 times that instead? If the CA aren't doing their jobs I'm pretty sure we shouldn't reward them by require requiring companies to hire them five times instead of just once.

Yo dawg, I heard yo' liked scrollin' so I got yo' mouse a mouse so now yo' can scroll, while yo' scroll.

Umm... HOV lanes increase congestion by reducing the number of available lanes for most drivers while rewarding the environmentally conscious ones with a special no/limited congestion lane. If you go to http://www.epa.gov/oms/ld-hwy.htm and scroll down to High Occupancy Vehicle Exemption Proposed Rule you may notice that it's the EPAs website and that it talks about pollution not congestion. I am curious to know where your idea that it was about congestion came from though.