There is NO wording which says what you claim.

There's an ABSENCE of wording that says the inverse, however.

Yeah, you were able to configure Windows8.1 to look and feel pretty much like XP. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Did you require the configuration to be in-the-box with no manual tweaking? or something else?

We were fighting these beetle infestations back in the 70's when we were worried about global cooling. The beetles are not new, their presence is not a result of global warming but rather of our meddling with natural burn patterns for so many years.

In un managed forests a fire sweeps through every couple decades killing off the beetle killed trees and most the beetles in an area, the healthy trees are singed but not really harmed and are thus protected by the killing of most the beetles. In managed forests where we basically stopped all fires as soon as they started, the beetles killed a few trees, then a few more then a lot more and so on. After several years a dead tree might finally fall over allowing new growth to come up in it's place but mostly they just stood as forests of reddish grey dead trees.
Now we try to allow some burns, manage others and intentionally set many management fires each year. But thanks to the decades of mismanagement managed and natural fires are frequently getting out of control due to the massive swaths of beetle killed trees.

Once burned those forests will at last begin to naturally regenerate. Not right back to the forests of standing conifers, but through the natural stages often first of grasses and shrubs then deciduous trees like quaking aspens and scub oak and then over decades back to conifers. Depending on the water cycle in the area. Other areas with more moisture will get back to the conifers more quickly.

Agreed, Looking at the map around where I live. Almost all the pink is the result of fires the last few years. And it takes a while but those trees are growing back. Intentional, accidental or natural wildland fires, they are all recovering nicely, the new growth thriving on the ash enriched soils. It will be decades before the end stage forests that burned return to that point but the natural process is proceeding nicely.

Chinese whispers...

(1) Microsoft adopts MIT license for .NET, a perfectly standard OSS license. Many people leave it at this, but MS additionally makes a "patent promise".

(2) Blog site reads the patent promise, notes that for most use of the .NET OSS you're covered by the patent promise, but there's apparently one particular case (where you write your own alternative .NET runtime/fx that's incomplete) that doesn't appear to be covered by the patent promise.

(3) Slashdot summary makes the leap to say that MS is "undecided about suing" users of its OSS.

(4) Burz makes the leap to say that this is actually "designed to leave you on the hook".

There are quite a few unjustified leaps in there. Burz, I wonder if you'd say the same about all OSS software that's licensed under MIT or BSD but which lacks a patent promise? Because such software would be in an even weaker state from your perspective than Microsoft's OSS .NET.

(disclaimer: I do work for Microsoft, and I did generate some patents for them, and I'm an engineer not a lawyer).

And I for one, welcome our new Lame Aprils Fools day joke overlords!

The "OMG Ponies!" day was the best, but I'm liking the posts so far and found this amusing. If you don't like it, go read something else. It's not an easy task to build a full day's stream of funny.

Here are (only two) benchmark results...
http://browser.primatelabs.com...

Wikipedia says the Atom x7 is an x86 chip
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki...

But with the exception of the very first generation of recipients that is NOT what it was meant to be. It was supposed to be a forced investment towards retirement with a little extra to aid the first generation of recipients. But then congress repeatedly raided that huge stockpile of money leaving it now little more than a vault full of IOU's and turning it into how you described it. But it was not supposed to be the way it is.

If shot straight up yes. But if shot at an angle, that bullet can and likely will retain deadly forward velocity at the end of it's parabolic arch. It's not common but people have been killed by bullets fired into the air.

Actually it's very efficient, if it were a one package for one truck relationship you would be right. But it's actually more commonly a 400+ packages many weighing up to 75 or more pounds (let's see the "efficient drone that can deliver a 60" flat screen TV). And they don't just deliver they usually have a pick-up route as well that can easily equal or surpass the delivery count.

I drove for UPS this last holiday season. Most days I went out with about 400 items and because of my pickup route (they gave me a mostly commercial route) I was often bringing 700 to 800 items in. Many pushing the 75 pound standard limit. Residential routes were going out with 600 to 700 items to deliver and coming back mostly empty. But that was the holiday season. The normal volume is about 400 out and roughly the same in. Every day.

Further it's extremely safe, accidents involving delivery trucks are quite rare considering the number of miles they drive every day, regardless of the weather. Even in heavy snow they are usually able to deliver. Can the drones handle a blizzard or high wind situation a human driving a package car can.

And then there is the sheer volume. And the widely varying weights of the packages. Oh and not all packages are neatly balanced something you have to be aware of when flying with cargo. Balance and shifting contents. A driver can handle a package that has most the weight at one end, or one that has the contents shift with little problem since the package just sits on a shelf in the vehicle until delivery.

Yet the implementation of this aspect of the 1st has very little relation to the wording in the amendment. "Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion." Absolutely nothing about the separation of church and state. Simply that congress shall not try to establish a state religion. or prohibit a religion.

Whereas some try to justify rules and regulations and out right bans on various firearms based on the Well regulated militia clause but there is not much ambiguity to the "The right of the people to keep and bear arms." is pretty straightforward and clear.