That is somewhat along the line of "If I shoot him first, he can't shoot me."

There are already things hindering the customers to place their PC directly with their back to the walls. One is called cables, the other one is called convenience. Who wants to crawl under their desk to turn the PC on or to attach / detach an USB flash drive? Thus a PC is more often then not aligned with the front of the desk, with more than enough space towards the wall.

So I call BS on the "regular PCs heat up because of walls and thus we introduced this case design".

Even though risking to feed a troll:

Please elaborate why Java is a "slower language before we even start",
why you think java is single threaded (in Java multi-threading is really comfortable, and no libraries needed),
why you say there is no optimization (the JIT compiler DOES optimize the code),
where your "good logic" is, when there are numerous buffer overflows and similar problems regularly found in important C / C++ code,
and why you are thinking you would be forced to use any library? (of course you can reinvent the wheel for the thousands time with the same errors)

Have you ever seen real benchmarks between Java Code and C / C++ nowadays? It doesn't seem so.

And what are you referring to with '"easy" amature programming' and "fast food alpha"?

That is why it's called "management" and not "solving", "empowering" or "understanding".

This is no slippery slope, this is utter nonesense! If facts stated about your are wrong, you let your lawyer send a letter, that the author has to remove or change the information. They will comply if it's reasonable, if not one can escalate and go on trail.

Long strory short: In Europe you already have means against someone unrighfully diffaming you. No need for censoriing.

I don't have the time to go to every news page and look through if something new and important was written. So I still use RSS. I want the information come to me, not to chase it.

My project is in a really early state (no customer - problem fit) as I haven't had the time to invest lately. Feel free to drop me a mail (next-reader@gmx.net) If you want to get updates or want to help me find out what current "problems" with readers and information acquiring in general you have. :) *sorry for slashvertising*

No, it doesn't.

What the quote states is like "because you can't know anything to it's fullest it's okay to just don't care at all." To compare apples and oranges: "Because I can't run a marathon right now it's totally okay to be not able to run even 3 km." Hint: The one able to run a half marathon is nevertheless in a better state than somebody who can't run even 3 km, even though both cannot run a marathon.

Science will undermine it's claims with experiments and reasoning. Moreover we see the results of science in our daily life. Many basic things you can test for yourself (for example just start breeding plants, stretching springs, heating metals, measure a circuit) and actually understand. If you show me someone making wine out of water or dividing a sea I will totally belief in this story. There is a difference between something you see describing your daily life, making predictions about things not yet seen (but later verified) and a story "you just have to believe". Should I believe in the Nigerian prince wanting to give me money, too?

By definition everything we can't proof is just a theory. The only things we can proof are those, we base on a system of axioms ->see math. All the rest we can only explain, most often quite good, but most often there are missing pieces. We can't merge the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics. Both theories work really well for problems "of the right size". I hope you will see, that gravity is a theory, too, even though it's a very well working as it bases on a model.

This is like asking:
What would like being hit by?
a) A bus in your favorite color.
b) A banana. (You don't like yellow.)

Believing in evolution doesn't mean thinking "it's without a consequence to mess with anatomy / genes" actually it means the complete opposite. We actually think that the human brain evolved into something very powerful but also very delicate, you know?

But one inconvenient question for you:
How do you think selective breeding of plants and animals works?

The more abstract principles how evolution works were tough in the 7th grade or so (at least in Germany) when I went to school. Be it mutation, recombination and dominance of genes, DNA, RNA, transcription, cell division. Combine this with the just logical concept of "survival of the fittest" and you are mostly done with explaining/understanding evolution. How exactly the proteins work is another story.
But how hard can it be to grasp the abstract concept of evolution? Even more, when we use this knowledge for ages. Be it selectively breeding of plants, horses, cows, dogs, cats and so on.

I was constantly shaking my head reading this book.

As we can observe black holes we can be quite sure they exist. ;)

All the big players in cloud services are US corporations.

I think you are mixing up capitalism with the industrial revolution. Capitalism is fairer than say a caste system, but it doesn't make it good just by this. If every one is trying to maximize it's profit this leads to companies saving on wages. This may happen by improving processes and needing less people (good) or giving little money for huge workload (bad). Now you may say "Law of supply and demand! Nobody is forced to accept a too low wage." While this is technically true, there is always some one desperate enough to sell his work force under value just so he can pay his mortgage and food. So if companies are driving down wages in a whole sector the single person has no chance to get a good deal. There is another factor driving down wages: abundant supply in work force. There are not enough jobs for everyone, haven't been and probably will never be. Just look back in the old days where only the man would go to work and would supply it's family and even than not everyone had a job. Now look at the current situation: today both the man and the woman need to work, to have a decent life. So double the work force and an even bigger dependence leading to lower wages.

Going to research at an university most often means making less bucks than going into the corporate world. Yet those scientists make this step. Not because of the money, but because they love to solve problems. They love it more than a bigger pay check.

But today you are often enough dependent on third-party funding. Now you not only need to be a good researcher but you need to make big claims to the right peoples. And suddenly research becomes a business. Business need to make ROI in a short period of time. But fundamental research needs many years for any results and those often enough get into products maybe one or two decades later. So fundamental research is hampered. But not only this. By working together with the firms that are paying your research, you are no longer independent and your results tend to be biased. Moreover you may need to hold results back until patents are claimed. This all would not happen, if there wasn't financial interest in research.

Speaking for what happens in Germany: less regulation would actually makes it harder to get decent internet if you are not in the right spot in a big city. It's an easy calculation: ROI is way higher in areas with many subscribers that will buy the most expensive services. Good luck if you are in the urban areas. I really don't see how deregulation would solve this kind of problems.

Not Wifi in it's tightest meaning, but internet may be called critical infrastructure nowadays.