The stadiums are built and owned by the teams and/or the communities in which they play.

The NFL is a league made up of teams, and does not own the teams or the assets of the teams. Think of it as a trade group for professional football teams.

I think I still have a copy of that whole office suite.

The complaints have always been that MS caters too much to old software and that it continually requires more powerful hardware just to run the OS.

They are starting to buck this hardware trend at the 1 GiB barrier (for the OS!). They finally dropped support for some old, buggy 16-bit DOS and Windows programs that third party developers wrote by bypassing any documented API, too. Most of the software ever written for Windows still runs on Windows, though.

If you want to see what you're asking for, take a look at the 8 desktop vs. 8 RT fiasco when MS told people it was all Windows but it didn't run the same software. Don't ask for that.

Better yet, don't use a spindle for this stuff at all. Get a cheap SSD. Yes, it's write-limited. If you're only using it for temporary files and the page file then there's no long-term data to lose and it's a hell of a lot faster.

If you're on a gaming rig with a whole lot of memory, the page file doesn't need to be 2 to 3 times the size of RAM, either. With 16 or 32 GiB of RAM and only running the OS, one game, a voice app or such, and a game library app (Steam, Origin, etc) then you only need a page file for stuff that's proactively paging. Set it to 4 GiB and forget it.

Also, 7 and 8 handle dynamic page file sizing better than XP so it's not as much a concern to have a fixed-size one on a spinning disk as it used to be. It may still help if you pick the optimal size, though.

I hope you, your grandmother, and your nephew never have to find out for sure. Further, if so I hope your grandmother and two-year-old nephew aren't trying to fire a .500 magnum, especially if it's loaded a bit hot.

Most people in a quick-response situation will be able to handle the bat more accurately than the pistol. There's more you can do with it than a full swing, too, including jabbing at the eyes, throat, or groin with the end of it, strangling with it, tripping, twisting body parts with it as extra leverage in grappling, and short swings which are less powerful but quicker. A bat can take you off your feet pretty quickly, can break the forearm you're using to wield the pistol, and can be pretty damn deadly once you're down.

Inside of arm's reach a pistol can be a disaster as it can be turned on you even while it's in your own hand, by twisting the wrist around. At that range you're probably wielding it with one hand, which make you more easily disarmed and less likely to hit a target that is able to impact you and change where the muzzle points.

If you actually get a good, solid hit with a .38, .380 ACP, or a 9mm from that range, especially with hollow points or JHP then you're doing a lot of damage, sure. With a .45 ACP or .500 magnum even more. Your real advantage, though, with a pistol vs. a bat is that the bat reaches about one meter past the elbow. Use that and stay out of reach of the bat if you're sane.

I'm not sure of shotgun vs. pistol and didn't mention pistols. I recommended a semi-auto or high-capacity pump shotgun over most rifles. I think a Saiga 12 would be pretty intimidating and pretty effective. A .45 ACP would be both intimidating and effective, too, but requires a bit more precision than a 12 gauge with 00. The simple sound of a Mossberg or Bernelli pump sliding is a hell of a deterrent.

I know quite a few people who carry a .32 ACP or .32 S&W (hell, even .22 magnum as a second carry) for concealment. Those are great if you want to carry concealed and don't want to have to dress too bulky. They aren't as intimidating in a dim room as a 1911 or XD and won't have the same man-stopping power. They'll require much more precision if your intruder is the type to keep coming (or on, say, PCP).

For home intruders a big pistol or a shotgun either one could work well. So could a submachine gun if you happen to have an Uzi, Scorpion, or an old M3 grease gun lying around. A rifle is probably a bad idea inside the home where it loses its greatest advantage and has over-penetration drawbacks.

It'd be great to have an AR-10, AR-15, or AK-74 (or even a Cetmi or lever-action Marlin .30-30) to hold someone outside your home at bay if they were firing in. That's a very unlikely scenario, though, for most people.

Why would it be race-based fear? And if so, why do so many black guys I know carry? Are you saying that black guys need to be afraid of white guys and not vice-versa? I find your comment confused and disturbing.

4? As in one incident per 750,000 people? Over the course of two years?

How many people do you think died in those four major shootings vs. the number of people killed by faulty pressure release valves on hot water heaters? 30 deaths and 340 injuries in 2007 for the water heaters. Hell, 34 deaths and 3,000 injuries or so are caused by setting the temperature too hot on water heaters (that page also mentions six students and a teacher killed by an over-pressure explosion). Where's the big national campaign to fix water heaters?

Actually a shotgun is a better home defense weapon for most users than a rifle, but not the double-barrel shotgun Biden whinges about. A good, solid semi auto or pump action that holds several rounds can do wonders to an intruder or two without going through several houses like a .30-06 might.

At a certain range, a baseball bat is more deadly than a pistol. A knife is more deadly still. A pistol gives you range, though.

Scenario 1:
Child communicates with friends over an encrypted channel. He or she gets interrupted and lured away by a bad actor breaking that encryption. Then the bad actor encrypts his communications. That encryption then thwarts the government's attempts to find the child despite the government already suspecting he's abducting children.

Scenario 2:
Child communicates with friends in plaintext. Bad actor interjects himself and lures the child away. He then rapes the child, kills the child, and desecrates the child's body. Then his communications even though they are plaintext never get intercepted because he's never been considered a suspect. Bad actor moves on to another child and then another until he's investigated.

Think of the children, indeed.

Perhaps, but wouldn't standardizing breast sizes make life a lot less interesting? ;-)

Absolutely it's silly. Not only is the receiver one of the easier parts to make but the chamber and barrel have a lot more to do with the marks on the projectile and its casing. It would make a lot more sense if the goal was actually to track crimes to have the parts tied to the ammo tied to the registration paperwork.

The followers of a religion often care little about what their leaders and theologians say, especially on esoteric topics. There are fanatical cultists who hang on some personality's every word, but those are the exception.

How many Catholics do you know who use birth control? How many Southern Baptists drink? How many Jews work on Saturday?

If anything, finding a non-intelligent life form would be pretty much meaningless. It may even reinforce the Christian idea of human exceptionality. It'd just be more plants, animals, bacteria, etc. for them to steward on behalf of their deity.

Finding another intelligent life form would be a thorny theological problem for some, but a simple mission to convert for others. It might just cause a whole bunch of new splitter congregations based on differing opinions. It may cause wars among factions. Whole new religions might sprout and grow based around the discovery. If we ever find an intelligent and communicative species with their own religion, some portion of humans will convert to that no matter how different it is from anything we already have.

TL;DR: What theologians and church leaders for religions that exist now have to say has little to do with the new belief systems such a major event would usher in.

He was responding to the point that "Schools should teach pupils mainly in imperial and not metric measurements". I have nothing against teaching arcane units, in fact I find it interesting - but to stop teaching metric is just plain stupid

This. Teaching both and their conversions isn't a terrible idea. Favoring the older units that are different from the rest of the world is a pretty bad idea.