So there was a discrepancy between prediction and observation for the AGW model. Why haven't we heard about that before? Only now that the observations are consistent with theory do we find out about it. Yet more evidence that climate scientists are not real scientists.

Citation?

Citation needed.

Because MS wants to sell more copies of their newer even crappier OSes. Bashing their older OSes and paying crackers to find exploits that only run in those older OSes is supposed to increase shareholder value. I bet MS has a whole bunch of XP specific exploits that they are just waiting to release as it gets closer to the XP cutoff date.

Because instead of improving their OSes Microsoft makes each version worse than the previous one. So four versions "behind" with Microsoft can translate to four versions ahead when compared to Linux or OS X. If you want Microsoft to actually improve their OS you have to go back in time so that you can rewind past all of the dumbfuckery they've done since to make things worse.

I don't know where Microsoft sees itself heading in the next decade, but if it's anything like the direction they've chosen with their post-XP OSes so far I want no part of it.

There are also games that don't play nice with Windows 7. Now that Intel and possibly Nvidia and AMD have stopped writing XP drivers I have to start maintaining a Legacy Box in order to run XP natively. Such a PITA, but abandoning XP is just not an option for me yet.

I don't believe in the direction that Ballmer has taken with their post-XP operating systems. Since I just did a computer upgrade and my new motherboard doesn't have XP drivers I am planning to mainly use Windows Embedded Standard 7 for my Windows OS, but when it comes to Windows I think it will be a long time before Microsoft pulls its head out of its ass and again writes a decent OS.

So I'd like to use Linux as much as possible. Only using Windows for games and Windows only applications that don't have a good equivalent in Linux. As Microsoft OSes just get worse and worse I think I may put some effort into a Hackintosh as well. It would be nice if what happened to Microsoft in the world of Tablets happens with desktops as well. They so do not deserve their market share.

How much does MS pay you for posts like this? Windows 7 is a shit OS compared to Linux and OS X and Windows 8 is a tablet OS. Windows 7 isn't all that bad, but it's still a bloated mess with a horrible UI. The UI of XP is superior to 7 IMO. Windows Embedded Standard 7 is actually not too bad though. Still an example of unoptimized, inefficient, sloppy coding and bloated individual components, but the fact that it's componentized at all makes it a lot less awful.

Nevertheless Microsoft is an awful software compony that deserves to die. They are the last people who could ever design a good OS. In fact they really can't afford to make an OS too good, because then they can't upsell when Windows 2014 is released. With Microsoft it's all about getting people to dump their old OSes and buy new ones. They're still hurting from the fact that XP was so user friendly and content/feature focused rather than marketing focused. Making sure that people think their old OS is bad is at least as important for sales as selling people on the idea of a new OS that does all the same things, but in a new way.

A TSA officer is not a 'random' person. And I think most of them do deserve it. Just my opinion of course.

He shot a TSA officer. I think many people would like to high five him. Mr. Jefferson will have to get in line.

A good first step would be to get rid of the nudie scanners. They're just too slow and no better than a metal detector. Actually in most ways they are worse. Do everything possible to make the security lines move quickly because clearly they are a tempting target for anyone who wants to kill a lot of people with a single explosive or burst of machine gun fire.

May I ask why or would that just make you angry?

So they just have an airplane fetish then? If you want to instill fear proving to people that they have nowhere to hide, that nothing can protect them, would seem awfully effective to me. That is why suicide bombers in busy security lines is pure genuis. There just is no defense against that. Machine gunning the line is not quite as effective, but it's not half bad either.

Good point about the luggage. As soon as you try to screen the luggage you have just made another check point with a bunch of naked unarmed people standing there with targets painted on their naked backs.

I don't think there is *any* practical or even somewhat impractical way of stopping future attacks like this. You could outlaw guns completely. Wouldn't matter.

If you move the checkpoint outside the airport that makes it even easier. A sniper could pick people off from a kilometer away.

I hate guns, but I love having the right to defend myself against armed attackers. So if I feel that my life is in danger for whatever reason I would like the freedom to buy and legally own a firearm. You don't have to love guns to want to be able to fire back when someone is shooting at you.

Actually I think the logic is something like, "whatever the government is likely to use against me in a realistic scenario is something that I should be able to use to defend myself against them." It is highly unlikely that the government would be trying to use nukes, artillery, tanks, or bombers against little 'ol me. Why bother when a single 22 handgun would be sufficient?

When the police/SWAT and FBI stop packing heat then it might be okay to disarm regular citizens. Until then we have the right to defend ourselves with something more than good intentions. This is why I also object to trying to outlaw armor penetrating rounds. Cops and FBI agents will typically be wearing body armor and those rounds are necessary to defend yourself against them.

If the entire US army has orders to take you down having an entire third world army at your disposal would not be enough to save your life, but that is a straw man situation.