You're conflating a couple of different things. Windows general-purpose multitasking is terrible compared to Linux/MacOS (at least based on Win7 experiences).

On the other hand, Microsoft has had a laser focus on Windows gaming, with the obvious tie-in to Xbox gaming. This has resulted in very fast graphics drivers for Windows.

Linux seems to be doing well lately, with some Steam games getting higher frame rates on Linux than on Windows. Linux may end up being the best of all possible worlds (well out of three worlds anyhow) given its lean design, performance and stability. Perhaps eventually it'll see more proprietary software ports like Solidworks and ProEngineer.

Protip: If someone has to give them to you, they aren't rights; they're privileges.

No, I mean illegal. The US Constitution recognizes that there are things beyond the reach of any government's authority and by their very nature, such things cannot emanate from the government. Ergo, violation of such rights is inherently illegal regardless of what laws or judges or kings and queens might say or do.

Regardless of the unfortunate case you cited and the suspicions that a grave injustice was done, capital punishment is not murder by its very definition. To clarify my example, the Supreme Court cannot order or authorize me to go out and kill random schoolchildren. They can order or authorize the capture and punishment of a person convicted of a capital crime, but they lack the requisite authority to allow or require that I go kill innocent people.

There are things the state cannot grant or authorize because they would violate the rights of the people. The US Constitution recognizes some of that (at least on paper; in practice...). The government lacks the requisite authority to authorize those rights to be denied or revoked.

When they do it anyway, all involved should be hauled off to prison, even if it takes an army of the people to do so.

The surface of the planet has been warming up for centuries, since the Little Ice Age. For the vast majority of that time, it had nothing to do with CO2. One of the major criticism of climate alarmism is that natural variability is massively downplayed.

The models don't appear to be giving "reasonable projections" at the moment. Remember the hiatus, which has been acknowledged by the IPCC. Those "predictions" won't be worth much until the models better correspond to reality, and have been validated in some meaningful way. They are far from first principles models.

I don't have much of a quibble with that, except that what we should do should also be informed by desirable outcomes in general. For instance, LED light bulbs are clearly a win, as they save money while presenting no discernible downside except higher initial investment.

I'm glad to see you support nuclear power, keep it up!

The basic science is accepted by virtually everyone - CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. The science that attempts to inform policy includes other controversial facets such as water vapor amplification. If the expected peak concentration of CO2 (550-600 PPM) will not cause problematic heating, there is no need for expensive, drastic action. Whether CO2 related warming will be problematic is still absolutely in dispute. Recent estimates for climate sensitivity to CO2 have been trending downwards.

Well I'm sure the Executive branch can define it for you, though you may find the particulars of their definition convoluted and self-serving.

No court can authorize an inherently illegal action. The Supreme Court of the United States can approve me murdering schoolchildren all it wants, but my ass will still fry for it (and rightfully so).

What was Arrhenius' estimated value for transient climate sensitivity to CO2 again?

There are many informed skeptics who understand the science, but don't believe we have enough information yet for drastic measures.

What "coherent action on climate change" do you recommend, exactly? Not a single suggested mitigation will make a significant difference in the estimated (guesstimated) temperature by 2100. The one thing that would make a significant difference, if in fact there's a problem worth the effort, is a mass transition from coal to nuclear power worldwide (ESPECIALLY in China and India). However, apparently nuclear is anathema to the vast majority of climate alarmists and environmentalists, despite it being the safest power generation method in use by far.

I think the majority of scientists involved are honest, if not doing a great job with the science. You should read Judith Curry's site for some rational discussion of the issue from a highly qualified climate scientist. As far as the way the science is being used to advocate social change, remember that the most effective lies contain a grain of truth...

Actually, that's not obvious at all. It is clear that more research is needed before taking drastic measures that will harm the poor around the world more than any other group. In the meantime, we should embark on win/win efforts such as a mass conversion from coal to nuclear energy. Coal power is bad from many perspectives, such as killing tens of thousands of people every year, increasing ocean acidification, and providing a rich source of organic mercury. Solar and wind are fine as long as they're cost-effective, but they aren't a good fit for base load power.

No-fault is about taking money away from lawyers, who used to litigate each and every auto accident as a lawsuit in court before the insurers would pay. Eventually the insurers decided that they spent more on lawyers than accident payments, and they had no reason to do so.

If you want to go back to the way things were, you are welcome to spend lots of time and money in court for trivial things, and see how you like it. I will provide you with expert witness testimony for $7.50/minute plus expenses. The lawyers charge more.

In general your insurer can figure out for themselves if you were at fault or not, and AAA insurance usually tells me when they think I was, or wasn't, when they set rates.

This is just like the old days where everyone (except the rich) in Russia got inferior quality (and quantity) stuff to avoid the evil western companies run by their evil capitalist masters. Now mind you, the moment the government stopped enforcing that restriction, it was as though floodgates had opened, but I'm sure this new era of restrictions will enjoy some popularity for a little while. Once that's over, few will have the guts to complain openly.

1) What's the difference? Do you anticipate that these companies will go out and mow lawns to make up for what the tax is costing? Any costs of doing business tacked on by the government get passed on to the customers; that's the way it works.

They always need just a little bit more, don't they.

What needs to happen first is for major software vendors to begin supporting it. That's when you'll see enterprises at least begin to consider it.

If we don't have more than two children per couple, the human race would've died out a long time ago.

I think the proper way to state that is "If we didn't in the past", not "If we don't". If we were to have 2 children per couple (approximately, the real value is enough children to replace each individual but not more) from this day on, it would not be necessary to adjust the number upward to avoid a population bottleneck for tens of thousands of years.

The Northern California Amtrak is actually pretty good for commuting from Sacramento to the Bay Area and back because the right of way is 4 tracks wide in critical places and it has priority over other trains for much of the time.

Acela in the Boston/NY/DC corridor is also good, because the right of way is 4 tracks or more for most of the way, and it has a track to itself along a lot of the route. Other railroads run on parallel tracks.

For the most part, though, Amtrak suffers from not having exclusive track. It runs on freight lines that host cars so heavy that the rail bends an inch when the wheels are on top of it (I've seen this first hand).