Yes, for example when filling out census in Russia, it is very important to put that you have 2,000 children (Lena and Igor). If you put just 2, people would consider that you are just rounding it off.
This even appears in the food market - you need to specify that you want to buy 1,000 egg, otherwise, given current economic troubles, they could cheat you and try to sell you only 0,945 of one, which you would notice only at home when your cake fails.

It has one bug for me. Control lag. It many cases, there is over 0.5 second lag between keyboard and mouse input. Sometimes it works ok (still 100-200ms probably), but soon drops to 0.5-1s. And if I alt-tab out of the game and go back, lag goes up to 10-15 seconds before going down.

Wonderful graphics and animation. Working quest system. Engaging story line. And entire game experience broken because I have to spend 15 seconds trying to jump down from 1-foot tall fence, because of 1 second lag misinterpreting all my controls.

This is non-trivial amount of land. I'm not sure how much space tree needs to grow properly - let's assume 10m^2. In my country, we have around 40mil people. 10 trees per year per person is 40.000.000 * 100m^2, which is 4.000.000.000m^2, which gives 4000km^2. Each year.
Entire land area of country is around 300.000km^2. 30% of it is already forest. 60% is agricultural land.
What you are suggesting is planting 1.3% more area of forests each year. In 50 years, there would be no agriculture anymore - just 90% forest and 10% rest. In another 5-6 years, there would be just forest.

I think that you can achieve same effect without planting forests. Just starve all people out by destroying all agriculture lands in one big go, planet will heal itself. Not that there will be anybody to care.

I do not own enough ground to plant 10 trees per year.

Unless you are proposing cutting all the forests to get free land which can be given to people so they can plan 10 trees per year.

Are they? What of the thousand obstacles which are in the way of this flight they have actually _solved_? Can you point to any tangible technical advancement or solution which came out of this group? Not as a fancy animation with no details, but as a real item.
Imagine kid who wants to send his garden rocket into space. He gather materials, research, fire off 10 prototypes, but best of them raised only to 1000 meters. He gives up. Yes - you can say 'at least he has tried'.
Now compare it with other kid, who has done a cryon drawing of rocket in space and goes around asking his parents, friends and strangers to fund his rocket - and he spends that money to buy more crayons. Producing even 1000 cryon drawings of his rocket does not count as 'he has tried'. Producing a full autocad diagram of it and failing to put it together because of lack of manual skill - maybe, but not cryon drawings. And this is all this group is doing, they just do marketing and nice looking 3d animations without any backing in reality.

There is a huge difference between things like
rape threats,
'I wish your mother die of cancer',
'if you open you mouth again, I'll find your house and burn it'

things like
"Women have less IQ than men and you are best example of it"
"I could answer you question, but you are too dumb to understand it anyway"

and things like
"I think that all muslim people are terrorists"
"Whoever believes in God is stupid beyond saving"
"Immigrants have 7 less IQ on average and are gaming social benefit system"

There is a difference between personal threat, personal offense and generic not politically correct statement (even if it is wrong). But I have a feeling that all of them fit nicely under broad term of 'hate speech' and while first category is used as a driving point, it is all about shutting up third category - making it illegal to make any generic statement which can offend anybody imaginary world. Of course, people will argue that statement "All muslim people are terrorists" really mean "we should deport/waterboard/kill all muslim immigrants", which can easily fall into first category... but same way you could interpret facebook post "I don't like my math teacher" as "let's buy guns and go Columbine on him"

My personal opinion is that direct, person _threats_ should be punishable/forbidden. But I will defend my right to say to other person that he is stupid because of the things he said, things he believes in and I want to be able to make it generic ("All people believing in homeopathy are dumb").

I'm wondering how Hatred will be commented by games-cause-violence community
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It is a bit like selling reverse crosses, pentagrams and virgin blood packaged with D&D rulebooks in 80ties would be ;)
I'm generally quite tolerant game-wise, but I must say that Hatred crosses some line for me. But same is true for some movies (Saw, Human Centipede etc), which seems to be 'ok' for mass distribution, so probably something is wrong with me in this case.

Entire Department of Labor budget is around 12 billions.

I suppose that 80 billions (if true) would come mostly from Department of Defense - I can easily imagine IT costs of various top-end fighters/bombers/missiles etc being quite high.

In any case, it doesn't really matter. Costs of storage is not an issue here. Legal reasons, maintenance, politics - but certainly not cost of few tapes/harddrives.

Bottled water from male-only communities. Drinking water bottled by women will make you grow soft.
Seriously, is rain filtering out that stuff? If yes, then bottled water from mountain regions should be reasonably clean. Especially from Brokeback Mountains...

Until recently, solar panels used more energy to produce than they were providing. They make perfect sense for moving energy producing into isolated places (sattelites, middle-of-nowhere lamps/lights, autonomous devices etc etc) - but they were not a solution for getting rid of coal. Still, 'tree hugging hippies' were pushing them as a solution to everything even tens of years ago, without doing any cost/benefit analysis. Not to mention my friends putting them on roof of their houses in north of Germany to be 'nature friendly'.

They are indeed a lot more efficient now - but it is still not a real solution for the majority of energy. We need stable, 24/7, continous energy generation. Solar (outside possibly really specific regions), should be used as convinient, portable, non-connected low-power generation, rather than being a main source of energy.

By all means yes. But let's switch to 4th generation nuclear (and work on fusion in background), rather than hippy tree-hugging solutions like wind and solar.

It doesn't matter by how much you multiply it. Orders of magnitude do not care about size of numbers. If vaccine kills 10 million out of each 1 billion, then disease would need to kill at least hundreds of millions out of 1 billion to talk about _orders_ of magnitude better. Probably only Yersinia pestis is anywhere close to that, most of other vaccines prevent a lot less virulent diseases.

My point is not that vaccination is bad. My point is that 99% is absolutely not enough for vaccines and not going to be accepted unless we are in end-of-world pandemic scenario. And if vaccine would be 99% safe only, anti-vaccine groups would have a major point in raising concerns - which they don't, because vaccines are orders of magnitude (this time really _orders_) safer than 99%, which we probably cannot say about quality of AGW climate models. So comparing AGW denialism to anti-vaccine based on percentages is not really valid...

Except people are not advocating putting seatbelts. They are advocating:
- switching to bikes
- breeding more horses for the carriages
- avoid investment and research into trains, because there used to be train accident once as well
- in meantime, reducing car traffic as much as possible by adding huge car and fuel tax, profits from which will be used for plugging in random budget holes and possibly putting marble floor in House of Traffic Victims Association

No, 99% safe vaccine is not ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE better that disease. It is not even better than disease itself. Will you get yourself vaccinated against AIDS if it has 1% of chance giving you AIDS in first place?

Vaccines are safe to 99.9999% or more. And you always have to put it into context. If Ebola will spread to billions, 99% safe vaccine might be acceptable. If AIDS is perfectly preventable in normal case, even 1:million safety might be not enough. But please be careful with 99% and 'orders of magnitude' in same sentence - there are not that many orders of magnitude in 1:100.

System Shock 2? You are serious giving it as an example of how good non-windows gaming is? Release dates from wikipedia
August 11, 1999 (Win)
June 18, 2013 (OS X)
April 1, 2014 (Linux)
15 years late exactly - as OP claimed and you tried to disprove.

Most of the other things you mentioned are also quite old. Maybe preparing a list of 10 really good games from 2013-2014 would be better than hundreds of games from 2-15 years ago. Or maybe even better - take 20 best selling games of last 2 years and see how many of them are available under linux natively.