Hard.

0) If a game is running on a multiplatform engine, chances are the studio is already selling a PC version, rendering this whole thing moot. Otherwise they're likely on an in-house or licensed single-platform engine.
1) "Popular game engines" are highly customized by the studios using them (with the large studios, often substantially). Though they may share commonalities, you'd nevertheless need to tailor your modifications to each and every game.
2) Even in a game engine that has bundled asset packages, scripting languages, etc., much of the core functionality that makes a game different from another game, including some of the gameplay code, will be in the C++ or other compiled code.
3) You don't have source code to the engines in question. Major console games aren't made on open source engines.
4) If you modify and redistribute engine code without permission, you're very much on the wrong side of the law. Your development will have to be in secrecy and you'll have to distribute anonymously, while very aware that someone will subpoena anyone you distribute through to find the source. Good luck finding recruits.
5) If instead you try to create your own black box recreation of the engine, well, uh, again, good luck. Modern game engines are beasts.

"Credulity" is its own scale. The whole left/right thing is silly besides.

Thanks for the tip, I just grabbed a couple of the HA-FX67 (and some Comply tips thanks to another poster). They, and their predecessors the HA-FX66 have pretty good reviews. I want something decent, but more portable and less precious than my headphones. This fits the bill :)

Are you responding to me? jQuery is a JavaScript library, and the Java plugin and JRE aren't bundled with every modern browser (or really any that I can think of).

We're talking about Java, not JavaScript.

However, a 32-bit process doesn't see more than 2 GB unless the "large address aware" flag is flipped in its executable header.

When I was in school, there were tools floating around that let one avoid a memory wipe on a TI-83; they provided a menu that looked like the system menu, complete with the reset function, but which did nothing. IIRC, the most sophisticated ones also replaced the menu with the memory / saved programs, hiding them after the "reset" so it looked like something actually happened.

I've never seen ads in the music app for music on my own system. The music app also streams music from Microsoft's Xbox Music service; if you do a search within the music app, I think it looks for Xbox Music music by default instead of music in your own library. If you're playing that music, you get ads unless you subscribe, which I think is perfectly reasonable. I really like getting free music, by the way, and a good number of the albums I've tried searching for are on there, including some somewhat obscure ones. We don't get Spotify or Pandora in Canada, though.

Where? That article discusses issues with Metro/Desktop integration, the store, and wishes that cloud support was better. The only thing it says about multi-monitor support it:

Which doesn't really clarify anything at all.

There are two different underlying questions here which could potentially have two completely different answers:

A) Which project will have the larger set of developers using its code in some manner
B) Which project will have the larger set of developers contributing back to it?

Your (2) is called a number of different things. I think Dawkins calls it "strong" atheism. I've also seen "positive" and "hard" bandied about.

What about Huxley? Well, your definition of agnosticism definitely has nothing at all to do with his:

Where g is god, exists(x) is the premise stating that x exists, demonstrated(y) is where one takes as true that the evidence of the positive truth value of y exists, and where believe(not(p)) => not(believe(p)):

(1) agnosticism*: !demonstrated(x) => not(believe(x)) AND not(believe(not(x)))
(2) atheism: not(believe(p))
(3) "strong" or "positive" or "hard" atheism: believe(not(p))

Agnosticism, as Thomas Henry Huxley states it, is a system whereby one does not believe something to be certainly true/false unless they are actually demonstrably so. Following from this, the agnostic position would be not to believe in a god's existence or non-existence as neither is demonstrable, meaning that atheism follows from agnosticism. That is, unless you believe that a god's existence is demonstrated.

However, yes, the way you've used "agnostic" and the way Huxley used "agnostic" are not the same as the definitions of "agnostic" that many other self-identified agnostics and non-agnostics use today. You need to use epistemology and/or certainty of belief for most of the remaining ones. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable.

I'm also sorry that this is so, but it is. By-and-large, prominent atheists and atheist organizations use the definition of atheist that I've used. Substitute "atheism" of the "soft/negative/weak" variety with "agnosticism" in your mind if you want to. However, if you do, then what are you going to call the other definitions of agnosticism?

Not if you ask Richard Dawkins (who declares himself both atheist and agnostic towards God), or just about any other prominent atheist. Not if you ask the guy who original coined the term "agnostic":

Agnosticism is not being certain about conclusions when there's no reason to be certain about them; when used in the context of gods, it's about not having certainty about either conclusion (gods exist or gods don't exist). Atheism is not having a belief in a god, which says nothing in itself about the certainty about a god existing or not.

Apologies for not responding to this yesterday; I was busy. But I'm here now! :)

Yep, I knew I brainfarted somewhere. I shall now revise my summary of the veracity of Fuhrman's claim: it's a load of shit, he's irresponsible for making it, and he's unethical for abusing journal references to support a claim they cannot. That is, my position remains the same, and I assure you it's not merely out of quacking. Let's look at all three studies then:

Kaartinen K, Lammi K, Hypen M, et al. Vegan diet alleviates fibromyalgia symptoms. Scand J Rheumatol 2000;29(5):308-13.

This is the one I discussed. It cannot be used as evidence that a raw vegan diet is a valid treatment for fibromyalgia, and it certainly can't be used to support the specific claims made by Fuhrman that the reason such a diet would work is because it's "a high antioxidant, acrlyamide-free diet".

Donaldson MS; Speight N; Loomis Fibromyalgia syndrome improved using a mostly raw vegetarian diet: an observational study. BMC Complement Altern Med 2001;1(1):7.

Oooooh, full article! Yes! Unfortunately, this article is worse than the last one. There was no control group (and by extension, no blinding). Again, there was no comparison to other diets. Six of twenty-six patients (23% of the study) dropped out after two months and aren't included in the statistics. Not all of the patients studied actually met the diagnostic requirements of FMS. The study does not state how many did not.

So okay, this study can't be used either. Not even in conjunction with the previous study, as both are at best at the preliminary stages. They're the sort of study you use to demonstrate that something is worth studying further when you're making a grant proposal.

Hanninen, Kaartinen K, Rauma AL, et al. Antioxidants in vegan diet and rheumatic disorders. Toxicology 2000 Nov 30;155(1-3):45-53.

Woah, I can find this one on Google. Two full articles, cool. Okay, this one is larger than the last two, but has virtually all of the problems that the first study has. There's no blinding, no comparison to other diets, nothing.

I wouldn't doubt increased fruit and vegetable intake is helpful. Does that mean it has to be raw? That animal products have to be cut out? That the rest of Fuhrman's discussion about toxins and the evils of baking and all of that is confirmed? Nope.

When he makes the claim that fibromyalgia can be dramatically treated with a raw vegan diet (the claim you quoted in the post I replied to) and that medical literature supports this claim, that study is the sole one he references. That study is not sufficient to support that claim in any manner whatsoever. There is no other relevant reference on that page. Abusing references to journals like this, as though he's assuming that his readers won't bother actually checking them, is misleading and unethical.

I have no idea why you're throwing additional quotes at me, and I have no interest in purchasing his book to get to read more improperly used references.

Only one of those references directly deals with the fibromyalgia and raw vegan diet claim that you quoted, and as I pointed out above that study cannot be used to support such a major claim. Simply throwing journal references on things doesn't make them any more true, that type of thinking nothing more than cargo cult science