Physics hasn't got a lot of room for opions I'm afraid, the universe is somewhat oblivious to the whims of political opinion.

Just remember: that statement cuts both ways.

With UNIX, there is god and the peasant.

If you set sudo up correctly (i.e., nobody has unrestricted use of sudo and the admins are expected to use su instead.) you have God(s), the nobility and the peasants. The nobility, of course, consists of those users who are allowed limited access to sudo to manage their own boxes, but their privileges don't include doing the really dangerous stuff and the peasants neither have nor need even that limited access to elevated privileges.

How much of a discount will they have to offer to make it a better deal than free?

Yes, or at least it does the best it can. However, you can't then take the data that you used to create the theory and claim that it proves the theory.

If your theory is so wonderfully complete, why can't you create a computer model that can start with conditions twenty years ago and work out a correct description of the present? Please note, I'm not denying that it's getting warmer. I simply don't subscribe to the current hubris that makes humanity responsible for all of it.

Yes, but the fact that the data matches the theory...

That's not at all surprising, because the theory was developed to explain the data.

Reading for comprehension; what a concept. It's a shame you don't understand it. The earth's climate is getting warmer. AGW claims that it can explain this fact by blaming it all on human activities. You can't, however, use the change as proof of AGW, because that would be circular reasoning.

I'm sorry that you have so much trouble understanding simple English. I don't care how you twist it, the fact that the climate is getting warmer (Something that only a completely closed-mind denier would argue about.) isn't proof by itself that AGW is correct.

Are you trying for the Logical Fallacy of the Year Award here?

The fact that it's getting warmer isn't proof that AGW is correct; at best, it's proof that it might not be completely wrong. I'm not saying that you're guilty of that fallacy, but I've seen many posts here by AGW fanatics that essentially say exactly that.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Just out of curiosity, is that the time between turning the power on and the OS starting to load or does that include the time it takes to load the OS? I know that you started out talking about firmware initialization, but boot time generally includes how long the OS takes to come up. In the latter case, there are ways to optimize that, by turning off services that you don't need started at boot. (As an example: if you only use MS Office once or twice a week, do you really need it loading in the background?) How you do that and how much control you have is, of course, very OS specific, but I don't know of any current desktop OS that doesn't let you do it at all.

Now too much shit has a "soft" power shit, initially so it can sense a remote...

If you really want that stuff to turn off and stay off, don't plug it directly into the wall. Plug it into a power strip with a real on/off switch and turn it off there.

Only six comments so far, and somebody already came up with the same idea that I did.

A lot of people said storage, which I find somewhat bizarre...

I've only once had trouble with a HDD and that was decades ago when the new drive I added smashed my data every time I shut down. It turned out that it would only work properly as the primary drive, not a secondary. However, I've had more CD/DVD drives fail on me than any other part, so that's what I picked.

Using https to transmit sensitive information is the same as remembering to lock your car. It's not perfect and it won't stop a determined attack, but it's enough to prevent casual intrusions. And, of course, if somebody does break the encryption there's no way they can claim that they didn't know that the transmission was private.