Not that we don't need a totally revamped copyright law, just that it doesn't seem likely any time soon considering who is in charge.

Yeah. My Windows 7 systems boot very fast (SSD boot drives) with the fastest one being 14 to 15 seconds. Cutting another few seconds off of that won't effect my life at all. I don't need any of the other things you mentioned, and I doubt Direct X 12 will offer many benefits for some time to come. MS is going to have to make a better desktop OS for me to switch, and right now 10 doesn't seem to have anything I want. Both 8 and 10 seem like they were primarily designed for mobile devices, not desktops. I like the Win 7 interface, and really dislike the new ones (8.1 especially, and 10 as well).

No interest whatsoever in using One Drive, and I don't use apps on my desktop computers which I use to do work like putting together scientific manuscripts for submission to journals. I also backup whole drives, as well as backing up key file directories. So Windows 10 offers me nothing except less functionality and less customize-ability.

Just don't take the "bait" and don't "upgrade" to free Windows 10. At least for desktop users there is no advantage over Windows 7 pro or ultimate. To me, Windows 10 seems like a downgrade from 7 ultimate.

That is my impression as well. They are trying to make it palatable to desktop users, including the entire corporate and government sectors who are still using it, but it is just an app-based OS for mobile devices that can still run Windows programs. They hope to drive lots of business to their app store by giving 10 away for free. But for desktop Win7 users it seems like a big, irritating downgrade.

Windows. Love it or hate it, it's there. I only use it on desktops, so I don't see Microsoft's attempt to make an every-device OS as a plus. I use Windows 7 because it was designed for desktops. Why would anyone want to switch over to Microsoft's app based Windows 10? Does anyone here have any substantive reasons other than small differences in boot time or DirectX 12 support, that make the upgrade useful for desktop users with Windows 7? I'm curious.

The little ice age can't be accurately defined, and some researchers have claimed it started as late as the 1500s. Based on the data, it seems more accurate to say that the climate started to fluctuate widely in the 1300s, and crops began to fail across Europe. If you want to read about it, take a look at the book "The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300 to 1850" by Brian Fagan. Enjoyable book. Or you can just look it up on Wikipedia.

I was thinking of methane hydrate at the bottom of the oceans, but I suppose your bottom could be a good start!

If necessary, you would put a better greenhouse gas like methane into the atmosphere, and it would not acidify the oceans. But chances are, it won't be necessary. By the way, the "little ice age" as it has been traditionally called started sometime much earlier, in the 1300s, not the 1600s. It lasted to sometime in the 1800s.If their science is as iffy as their history, I am not going to worry just yet.

It will only keep happening as long as people don't complain. Whenever enough people complain enough, things change.

I am glad someone brought up the fact that we should be thinking about why we are even engaged in a war of aggression against a poor, nearly unarmed country on the other side of the world, rather than second guessing how the military delivers computers to the field. Questioning US militarism in such circumstances seems more important than discussing the details of battlefield IT. Americans seem a bit too comfortable with wars of aggression, to the point where they will discuss how to implement the details of battlefield IT rather than talking about why we are there in the first place. Your tax dollars at work.