Conveniently left off the list of comparisons: "Things that get you put into prison."

Well, to be fair, if you're enjoying Cohiba's outside the US (including Cuba itself), you're probably smoking fakes anyhow.

How many spare rooms in your own house do you really need? One room, one person's life changed. Hop to.

First of all, you can tell a LOT from this particular data point.

That aside, what are you insinuating? That a group widely and routinely chastised as espousing a "liberal" and/or "leftist" agenda by conservatives, opposed the now-cancelled US Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, and is opposed to nuclear weapons in general, is executing a propaganda campaign to make North Korea look more primitive than it really is when it comes to its rocket programs?

Are you serious?

After a veritable comedy of errors, North Korea finally has a successful launch, can't even get or keep the satellite launched from it into a stable orbit, and now an anti-nuclear advocacy group is really a secret US propaganda campaign to inappropriately embarrass the North Koreans, who are really more advanced in rocketry than all of their misadventures would indicate? The same North Koreans who just announced they have uncovered a unicorn lair?

Really? I mean...really?

Please â" I would love to hear how this is "propaganda", and how the DPRK is really a capable member of the space and nuclear clubs. To what possible end? Even IF it were true, why/how would that be a good thing?

Or is this one of those topsy-turvy bizarro-world lines of reasoning where anything and everything that is in ANY way opposed to anything related to any US or Western interest is automatically true and pure, but anything that originates from the US or West, in any way, shape, or form is always "propaganda"?

I'm pretty sure that in an open beta a core dump is useful info. After all, that's the purpose of a beta, no?

In my previous position, I wasn't on the committee, per se, but gave an operational tour to each candidate and tried to explain what we did and our job functions. One candidate didn't seem to pay much attention and was eliminated because he wanted too much money. Another candidate thought he knew more than I did about our operations since he had glanced at our website and walked around the building before the interview. The third candidate was able to understand what I was saying to him and asked good questions about what we did. This casual back and forth was helpful in assessing his demeanor and grasp of technology. He was a manager, so he wasn't actively managing servers and such, but knew what I was talking about and not just buzzwords. I was able to recommend him to the committee and I left his department seven years later with a good reference. Things that stand out to me about people, especially managers: proper dress, profanity during the conversation, excessive sarcasm, and any hints of poor anger management. I may be old school, but I want a manager that doesn't yell or swear at me during our interactions and isn't sarcastic.

I don't see a reference to RMS saying nobody should have kids - do you?

Stallman made the statement in the radio show described in the first link. If you want more evidence of his anti-children position, here's a more well-known example.

I was excited about WinRT (not to be confused with Windows RT...yeah, I know) during Windows 8's development and was considering porting a project, but after evaluating Windows 8, the lack of features in the APIs, annoying interface decisions, and confusing hardware fragmentation made it an easy decision not to bother. Microsoft's alleged refusal to promote ARM-only apps, when it needs all the apps it can get, re-affirms that decision. Windows 8 is a non-starter as a development platform.

It's one thing to have some Larry Wall style eccentricities, but Stallman hurts any movement he attaches his name to because of his extremist views. He believes, for example, that programmers should not expect to be paid for their work and that it's more important that non-free software disappear than it is for someone's children to be fed (he also believes nobody should have children). He's also made vile statements about what he calls "voluntary pedophilia", claiming that it should be legalized.

The annoying part is that in nearly every Stallman discussion, people will say things like, "You may not agree with everything he says, but we sure need someone like him who always sticks to their guns!" No, we don't. He's hurting the movement.

GNU was an interesting philosophy when it was started, but it's not as if it was the only open source ideology or that other open source movements wouldn't have taken hold. This isn't to diminish GNU so much as it is to diminish Stallman's glorified role in history among computer geeks and lessen the movement's reliance on a crazy person.

The trial will only last 30 days though.

I don't take issue with the shutdown since Megaupload was being used as a gigantic, unregulated store for pirated content, and that does take money away from content creators. Instead, I go out of my way to purchase independent content to support artists outside of the mainstream system, and any mainstream content I do want gets purchased digitally, which ultimately contributes to a lessening of relevance for the traditional distributors represented by the MPAA. Home film releases come out out sooner and sooner after their theater runs, and streaming services like Netflix are so popular on living room devices that Microsoft claims video streaming surpasses game-playing in terms of hours of usage on the Xbox 360. Whatever traditional structure the MPAA is protecting has already been supplanted by legal mediums.

In other words, Megaupload isn't necessary--the fate of the traditional movie industry has already been sealed by companies who embraced the internet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/opinion/hamass-illegitimacy.html

How are you replacing the trees that had to be removed?

The California Science Center Foundation is investing approximately $2 million to replace 400 trees removed along the route with over 1,000 trees. These replacement trees are between 10 and 14 feet in height -- about the same size as most of the trees they will be removing. A minimum of two years of free maintenance will also be provided. Within five years the community along route will have an even greener and more beautiful tree canopy.

The "you" to which I was referring in my post is the royal or general "you", for what it's worth, not you personally.

I'm also not saying that the only overwhelming deterrent is our nuclear deterrent, but it's part of our deterrent capability.

Things which are simply not covered by test ban treaties are not "getting around" test bans. When you say "getting around", you make it seem as if it is somehow a shameful, underhanded, dirty trick to "get around" a treaty. Is using supercomputers to simulate nuclear detonations also "getting around" test bans? If not, why not? If so -- are you serious? Because that's why the DOE National Laboratories have some of the most powerful supercomputers in the world -- and which can be, and are, used for all other manner of science.

US stockpile stewardship activities do not run counter to the letter, spirit, nor intent of any treaty relevant to nuclear weapons.

I'm also not making a defense of MAD, but can you explain why we should not maintain the integrity of the weapons we do have, while China is arming with nuclear weapons when we are disarming? It's fine to wax philosophic about how there are more than enough nuclear weapons on Earth to destroy it, but the idea isn't to destroy it -- it's to have enough weapons distributed on enough platforms in enough places so that it's clear that even a surprise first strike cannot hope to disable our strategic forces. The best deterrent is one that never needs to be used.