Not sure if you're an idiot or not.
I personally have little tolerance for stupidity, probably why I got into tech in the first place. I may have a better initial reaction to a pretty girl, but if she is a stereotypical dumb blonde, I quickly start talking down to her and say things like "in layman speak" - translation "I've seen smarter squirrels, so I'm going to really dumb this down for you, you petulant (because they often are) fool."
Fortunately, most blondes I knew in school were smart and completely against stereotype. I didn't have any girls in my college math courses (calc II-VI, and seriously, zero), but in pre-calc and calc my high school (accelerated math) study partner was Megan, a gorgeous, athletic blonde (she was all state in track) with a pretty nice rack to boot. Yeah, objectification there, but when I think of someone that had everything (brains and looks), I think of her. Unfortunately, she dated and mated with a dumb jock I intensely disliked and spurted out some kids right after high school graduation, so I doubt she went to college or got a job using her brains, which is unfortunate. That dumb jock did go to college (my college, which is how I know) on a football scholarship and failed out (rumors are with a 0.0 GPA, though that is possibly just rumors my friends started). I never saw or heard from either of them after that year, not that I've made any effort to look them up.
By the time women take the SAT, they've been culturally pushed away from math and science; for instance, I see this with my brother's girl, who HATES math with a passion just like her mom, and she is 8. If you're culturally indoctrinated by 8, there isn't much hope. OTOH, there is hope for one of my nieces, who is one of the top ranked girls in her state for math (in fact, I think she was the top ranked girl, but was behind a couple of boys overall) and has a geneticist mom. Unfortunately, I know far too many of the former mom/daughter pairs and too few of the latter.
It runs on OSX and Linux, neither of which have native DirectX support because Microsoft keeps their graphics technology under tight wraps. All implementations of it not shipped by Microsoft need to be reverse engineered from the API. OpenGL is licensed to hardware manufacturers (which is how development is paid for) and accessing the API is free for software developers.
Yeah, probably minimal, since it is bytecode level (what HLSL and GLSL compile into)
The bad - this is DX 9.0c, which is analogous to OpenGL 2.0 (with extensions - note that ATI drivers didn't support extensions at the time, so more like 2.2+ for them) and in console terms, XBox 360/PS3 tech. OTOH, OpenGL went through a major paradigm shift with OpenGL 3 and 4 that make it work more like HLSL, so I expect shader conversion is much easier. When I ported a DX10 shader to OpenGL 3 it was much easier (but much harder was porting the entire OpenGL 2 project to 3).
The US government itself has little to do with nuclear energy. Congress gave that job to the NRC, and the NRC is both a salesman and regulator, so it has a serious conflict of interest. Basically, they are Westinghouse's (aka Toshiba Energy) bitch.
Ours is kind of on the small side...
In any case, I'm standing on a giant fission reactor and you probably are too (unless you're in flight) - that technology seems to work on a much smaller scale.
I've found the majority of people just ape what their party tells them, even if it is completely wrong, whether it be liberalism, socialism, communism (of which we only refer to the dictatorship form, not like in, say, the natural communism in some Amish or Mennonite communes), or whatever. For instance, socialism does not mean a nanny state, and in fact, works quite well with Capitalism as shown by employee owned businesses and co-ops. Applying socialist concepts to government is called bureaucracy, but it does not a socialism make, as Yoda would say.
Anyhow, I almost always want to bop people over the head when they talk about liberalism, socialism, or even conservative-ism because they are nearly always wrong. In fact, you can be liberal and conservative at the same time, since conservative essentially means keeping things as they were or bringing things back to the way they were (so, for instance, you could be conservative and bring back pensions where pensions were killed off - this extra spending will likely label you a liberal, but since you are bringing back tradition, you are conservative).
My company just flat out says if you bring your own device and want to use it on the corporate network, you need to install remote management software that pushes security updates and such and gives them complete access to the device. On the other hand, they don't care much where you go on the work devices, and part of my job often requires going to internet sites. I don't think I'd ever have Eclipse java dev working with Maven plugin without the internet, for instance. About the worst they do is block some sites (mostly torrent, webcomic and game sites).
My wife has thousands of friends, I only have hundreds... I guess I know who the attractive one is now.
Funny thing is, the real reason I limit my friends is because I can't keep up with Facebook as it is, and my wife spends about 4 hours a day on it. If I included just first cousins and their kids alone I'd have over 200 due to the very prolific Catholics on my dad's side (my aunt knocked out 13 and her kids are trying to catch up).
Not only stupid, INCORRECT. Before I was a programmer I worked in a high end restaurant. I made minimum wage (plus tips) and had to pay for any food I ate, the cheapest entree being right around my take home pay for any given day. Getting caught even eating a breadstick while on the job could get you fired, since they were $8 a basket (or two free with a pasta entree). Stuff like steak and lobster was a week's pay.
I did not spend 5 1/2 years in a University racking up $30000 in debt to continue to work for minimum wage in a restaurant. That is what Philosophy majors do, not Engineers.
Free software makes sense if someone is paying you to develop the hardware the software runs on and you can make it proprietary to the hardware, but once you take away the hardware, how do software developers get paid? In the RMS model, the hardware providers pay for software development, but for most real world software houses, this doesn't happen anymore. The next level down would be customers pay for software development, but my experience is customers don't know what they want until they have it.
As a compromise, the company I work for publishes all of our data formats (at least in my division) and nearly everything exports to XML. That means competitors and free software can create their own implementation, and people have. I even know of some GPL3 implementations of parts of our software. They're pretty crappy and very buggy, but they're free. We also use software like Solr and pay for Solr support, which shows non commercial vendors and commercial vendors can coexist - but we could never do this with GPL.
I was going to suggest the same - I had my house long before I had others to occupy it (er, about a year before I started dating my wife-to-be, but 2 1/2 years [total] before we were engaged and she moved in), and I'd probably list these things chronologically, myself. No kid though, we're DINKs.
At least you didn't try MOO3 - seems just the opposite happened with that one. I logged about 6 hours on it after launch, uninstalled it, and never played it again. Heard they patched it extensively, but the thing practically needed Extreme Makeover, Game Edition for me to ever like it. Incidentally, I still play MOO2 occasionally in DOSBox.
While at it, could you point to where Congress authorized the NSA to spy on domestic calls? It isn't in the Patriot Act.
Actually, it has its roots in the Patriot Act - Congress allowed the NSA to spy on foreign to domestic calls, whereas before the Patriot Act they were not allowed to operate at all on US soil and had to defer all domestic spying to the FBI (as it should be).
The problem is, they took a 1970s court case where the FBI used call metadata (i.e. a list of phone numbers) called by a known criminal who had repeatedly been convicted of threatening young women and making terroristic threats to get a warrant to tap the criminal's phone line when he was making terroristic threats to yet another young woman. The FBI then got a warrant and tapped his line and he was busted calling and threatening this young woman. He then sued the FBI because they hadn't gotten a warrant to get the metadata in the first place, but the court threw it out, so the NSA uses that as justification that they can collect all phone metadata from all US citizens. The tiny problem is the NSA isn't supposed to spy on Americans by law, they're supposed to defer that to the FBI. If I recall correctly, the FBI usually requires a warrant to even collect metadata, but that case was an exception since a person's life was in danger and they had a suspect.