It is a personal opinion, and that's always subjective.
The fact that the whole user experience is messed up is objective. I expected to hate Win 8 because it was different and I was ready for that. I didn't expect to hate it because of a bunch of stuff that MS should know better than to screw up!

Windows 8 doesn't suck because of the lack of a start button.
It doesn't suck because of a lack of an Aero like interface
The Metro interface doesn't suck

Windows 8 sucks because it flips between the classic and the metro interface seemingly at random. Yes, we computer folks know that it depends on whether the program has been written as a metro program or a classic one, but from the start screen there is no way to tell what interface you'll end up in when you click on a program. And I'm pretty sure that consistency is one of the central tenets of good UI design.

Nope. I thought that was the whole of the story, rather than an introduction.

Watching the animated .gif on the wiki though, the dialogue really has a Waiting For Godot feel about it.

There's another issue mixed in there: only 3 of those systems support clustering - and that's counting OCFS and OCFS2 as different filesystems. So you can add single machine performance vs. distributed performance into the mix. Then there's small file vs. large file performance: if you're only ever storing virtual machine disk images and you could get a 1% I/O boost by using an optimized FS then you'd probably take it. Suddenly the number of filesystems which need supporting starts to look reasonable.

Given a choice of production ready according to (my tests) or production ready according to (my tests Red Hat tests) I'd take the latter every time.

Yes, sooner or later Red Hat WILL miss something. Sooner or later I WILL miss something too. I trust Red Hat to do a breadth of testing which I don't do, and then I do a depth of testing for my specific workload as best as I can model it (and real life has this really annoying habit of finding inventive ways not to conform to my models.)

A more appropriate time would be, y'know, when a North Korean missile is inbound.

No - only people with savings they can afford to risk can invest.

I never have mod points when there's something I want to moderate! This is the thing to do. Get in touch with the hospital's security people. If the scans are causing any problems with IT operations then arrange with them to schedule the scans differently. Otherwise, explain that you've picked up the scans and blocked them per procedure. Ask if they want you to unblock their specific scan so that they can find any issues which would reveal weaknesses you could defend against in more depth.

All this may be unwelcome but it doesn't sound like there's much you can do about it, so treat it as an opportunity.

But he's asking people to disprove that Genesis is literally true. If he is saying that the discrepancies are caused by some of Genesis not being literally true then his argument vanishes in a puff of logic.

I think you misunderstood the GNU/Linux claim.
The GNU people have never (as far as I know) claimed to have built the Linux kernel. They got upset that people were running systems where everything except the kernel was written by GNU(*), and they weren't getting any credit. Referring to the systems as GNU/Linux was an attempt to redress that.

(*): Admittedly, many users would have been running XFree86 and other software not written by GNU as well, but I don't think anyone was running a Linux kernel and not running GNU.

But the Internet has been around since 1969 (and the idea for it since 1962.) The web was just an incremental improvement over Gopher. Nothing about the Internet as in invention in 1990 (or 1995) was surprising to people who knew what had come before. The invention itself contained no surprise.

What surprised Microsoft (and others) wasn't "The Internet," it was people's response to it and the fact that a HUGE network effect meant that an exponentially growing number of people wanted to use the internet.

I parse that as:

The US has a navy and an army. The President is Commander in Chief of these. The individual states also have militias. Sometimes these will be called to serve alongside the army and navy. When this happens, the President is also Commander in Chief of these militias.

I've got no idea what the legal situation would be if the militias were called to serve the United States and refused, but I think it'd be a moot point. To me, it reads like that clause is more to clarify that when the militias are fighting alongside the army they are under the same commander rather than being about when there is civil war.

US based amateurs?

Personally I'm happy with my OFCOM rules though.

MD1CLV

The whole proposal covers all the amateur bands - but I think (the FCC are not my radio authority) that the mode issue is something which only affects the HF bands.

I agree that it's a great thing though - I was amazed just the other day when I suggested sending data during silent portions of a voice conversation and was told that this would be against US rules.

This will affect the amateur HF bands, not the agency bands. At the moment, US rules have separate sub-bands for voice, data and image transmissions. This does not really fit with how modern digital schemes transmit - there could be a lot of metadata carried with digital voice signals, for example. What this proposal does is do away with the rules which say where you can transmit voice and replace it with rules which say you can transmit any signal which takes less than X khz bandwidth in this segment.