Don't worry, as soon as the European and American aid dries up (currently about half of all sub-saharan Africans are dependent on food aid) Africa will revert back to the pre-colonial times. As the economic crisis will harden in the next years, this is just a matter of time.

And as we have all learned in school, colonialism was a really bad thing, therefore the coming decolonialization (not what we saw in the 1960's, but the real thing that will destroy any remnant of evil western civilization in these lands) will be a Good Thing.

The great irony is that all the phony starvation (Ethiopia doubled it's population during the "famine" in the 1980s - compare that to a real famine for example the Irish potato famine in the 19th century where the population was cut in half) was televized all over the world, but the real thing probably won't - because it's no longer profitable to collect cash for a famine in an economic depression.

5 years was ancient in the 1990s, but in the 2010s it's rather "good enough" for anything that is commonly done with MS Office.

But not because "XP needs to be wiped out", but because that will be the great chance for LibreOffice and the odt Format.

Mod parent up, this is great.

And what a coincidence, in only a few decades after that statement was made, Athens lost their independence for over 2000 years. (Athens history crashcourse: First Macedonians subdued Athens, then the Romans, then the Turks. Under the Turks Athens turned into a small village with less than 10.000 inhabitants. What is now Athens has been created before and after Turkish rule.)

In the USA there are enough "disadvantaged" lumpen proletariat to start deadly riots in every city of or above medium size.

Abolish the welfare-checks and they will starve in the next winter.

Or cut off the water, no city can survive for longer than a week without a water-supply from somewhere else.

Huh? I guess you meant "and yet it made many people rich exactly as planned."

The whole reason we have a government is to give taxpayer money to well-connected friends of politicians.

Nonsense, the Soviet Union was dependent on Western handouts pretty much from the start. First the bankers financed the revolution, then investors were lured in by Lenin's NEP (New Economic Policy), then Stalin got huge military aid during the war and after the war, they constantly needed grain imports to keep their population from starving. (And that in a country that was the traditional food-exporter in the 19th century.)

In the 1980s, Poland and East Germany were only kept afloat by massive Western loans. Also despite their glorious education system, they constantly needed Westernn engineers to get anything done (my father was several times in Bukarest and Moscow during the "cold war" like thousands of engineers from Western Europe).

There were two factors that kept the system going for 70 years: Western help and huge natural ressources (which of course were also traded with the West).

To call that a "cold war" is just nonsense, btw. You don't trade with your enemy during a war. You don't give loans to an enemy during a war.

Nonsense, the same (even worse) fracturing of the x86/AMD64-hardware platform hasn't prevented it from dominating the desktop.

The article actually makes good points: Too short support periods, missing applications and drivers. These are in my opinion the only major problems that Linux has.

No, it's not science.

Talking about "concensus" and taking polls among "scientists" is not science.

Telling people to have faith in global warming despite lacking evidence is not science.

Smearing everybody who disagrees is not science.

And some mysterious computer-models without tangible predictions is not science either. If you can predict the climate, publish your predictions for each and every weather station so we can compare predicted values to actual values. (Oh, and yes, I do know the difference between weather and climate.) But no, we get some hazy predictions for something in 100 years, yet nothing for next year. - This is like a Nostradamus-book that I once stumbled upon, it was great at predicting the past, made no predictions about the immediate future and only made some predictions for something very, very far away in the future. That is not science.

Moronic arguments about weather vs. climate are not science. Yes, I do know that weather is unpredictable like the bubbles in boiling water - yet I can predict the temperature in the cattle when I know the imputs. And I can predict the temperature for the next seconds better than for the next hours. Yet for "climate models", for some mysterious reason, they claim to predict the temperature in 100 years, but cannot predict it for the next 3 years, because "that's weather". Complete nonsense. This shows that "climate models" are not much more than a modernized version of vodoo-mumbo-jumbo. I will give a climate model credit when it can predict the mean temperature for NEXT YEAR for all weather stations on all continents with significantly better accuracy than the "same as this year"-prediction. But of course that would not be alarmist enough. If you cannot beat the most simple possible prediction (that the temperature is the same next year) then your climate model is absolutely worthless.

Reusing that famous "hockey-stick" diagram forever is also not science. Why do most temperature graphs stop at the early 2000's? Because there was almost no warming since then, that's why.

Idiotic doomsday scenarios are also not science. In history, the warm periods were also the better periods for humans. This "end of the world" - "waterworld" - "runaway" nonsense is completely overblown. When the earth gets warmer, it also radiates more into space during the night, therefore more CO2 may indeed lead to some warmer years, but not to some "runaway" effect. BTW, oil production is at it's peak and will no longer significantly rise, therefore CO2-production will also level off and begin to fall in a few decades.

Most mass-murderers and serial killers are gay.

Not for Obama. He posthumously adopted Martin already because he likes his looks.

Wrong, he got out of his car in his own neighborhood. Only evil racists do that.

So to sum up:

Black hooded stranger, wandering around in the rain, peeking into houses = it's a free country, he did nothing illegal, anybody suspecting anything is an evil racist.

Non-black man, getting out of his car in his own neighborhood = he's a racist, heck he caused this fight, he's a racist, the black kid was only defending himself by bashing his head in, he's a racist.

This depends on the situation.

If a black man is questioned by an evil racist, he is fully entitled to bash his head in. The evil racist left his car, which as we have seen right here on slashdot is a provocation - and racist.

If an evil racist is beaten by a black, well of course the evil racist is not allowed to defend himself, because that would be even more racist.

Since you are an evil racist, I answer your question: If you are beaten by another evil racist, shoot him. Otherwise, calm down, think of something nice and wait for help to arrive.