Yes, there are still many small problems, but it really pays off filing a bugreport (with example file) - they have a much better management of bugs than most opensource projects and the chances are good that you will be able to get a fix in a few weeks. I have very good experience with that.
I doubt there are that many people outside of the stereotypical Slashdot demographic who view Microsoft the way you are describing them. Most people I know of know Microsoft as simply the company who makes the software they are familiar with.
Well, the problem is that Microsoft no longer makes software they are familiar with!
The ribbon-interface for Office was already alienating their users, although in the end it was accepted - but Windows 8 is just one step too far - a LOT of users are fed up. Apple is profiting from that, but also Android and maybe soon Steambox.
I wrote: "they also have a system in place to protect it from criticism - just try to criticize it and you will see the system in action"
You wrote: "thatsracist"
"my definition"? Huh?
The general definition is a centralized economy, i.e. no private property.
Of course that causes so much starvation and misery that even Stalin did not go "all communist" and just *had* to allow a black private market (and also private gardens).
But the Cambodian communists really believed in communism - and they really realized it - of course the whole thing collapsed after a few years.
"Spending money" is easy. Building something useful with it not so much.
If you want to build something in the US, you have to pay for the corruption (the Americans have even a catchy well-sounding name for corruption: "Affirmative Action" and they also have a system in place to protect it from criticism - just try to criticize it and you will see the system in action). The US has given over half a billion(!) dollars for the Obamacare Website to an AA-company - and even then the website didn't work. Obviously they are so corrupt that even with half a billion they couldn't pay a million (probably less) for a real company to do the actual work. They had to have it all. That is how inefficient things are in the US.
No way the US could build the Panama canal or go to the Moon today. That capability is long gone. It has truly become the Brazil of the North.
*every* communist country had enormous differences in wealth between their citicens. Compare the members of the Soviet nomenclature (who had even special shops with Western goods) with the Gulag-slave. (More than 10% of the population were Gulag-inhabitants, so we are talking about a large segment of the population here.)
A little known-fact was that the income differences in East Germany were about the same as in West Germany - but only when you assume that the people had equal rights which of course they hadn't. When you take all the privileges/penalties into account the differences were much greater than anybody in the West can even imagine.
That is not true, Cambodia under the Red Khmer was truly communist, they even disallowed private gardens and forced everybody to wear the same clothes.
Oh come on - the mouse in the video seems to be extremely slow and probably already heavily injured. The chickens outnumber the mouse and are so confused and timid that they let it get away.
Aircraft carriers are only bigger by volume but they weight much less than the biggest battleships. So for all practical purposes (especially cost) they are smaller than battleships.
Put a t-Rex into a forest with a pride of hungry lions. How long do you think the Rex would last?
Interesting question, the answer would obviously depend on whether the T-Rex would find enough food. Maybe the T-Rex could hunt elephants? Also new research hints that T-Rex may have been more of a scavanger than a hunter, so maybe T-Rex just follows the lions and chases them away everytime they kill a gazelle? On the other hand, a T-Rex probably weights more than a pack of lions, therefore it would have to snatch away the prey of several lion packs.
So probably you are right and the T-Rex would starve.
Wait, I've been told that evolution "stopped" 10,000 years ago and that is why human intelligence is exactly the same for everybody except for dissidents who are stupid, stupid, stupid.
I'd really be interested what kind of supernatural force made evolution "stop" for humans but allowed it for dinosaurs and all other non-humans. Also why - and how - does this supernatural force make an exception to the exception for dissidents and makes only them stupid, while everybody else is exactly equal?
Basically we have evolution which says that genes exist and that different populations have different traits. Then we have the unexplained exception for human intelligence, which is designed (uh?) to be exactly the same for everybody - which means that in some way evolution was suspended for the human brain which is designed (uh?) to be exactly equal for everybody, regardless of any genes - but not for the non-brainy parts, which are still dependent on genes. But then again we have the exception to the exception for dissidents who are all stupid and not equal at all. Hmmm....
Kind of hard to understand what makes evolution happen only in some cases, maybe somebody can clear this one up.
Who talked about ostracism? Oh, that was you.
I also don't quite get it how you can mix up "screening for a disease" with "deny it's existence", isn't that the complete opposite?
So who is talking about denying Ebola's existence - or if not that not doing anything about it? Oh, you again.
100 years ago, screening for diseases was normal procedure for immigration in pretty much every country - especially if that disease was contagious.
Yes that was before political correctness.
Today we screen only for those "dangerous" soda bottles and creams that people like you think can be used to hijack a plane.
But AIDS, Ebola, Thyphus? No problem, who cares that thousands or even millions will die of it?
... let all ebola-infected people into Western countries, do not - ever - screen anybody for it (that would be racist), create a ribbon campaign for feeling good and kill the jobs of everybody who dares to disagree on that.
It worked great with AIDS, why shouldn't it work with Ebola?
The Soyuz had two loss of crew accidents in 120 flights. And ten more mission failures.
Shuttle had two loss of crew accidents in 135 flights. And no extra mission failures.
I fail to see the reliability advantage of the Soyuz.
The difference is that the Soyus does not have nearly as much launch delays as the Space Shuttle. The weather could delay a Space Shuttle start for months. That is also part of reliability - a launcher is worthless if you can't use it because the weather is not perfect.