You mean like how all of your old dos drivers worked so well in windows 95? All of them?
Or how all of the old 95 drivers worked so well in ME, after they made the API changes in 98SE?
Or how you could just use your old 98SE drivers with XP?
Or how nobody lost any hardware when Vista came out because they stopped supporting the old NT drivers?
Oh, that's right, none of those things happened. Windows developers break driver compatibility all the time you tool. You can't say "5 year old drivers for XP still work in XP! Hurp hurp" because it's STILL XP. If you keep the same version of a linux distro, everything will still work. It's when you upgrade to a newer operating system, the same way you might from XP to 7, that you lose support, just like you do with windows!
idiot.

If you have any random 15 year old piece of kit, you are more likely to get it running in Linux or FreeBSD than you are in windows 8.

Try downloading ClassicShell. Windows 8 says "This program isn't used very often!" and then refuses to let you install it (yeah, you can click advanced, then force it, but most people won't do that). They are actively stopping people from using the start menu. I have not found any other program, anywhere, including known malware, which throws up this "not very many people use this, so we won't let you" message.

and when they do have a reasonable answer, stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LA LA LA LA LA! My fairy book is the same as your hundreds of years of combined, improved upon knowledge. We're the same, because I don't understand the way science works!"

I don't know if you've ever stopped to consider this, but your whole worldview is flawed. You believe there are only two options, either a) science is correct in every minute detail, or b) Magic. Any time you say "Science is just like faith" everyone who knows anything will immediately assume you are a moron because you stated "I think a 2000+ year old stone age book is on equal footing with hundreds of years of research, put under extreme scrutiny all the time."

We have exactly ZERO reason to believe that things were dramatically different billions of years ago. Nothing that we have ever seen suggests that it would be the case, which makes your "it might have been different" nothing but special pleading to allow yourself an excuse to believe in fantasy. Anyone can make crap up. "We don't know that all particles weren't made of bunnies 3 billion years ago. We have FAITH that they weren't. Anyone who says the universe isn't made of tiny bunnies is doing so for religious reasons." See how stupid that sounds? And is? Faith in a god is not the same as belief that the chair you sit in won't magically disappear, and you are a liar and charlatan if you suggest otherwise.

you are a moron. given that you are the same species as all other "races," it follows that there is no inequality. No "race" is more evolved than the others, all people are the same species. One branch has different colored skin or eyes. Do you believe Tabby cats are superior to calicoes? No? You say they are all just cats? Yeah, same thing for people you racist sack of shit.

Some little brats do that every Saturday to my office building. Seems to be just as popular a game as it ever was.

I frequently set people up with Linux Mint when they bring a computer into my shop with no windows sticker, an illegal copy of windows, and a bad enough infection that it requires re-installation. I won't remove an illegal copy of windows just cause it's illegal(only tell them that it's illegal and ask them if they wish to purchase a license), but I will not reinstall an illegal copy if it comes to that.

Sure, some of them have the money to get a new windows license with their repair, but in this area a lot of people just don't have that sort of money, and they jump at getting their PC up and running for $100 less. Once I put the install CD in, it takes about 30 minutes to run through, reboots, and everything works. Immediately. There is zero configuration required. The people I give it back to, who are not terribly tech savy, have all said they have really enjoyed it, found it easy to get around in and do what they need. They have no trouble figuring out the software manager, connecting to the internet, or setting up their e-mail. I have had one person who could not use his printer anymore, but chose to buy a $35 used printer rather than a $100 operating system license.

The only configuration I have to do on these systems is making sure that LibreOffice saves its documents in MS 2003 format by default, so they don't have to fight with compatibility when they send e-mails. Hardly "A day or longer"

We aren't really genetically identical to prehistoric humans though. As a quick example: I can digest lactose as an adult. This amazing feat arose in our species during the neolithic. It has occurred due to one of two completely unrelated mutations, in separate parts of the world. For 95% of our history, we as a species could not do this, and today a little over 50% of you still cannot.

Overall gene distribution patterns have changed radically, new mutations have popped up and become widespread. We may have been the same species 150,000 years ago, but we, taken as a whole, were not genetically identical.

The average person ranges from 60-100 bpm resting, so lets call it 80. That drops us to 35.

You know what the historical average life expectancy for our species is? Take a guess, just throw something out there. Go on.

25-30. This life expectancy, as a species, of roughly 30 years held until a century ago. The only reason we don't fall on this scale today has been the improvements in our medical care. You can't be skeptical of a theory just because you don't know very much about history.

You seriously believe drugs are more important than human rights? And that the solution to the deficit is cutting public services like schools and medicare? Are you stupid, or just a psychopath?

Mental retardation is overwhelmingly caused by fragile X syndrome or down syndrome, which are 100% genetic. They make up the majority of the developmentally delayed community.

Not to be contrarian, but we haven't proven any of our theories at all.

First, you do not know what is occurring in every place in the universe. No number of experiments will ever prove a theory to be true because you cannot perform the test at every conceivable place in the universe. This is why Francis Bacon stated that the proper scientific method should be falsification. You only have to find one place where a theory comes up short to prove it wrong, but time constraints say that you can never prove that it is right. This is what modern science is based upon.

More importantly to his post, however, is the fact that we have no deductive reason to assume that the future will replicate the past. The GP says

He is referring to the problem of induction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

This is not "fancy footwork," it is a many centuries old philosophical problem brought up by David Hume. You cannot state "X happened in the past, therefor it will happen in the future" without using "X happened in the past" as your reason for believing "X will continue to happen."

Essentially, you cannot prove induction correct without being inductive. "The ice I've touched has been cold, therefor all ice is cold" is not deductive reasoning.

This is, for all intents and purposes, a genuine criticism of the scientific method. "All ice I've ever touched is cold" may be true, but "All ice is cold" is completely false. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/03/turing-water-into-very-hot-ice-very-very-quickly.ars http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN1621607620070516

This is the sort of thinking that science employs, however. Now, his point is not that science is not useful, nor is it that science is wrong. He is simply stating that inductive thinking is programmed into us, and that there is no good deductive logic which led us to it. You see neither causality nor time, these concepts exist inside of you -- i.e. Science is a byproduct of being an ape, not a byproduct of logic itself.

2 to 3 feet of water will not make a large enough pressure difference to be significant. It would likely result in just enough pressure to increase the temperature roughly 1C, which, at normal altitudes, would still be less than 101C (roughly 100.97C). I would not call 1C "significant," would you?