I'd assumed he was a good guy who'd stolen a stormtrooper uniform to infiltrate and/or escape. Though of course they may have expanded their cloning program to include equally capable subjects from varied genetic backgrounds...

Since you like Wikipedia, let's go with this:The_Canadian_Crown_and_the_Canadian_Forces.

"Formally, there is a direct chain of command from the Queen of Canada to the governor general, through the Chief of the Defence Staff to all of the officers who hold the Queen's Commission, and through them, to all members of the Canadian Forces.[7] No other person, including the prime minister, cabinet ministers, nor public servants is part of the chain of command; nor does any other person have any command authority in the Canadian Forces,[8] an arrangement maintained to ensure that "the military is an agent for and not a master of the state."[9] As such, all new recruits into the Canadian Forces are required to recite the Oath of Allegiance to the monarch and his or her heirs and successors. According to the National Defence Act, the use of traitorous or disloyal words towards the reigning king or queen is a service offence and may be punishable by up to seven years imprisonment.[10]"

"Declarations of war, the mobilisation of troops,[11] and the organisation of the forces all fall within the Royal Prerogative; direct parliamentary approval is not necessary for such, though the Cabinet may seek it nonetheless and the Crown-in-Parliament is responsible for allocating moneys necessary to fund the military.[12] The monarch issues letters patent, known as the Queen's Commission, to commissioned officers in the Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Navy, and the Royal Canadian Air Force.[13] Further, all regulations for the Canadian Forces are set out by the sovereign in the Queen's Regulations and Orders. Neither the monarch nor the viceroy, however, involve themselves in direct military command; per constitutional convention, both must almost always exercise the Royal Prerogative on the advice of the Cabinet, although the right to unilaterally use those powers in crisis situations is maintained.[n 1][14][15][16][17][18][19]"

Note particularly "the right to unilaterally use those powers in crisis situations is maintained." I can tell you, as someone who's served in the Canadian military, they make it clear to us that this is the case. If you think that's merely ceremonial in nature, well, it's never been tested (much like withholding Royal Assent has never been tested), but you should know there are definitely some military personnel who would follow orders from the Queen. If you don't think that's a form of actual legal authority, I don't know what is.

They did attack Parliament, and they attacked something symbolic (the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier) on the way there. You know? Symbolism? Equally important to terrorists as it is to governments.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. She most definitely does have legal authority. Check your facts.

Yes, let's make light of the fact that people just died. Classy. Also: fuck you.

You're quite mistaken. She has the power to dissolve parliament, she gives formal assent to all legislation, etc. And, yes, in some circumstances the government can compel you to swear loyalty to her. (For instance, if a draft was instituted, you'd be required to do so to serve in the military. If you declined to do so, you could be jailed instead. And all new citizens are required to swear loyalty to her.) But don't let details get in the way of your rant.

It doesn't seem the researchers took into account another factor: physical fitness. If they had other test subjects run for twenty minutes before starting their day, that'd make a significant difference in their feelings of alertness in the office. Some people drink coffee ultimately because they're out of shape and don't eat properly. These researchers could've had another control group do light aerobics or the like instead of napping or drinking coffee or both, and compared. (I'm sure there are many studies out there that have done something like this; my point is, this study isn't very useful except for the habitually sedentary.)

I misunderstood your original statement, because a 2008 MacBook did not come with 10.7 installed, it would've come with 10.5. "My 2008 MacBook that can not run newer versions of Mac OS X" meant to me "my 2008 MacBook is running what it was originally supplied with". Yes, 10.7 is still supported.

Apple claims hardware is supported for Mavericks where their QA is questionable. For instance, the "Mid/Late 2007" and "Early 2008" MacBook Pro laptops are on the supported hardware list for Mavericks, but had problems with freezing, kernel panics, and such. See for instance this discussion thread: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5474520.

I think you're confusing the continued availability of old patches for a particular version of OS X versus continued provision of current support. Sure, you can download updates you haven't already applied, but that doesn't mean they're still providing new patches for more recent issues. Given Apple doesn't have any kind of public information on support lifecycles, it kind of clouds the discussion (which may be part of their intent). It's also hard to comment further when you don't say what version of OS X you're running. Certainly 10.5 and 10.6 are no longer supported by Apple.

The problem being, those Macs won't receive security updates from Apple for the full term the users are planning to keep them for. That's one reason I'm no longer an Apple customer. The hardware's great, but the support lifecycle is not only too short, it's not even publicly documented.

I'm not sure why any of them wouldn't, though it's often very project specific as to how they want documentation bugs identified/categorized. For instance, I once reported a documentation error for GCC and asked why they didn't have a general category for such in their Bugzilla. Their answer was that they use a keyword "documentation" and want documentation bugs filed against the specific component (as if it was a software bug), as the developers of the component in question also "own" any documentation issues. Some other projects are similar, or have their own quirks.

Actually, most of the major BSDs use the newer rc.d system. FreeBSD, NetBSD, and DragonFly BSD all use rc.d. OpenBSD is the hold-out.

The woman narrating the video isn't even consistent with her pronunciation. The last two times she says it, she first goes with the normal "nome" pronunciation, and then she seems to catch herself wanting to do it again, and gets out a half-G sound. I take this as a sign that "guh-nome" isn't the natural or comfortable choice for most native English speakers. (Given the negative response of so many people to the software, this seems somehow apt...)

I'm not sure this has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but there are machines that Apple claims are supported by Mavericks which in fact exhibit serious issues. I'm referring specifically to the "Mid/Late 2007" and "Early 2008" MacBook Pro laptops, which are on the supported hardware list for Mavericks, but have problems with freezing, kernel panics, and such. See for instance this discussion thread: https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5474520?start=0&tstart=0