> That would break the main goal of NTP, which is to provide high accuracy time to computers. Many systems, such as telescope control systems, financial trading software etc, depend on NTP to regulate the computer clock at the millisecond or microsecond level, and this accuracy would be lost during a google-style smearing operation.

Anybody who really cares about reliable time, such as telescopes, should use TAI and not UTC (and I think they do).

To me it is incomprehensible why Unix uses UTC instead of TAI for the hardware clock - TAI is the obviously correct choice.

> Why not bundle them and apply them every 10 or 20 years?

The problem we have here is that leap seconds are rare. Things that are common are tested for, and quickly found if broken. Having something which only happens every 20 years is a recipee for disaster every 20 years.

My view is that NTP is at fault, because the 61th second is a brittle way to handle it. NTP should use the same method as google for smearing the leap second out over fx an hour: http://googleblog.blogspot.dk/2011/09/time-technology-and-leaping-seconds.html

The article says the suit was about whether the APIs could be patented. That is not so - the suit was about whether the APIs could be copyrighted. The article author probably has no idea what he is talking about.

The linked article makes the claim that Oracle was suing for API patents. But AFAIK, Oracle was suing for API copyright. The article author probably has no idea what he is talking about.

> 1. 2. 3.

I have needed it to restore some old inherited laptops with Windows. And once for my home computer, which I assembled from scratch, reusing a Windows key from a laptop, so no OEM to call.

> 4. You can call Microsoft direct if you have a key.

Last time I called them (in Denmark), asking for a link to an iso, their supporter told me I couldn't get one. He suggested I download one off the pirate bay.

Computers nowadays don't come with a Windows CD. So if a virus messes up my computer, what am I to do?

I have always downloaded a Windows ISO off the Pirate Bay, which I do with an entirely clean conscience, since I own a valid Windows Key, which Microsoft also checks when I actually install windows. Websites like the Pirate Bay is what makes it actually a tiny bit user-friendly to use Windows, in spite of Microsoft.

> The Intel CPUs are so far ahead, in performance and value, that I can't help but feel embarrassed for AMD.

Not so. The Intel traditional CPU is faster, but the AMD integrated GPU is faster.

For AMD's pure-CPU parts, they seem competitively priced to me (ie: cheap).

> Every political debate in the USA about climate change countermeasures [...]

Europe is perfectly capable of making hard decisions here.

You made the non sequitur that having a donor card makes you drive carelessly, without trying to argue for it. You can't just say that it is my job to prove the negative of your assumption.

> You could just as well claim that donor cards make people drive less carefully and thus should be banned.

That analogy doesn't hold. A judge can be paid or pressured to deliver organs via death sentences. In contrast, having a donor card doesn't give you any incentive to driving carelessly.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_(politics) :

In politics, the "revolving door" is the movement of personnel between roles as legislators and regulators and the industries affected by the legislation and regulation. In some cases the roles are performed in sequence but in certain circumstances may be performed at the same time. Political analysts claim that an unhealthy relationship can develop between the private sector and government, based on the granting of reciprocated privileges to the detriment of the nation and can lead to regulatory capture.

> So he admits Chrome is broken, so he doesn't fix it and blames the CA's . . makes sense.

If the CAs' blacklists worked reliably, then chrome wouldn't need to ignore when they were down. So it is the CAs' fault.

If the exploit works by the user viewing a web page, an exploit which requires the user to view the web page for 3 seconds is significantly more powerful than an exploit which requires the user to view the web page for an hour.

I know that the exploits are more proff of concept, and that the hour long exploit may (or may not) be capable of running faster. But time to exploit is still not totally irrellevant.

All programs and drivers will continue to come with 32 bit versions for a long time. If your computer has XP on it, then it is presumably so old that it doesn't have more than 4GB RAM, so most normal people don't need 64bit.

> Should be pretty interesting to see where it ends up.

This is Newtonian mechanics. We can calculate where it ends up pretty accurately.