80% of computers are also rarely if ever used for gaming and have little if any need for directx beyond 9.

Highly unlikely. The only significant advantage appears to be the ability to load textures into system RAM instead of only GPU's RAM.

Problem: most games do not need any more then your mid-end discreet GPU already has. Most require far less, as most games are optimized for older console generation and don't really have high res textures. Those that come with PC only "high res texture packs" still usually fit fine inside average discreet GPU's memory.

OpenGL is a graphics API. It competes with Direct3D. Direct3D is a subset of DirectX. DirectX includes a whole lot more in addition to graphics.

Afaik unreal engine runs on openGL and PS3's version of graphics API just fine.

Studying history has an age requirement?

I'm in my thirties.

I honestly didn't mean GTA, but actual SIMULATORS. As in gran turismo and similar titles.

To me, the first time I had car's steering wheel in my hands, it felt weird because it wasn't a joystick. But actual process of handling the car was quite familiar. I also saw girls from my class (our driving lessons were actually a part of optional lyceum curriculum) taking lessons with me, and I saw them steer the car into ditches if not for instructor applying hard brakes. Several times. In just one driving session. It was actually pretty strange to the point of me remembering it over ten years after it happened, because I kept thinking "how can you not understand such basics of steering?"

I never had this problem because I had a fairly good idea on how car is supposed to handle even though I didn't really understanding how to operate the analogue wheel and pedals at first, which took a bit to adapt to. Clutch took a bit longer.

Again, this is just my personal experience. YMMV and I certainly don't argue this to be a universal truth. It is however a fact that surgeons operating surgery robots perform significantly better if they are in my generation or younger then those older ones who never played computer games.

That depends. Quite a few kids play driving and racing simulators of various kinds since little nowadays and have a decent understanding on what kind of decisions work and don't in a car. I know I've been playing them since a kid, I'm 32 now, my entire driving penalty history consists of one fine for speeding when police nailed me for going 74km/h when underhill in 60km/h zone which was actually a rural road and everyone drives 65-70. And I needed about 2 lessons behind the wheel before I could have passed a driving test. It was basically all about learning the difference between the games and feeling the actual speed and road with steering wheel and pedals. Which I still remember as being both terrifying and exciting. The actual decision making was fairly easy as logic was very similar to that in games.
Notably I passed the driving test on the first try.

We allow driving from 18 and up in cars and 15 and up in mopeds and microcars here in Finland (less then 45km/h max speed, usually small and light diesel cars). While the bumpers on those cars tend to be damaged from having problems doing things like parking, actual driving accidents in those that don't involve alcohol are fairly rare.

Another thing to note, is that we now see this in many much more dangerous things, like the younger surgeons having clearly better aptitude to make surgeries with robotic tools that their older and more experienced counterparts due to being used to controllers from playing games.

That is just patently false. Essentially the entire "human rights" as well as "women's rights" got pushed by "old ladies knitting society". Attention whores got the attention of the media, but it's the quiet housewives that did the actual political lifting, pressuring their husbands in high places of the society to adapt the change.

The traits are distinctly harmful. She has:
1. Severe problems putting on muscle mass, to the point of having to wear ankle bracers for balance
2. Likely has problems swallowing, specifically food ending up in nasal cavity.
3. Unknown complications (and likely trouble in finding a mate) from widely set eyes, which may trigger a natural rejection response in human males, similar to facial shape of people with down's.

Finding a genetic problem is very easy in comparison to fixing it. To find, you need to grab any available cell, sequence DNA and then run analysis comparing it to previously known mutations and their effects against sympthoms of the patient.

This is doable with a second hand lab equipment and a computer with access to some medical databases. It's also doable by a decent lab researcher.

To treat the problem, you'd need extensive and actually working gene therapy. We do not have one yet, and it's highly unlikely that we will have one any time soon. Problems are simply too big to surmount, you need to create a version of DNA with changed genome, and somehow insert it into nucleus of all relevant cells of the patient.

Comparing this to what has been done here is akin to comparing invention of a wheel to inventing a modern airliner engine. It's a first, easiest step on the very long and difficult road.

I would actually argue that attention whores are good in politics, because they tend to find attention being the reward of its own. That results in people like Chavez, who as long as they get attention are willing to push themselves massively in favour of their own people.

On the other end of spectrum you have politicans like Bush, who are in it for the cause. They tend to make the worst politicians for their own people.

One could actually suggest that requirements for being a good activist (pushing cause though no matter the consequences to the people) and requirements for being a good politician (attention whoring making pleasing the people attractive to politician) are exact opposites.

I don't think this is about "microsoft believes". Microsoft has traditionally been a very pragmatic company, which is what its success is based upon.

In this case, they know that they're massively late for the mobile party, and their only real chance to succeed is to leverage their desktop monopoly. That requires pushing desktop into tablet-like looks.

Apple on the other hand made it on time and has enough presence not to need such a push (nor could it do it in the first place).

Any attempt to "bridge the gap between metro and desktop" on desktop mean downgrading desktop environment towards shitty tablet environment.

So yeah, it's an upgrade from win8, in the same sense that working cleaning the toilets in a nightclub with your tungue is an upgrade from cleaning the sewers with your tongue. Of course, windows 7 in that analogy is a nice clean office job.

But they want a slice of the "idiot teenage mobile device crowd" market, and the only way to get it is to leverage their desktop monopoly.

So desktop needs to start looking similar enough to mobile.

Essentially, it's likely that the only way for MS to drop metro from desktop is to drop windows phone entirely in its current form.

Again, it sounds like you have never seen any activists. It sounds like you saw some parasites/attention whores however and mistook them for activists.