If they contributed solely out of their own business interests, and their contributions add nothing of value other than compatibility with Microsoft's proprietary software, and nobody who doesn't want to use Microsoft's proprietary software will see any benefit whatsoever from any of the changes Microsoft contributed to the kernel, then yeah, I would say it's fair to rate Microsoft's contributions to the Linux kernel lower than those of a company like, say, Red Hat.

Those stories a couple years ago about how "Microsoft is now one of the top kernel contributors"? Look at it this way: That's how much Microsoft had to change the kernel to make it work with Microsoft's proprietary VM tech.

Fair enough. Microsoft's contributions are as welcome as anybody's, provided it plays by the rules. But are you saying we're supposed to congratulate them for it? Hardly, I say.

Word. My parents never kept any slaves, either. Slavery is a myth.

I worked for a company that had a QA team. Basically, the presence of the QA team was seen as confirmation that every engineering decision was right and correct. Never mind that nobody ever listened to what the QA team said. The fact that they were allowed to speak up at meetings was proof that everything we did had "passed QA."

My understanding is that McDonald's shakes are mostly potato starch. I think this is because it's more stable than half-melted ice cream; you can make the shakes quickly and they will have the consistency customers expect. Real ice cream shakes run the risk of liquefying prematurely. The part about them "not containing enough milk" is probably urban legend, though.

You're assuming quite a lot there. I didn't see any sentence in there that said "Oracle's JVM is the version of Java used to surf the web." But most of the exploits we're talking about certainly do involve the version of Java used to surf the web -- the Java plugin. People who are just running desktop Java apps aren't vulnerable. These are browser exploits, or exploits that attack the interface between the plugin and the browser. If a Reuters reporter wants to simplify the language so that regular people can understand it, where's the harm?

Other than all those Iraqi civilians getting shot in that one video, I guess.

I'm not going to argue that what Manning did was in keeping with his oath or with U.S. law, but come on -- if the leaked information wasn't important and relevant, then what's all the goddamn fuss about? Why isn't Bradley Manning a free man today?

Oh, can the flag-waving. The leaked cables were all about U.S. foreign policy. Who would like to know about that -- whom does it concern -- if not foreign nationals?

But suppose Manning leaked the cables to someone who wasn't a foreign national. When that person went and turned over the information to The New York Times the way Assange did, I guess foreign nationals were just going to ignore it?

This is the dumbest argument against what Manning did that I've heard yet.

For his narcissism? No. But he just gave an interview where he said he consciously made a decision that he knew might have literally ended another man's life. Death threats are one thing, but how many people have actively taken steps to kill Adrian Lamo -- the way he admits he did to Bradley Manning? I hope he realizes that there might be consequences for actions as grave as his, but I assume he doesn't, because he's a narcissist.

Again, for his narcissism? No on the "gut-level hate," whatever that means. But he certainly deserves my utmost contempt for being such a despicable person. You might think he did what he did out of some kind of pang of conscience, but as I've said, I don't buy that. Not one bit. He didn't do it for his country, or out of concern for Manning's mental health, or any of the other excuses. He did it for himself, because he's not really capable of thinking about anyone else. Whether it's his autism that makes him that way or whatever other reason, it still pretty much makes him scum, IMHO.

Donald Trump is a television cartoon personality. Adrian Lamo is a real person who ruined another man's life in a way that hopefully none of us will ever experience, and he did it for pretty much no valid reason at all. I'll take Donald Trump.

Mouse to taskbar. Click on Network icon in the system tray. A big Network panel pops up from the right of the screen showing all the networks you're connected to and all the Wi-Fi networks that are available. Right click on the one you're connected to, choose "Show estimated data usage" from the menu. That took me less than ten seconds to figure out and I'd never even tried to find out my data usage before. I'd say that's pretty intuitive.

Well, nowhere except Amazon I guess. Or TigerDirect, or Best Buy, or whatever ... I have one of these and it works great. I don't have cause to do a lot of number-crunching most days anymore, though, and the AAA batteries on it tend to run out even after I haven't been using it, so more often than not I end up using an HP48 emulator on my Android phone. I do like the real buttons on the standalone calculator, though, so if I had more cause to calculate I'd use that.

If you liked the Q&A interview, don't forget to read his lengthy, rambling, and confusing essay about it!

Errr, well you know, Windows 8 ships with a Metro flavor of IE 10, and with recent versions of Chrome you can opt to have that run as a Metro app, too. I think Firefox might still be working on it. But there doesn't seem to be anything stopping you from trying one of the others out and seeing how it works for you.

Probably. I know my Windows 8 machine is. It's basically just Windows 7, only it uses fewer resources. Don't believe the people who tell you the Start Screen is some kind of apocalypse. It's easy to ignore. I think it would be a dumb move for the military to sign a deal like this only to stick with Windows 7, actually.

For me, a big part of the problem is that this is Adrian Lamo, and he has always seemed like an attention-seeking narcissist, even before any of this Bradley Manning stuff came up. Don't you remember when he was "the homeless hacker," and he spent his days sponging off of online acquaintances, trashing websites, and telling his story to any reporter who came along? I just have a hard time believing that his decision to turn in Manning was motivated by anything other than his pathological need for attention.

Another part of the problem is that whatever the ethics of what Manning did, it should be clear to any rational person that his treatment by the military has been totally egregious, way beyond the pale of any logical mode of incarceration. The man was not arrested for any violent offense. He's not a rapist or a murderer (whether you think his disclosure of information indirectly cost lives is irrelevant here). After so many years locked in solitary confinement, just what do they think he could be smuggling under his ball sack that they have to strip search him and force him to sleep on the floor naked every single day? Do gang lords have to do that? Did Jeffrey Dahmer?

It's hard to have any sympathy for the government's position when their opening move in the affair was to strip Manning of his basic human rights -- not just civil, but human -- and announce that they planned to keep him that way indefinitely. How can any American justify that, given the circumstances?

Sure -- if Manning did something wrong, put him on trial and lock him up. In a prison. Like a criminal. But what kind of society are we if our government can choose when and where it feels like following our most basic moral principles? I think it's this that pisses most people off about the situation -- not that Manning is some kind of hero, which is clearly questionable.

But why bother saying something so obvious? You're acting like your statements somehow refute what other people are saying, when they don't.

Person: I am glad that I am able to flash my phone with a free OS.
You: But not everybody thinks that way!
Person: I don't really care what everybody thinks. I am glad that I am able to do it.
You: But that won't change that the vast majority doesn't care!
Person: I'm not trying to make them care. I care.
You: It doesn't matter how much you whine, most people don't care!
Person: I don't think I'm whining. I'm just stating a preference.
You: How can I explain this to you? Most people don't flash their phones!
Person: I think we're clear on that.
You: You're an idiot! They don't care!

...etc.

What. Is. Your. Point? You keep posting over and over and you're not saying anything.