I guess that's why you won't see them with an Android load and a discount. MS has probably contracted with ASUS not to do that.

For a few months I am consulting in San Jose and driving from Berkeley. I can't wait for all of those folks to move to the cities and get off the roads! Typical commute is 1.5 hours to drive no more than 49 miles. Even getting on the road at 6 AM doesn't beat the traffic.

I am no authority on homosexuality. All I really know is that I meet a lot of gay folks here in Berkeley, and they are every bit as nice as anyone else.

Nor am I a genetics expert. But I know enough to hold a discussion.

You are right that there may be no genetic connection with homosexuality, because it doesn't seem to be inherited in general. But there are intriguing differences such as digit ratio, and we know that many developmental differences can have a genetic factor. Who knows what we will find?

I think the flaw with your argument is that you are assuming that homosexuals don't breed. Not true, and there may also be factors increasing the success of their offspring such as small, educated and relatively affluent families.

Next, do not assume that direct reproductive success is the only possible pro-survival factor. The contribution of homosexuals to the reproductive success of their close genetic relatives or even their community may be a pro-survival factor for genes like their own.

There are others whose opinions are far more principal to that question than yours.

Those who ignore history are bound to make really big fools of themselves on Slashdot.

Go away, troll.

I wasn't saying that all of the Red Hat Enterprise Linux users would install it immediately in their mission critical systems on Wall Street, either.

But we can give you a significant number of users of a real kernel for your experiment.

The OS is mostly replaced about every 5-10 years.

That's why we have Linux. You can get a real OS implementation in users hands immediately. You only need these poor half measures for the Microsoft version.

I have no objection to protocol experiments that are 100% Open Source implementations. I wouldn't trust one that was not, and an Open Standard is just instructions for people who make implementations.

But it seems that a lot of this might belong in a system facility rather than the browser and server. I don't know if it makes sense to put all of TLS in the kernel, but at least it could go in its own process. Using UDP is fine for an experiment, but having 200 different ad-hoc network stacks each tied into their own application and all of them using UDP is not.

What you want exists under the Part 5 rules, which you can read here. That is a separate radio service that allows experimentation for commercial purposes and other things that would not fit in Amateur radio. You have to file notices, but you can do what you want, and on a lot of different frequencies.

The Part 97 rules for the Amateur Sevice create a pretty good balance between the needs of all of the various users of Amateur radio. It's not really designed for all sorts of experimentation without limit, it's more for experimentation by individuals with explicitly non-profit and personal motivation.

If FCC had to decide an obscentity question, it would use a test derived from the one in Miller v. California. The most important of the three tests in that is whether the item lacks literary, artistic, scientific, or political value. Would that such a standard were applied to Slashdot!

Well, I really do appreciate that we keep folks who can't articulate themselves without resorting to swear words out of the ham community, and that they have to take a test as well. The people we talk with on ham radio meet a higher standard than you'd meet in the local bar, or come to think of it, on Slashdot. And I'm not the slightest bit interested in lowering that standard.