And Google is one of the biggest proponents to Python, so there's that to consider.

You can know how to use a terminal on a headless server, write your C code in VIM or EMACS, and compile your code with GCC, and be totally content and remove any overhead, but as long as you understand these tools I don't see any harm in using a program that links your libraries and throws you right onto the starting line with the click of a button. You can only write the same 20 lines of code and manually set paths so often before you're writing your own templates and doing the same thing the IDE would do for you anyway. It's typically natural to start programming in an IDE, but those who rely on it, rather than choose to use it, and never eventually venture down to the command line to build their program from scratch are only seeing half of the picture and will never fully grasp the basic concepts of what they're doing.

Seriously this is the most unintuitive design I've come across for a UI; honestly Windows 8 looks better. This is never going anywhere. The iPad has room for reasonably sized buttons, there is no reason for this garbage.

It also goes without saying that women who want to compete in E-Sports are free to do so. I distinctly remember multiple occasions where there were female team members competing along-side male-only teams.

You may like cowering behind your monitor, sitting in your own filth of chip crumbs, and typing with your sticky fingers; but you're the argument against anonymity on the internet.

I still like my Wii U

Default is king.

Seriously, it's misleading and wrong. Get this shit out of here.

But you have a syntax error. 'it's'=>'it\'s' FTFY

Well that's the sad truth when basing hypothesis on unproven theories. If Supersymmetry flops, as a whole, it doesn't necessarily mean that we start over from scratch. There could be some truth to each theory even though certain aspects fall through. Physics is about knowing physical law, not wishing it into existance. Wishful thinking only takes us so far and eventually conclusions need to be determined. Well it seems we're getting near the point of drawing conclusions. Picking up the working pieces of busted theories and setting them into improved hypothesis is the best we can do with our current technology. Rather than designing new theories we should focus on developing new technologies to enable the next rounds of experimentation.

I don't think this guy knows what he's talking about, but that's beside the point. There is absolutely no reason to argue against an operating system you DON'T use. That is the reason you use OpenBSD instead of FreeBSD right? Shit if you're that worried about security go play with Windows for an hour, and come back to see how secure FreeBSD actually is. /dev/random is supposed to become incrementally better with time, but FreeBSD is about tested stability. You're criticizing the project for not implementing a new technology and that is arrogant. Keep testing your chip-based crypto and when it's ready it will get used right away. For now software cryptography is perfectly fine.

Because it's the car that's unsafe. If they were driving any other vehicle, the headline would use it's name instead. Those two died, it's terribly sad, but it could have happened to anyone in any car.

The problem is that Tesla said they could fix the issue with software. They would be in a pretty bad situation if all of the current cars needed extra hardware.

Is it really worth it?

It's way too soon for these to matter. Maker Bots are still in a very early stage. Using them for this application now will do no good. Waste of money, time, and effort.