Install classic shell (classicshell.net) and your problems are over. It puts a start menu back into Win8, and it works pretty well. There are no search categories, and the cheese metro hides from you is in plain sight! Once this is on your machine Win8 is basically Win7, only better. Highly recommended!

If you're setting up a new Win8 box, classic shell is available through ninite as well, which is pretty handy.

Had Adria posted the photo of the two men and made her claims about their conversation anonymously, would they have been taken as seriously?

Probably not. How many people are fired over a harmless photo and unsubstantiated anonymous claims? It was Adria's reputation and position that lent weight to her claims and got mr-hank fired. Now, let's follow up with another question:

The next time Adria Richards makes a similar claim, will it be taken seriously?

Almost certainly not.

The negative effects of Richards' actions were only made possible by being tied to her identity, which is now basically discredited. This is interesting, because it shows that social media is really starting to settle down and behave like more traditional manners of human interaction. Completely anonymous interactions are still possible, but lack power. Conversely, identity carries power, but if that power that is misused it quickly dissipates.

When I first read the reactions to this incident, I initially felt sympathy for mr-hank and outrage over his firing. This naturally led to anger against Richards, and I had to wonder if this anger might cause people to overreact and shame her excessively. However, this is exactly what would happen in a traditional human social setting, and it's healthy. She abused her power and hurt another person, failed to show any form of remorse, and now this reaction by the community is disarming her so that she can't immediately harm others. She will have to earn that power back, and it's not going to be easy. This is as it should be. The HN community also appears to be rallying around mr-hank and trying to see that he's looked after. Again, this is very heartening to see.

Like nature in Jurassic park, established patterns of human interaction in a community setting seem to find a way.

Early agriculturalists actually had it much rougher than this article implies for a real kicker of a reason:

Wild plants suck as crop plants.

Maize was domesticated from a bushy grass called teosinte (Agriculture arose independently in the Americas a little later than in the Middle East). Google that and see how closely it resembles the big juicy corn-cobs you're used to. Where corn has giant cobs crammed with hundreds upon hundreds of big juicy kernals, teosinte has a miserly amount of sad, pathetic, and tiny little kernals. You'd have to grow an entire field full of teosinte to equal the output of a small patch of corn. If a modern farmer saw one of his fields being overgrown with teosinte he'd probably spray it with herbicide. If some contagion wiped out all of our crop plants and we had to go back to wild crops we would be absolutely humped as a species. Now, imagine how difficult it must have been to come up with the idea of settling down and growing crops to live on when the crops you could grow were basically weeds!

In fact, teosinte was so far from being a viable crop that some have proposed theories about intermediate steps. For example, consider the Beer (or chicha) theory of civilization! Somehow, somebody discovered that you can ferment teosinte into something that tastes weird and makes you act even weirder. Fun stuff! While teosinte was not a crop you could build a viable farm on, maybe some hunter-gatherers stumbled upon the process of making chicha. At first, collecting wild teosinte would have taken a lot of work. Far too much for the calories yielded. However, they probably had the time for the occasional novelty! Being lazy, these hunter-gatherers probably realized they could scatter some of the seeds they collected in a specific spot, continue their wanderings, and find a much denser patch of wild teosinte in the same spot a year later. They might even have started selecting which seeds to scatter, either fortuitously preferring the smaller ones for flavor or being smart enough to deliberately select the mutants with higher yields to sow for next year. Perhaps the first steps towards agriculture (in the new world at least) were taken by the paleolithic equivalent of frat-boys! Actually, no archaeologist would ever say that. They would instead say, "priests and shamans" used the beer for religious ceremonies. (Hot tip: If archaeologists have no clue what something they find is for, they usually say it has "possible religious significance".) It makes no real difference what their reasons were. In this theory, the selective breeding of teosinte to produce maize can start long before people actually have to rely on maize to supply much in the way of calories. Humankind's urge to get plastered may have ultimately led to civilization!

Wait! There's more! Proponents of this theory have also pointed out that beer solves a lot of problems early civilizations probably had. Take water quality for example. If a lot of hunter-gatherer's with no concept of germs or hygiene were to settle next to a river, you can bet that the river would be pretty deadly to drink out of before too long. Fortunately, if you take some water, combine it with grain and ferment it, the result is a tasty fermented beverage that is safe to drink thanks to the wonders of alcohol! (Early fermented beverages probably had a pretty low alchohol content and packed a healthy dose of calories. Perfect for quenching the thirst and nourishing hard working agriculturalists from dawn till dusk!) I could go on for a while...

TL;DR - Beer, rather than being an evil byproduct of civilization, may be what gave us both agriculture and civilization! Beer is good.

Ham-fisted attempt to tie this back into all-things entrepreneurial: The development of agriculture was a bit of a chicken-and-the-egg problem. You can't have agriculture without crop-plants, but how could we have developed crop plants without agriculture? Beer. Sometimes, something that looks like a total waste of time becomes the foundation of very serious things (TM), such as the whole of human civilization. Thanks to the adderall-fuelled march of progress we now get to see this process play out in a matter of years or even months! Keep your eye on frivolous crap!

Similarly, cheese is probably what allowed the lactose-intolerant humans to transition into lactose tolerance:

http://www.nature.com/news/art-of-cheese-making-is-7-500-yea...

In this paper they invoke the assumption of "fair sampling". i.e. They assume what they do detect is representative. Ergo, they have not closed the detection loophole in this experiment. Fair sampling is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make and is very commonly used, so this should not be interpreted as invalidating their results. It just leaves room for improvement in the future, since single photon detectors with sufficient efficiency to close the detection loophole do now exist (They are very bleeding edge).

Note that the paper is correct and does not make the claim that "all loopholes" have been closed. The extremetech article got it wrong.

Not completely, but if I'm reading the paper correctly, they claim a detection rate of 91%, which is pretty high. Previous experiments had much lower detection rates. So while it may not completely close the loophole, it does make the detection loophole argument ("the photons you detected weren't a representative sample") much more "paranoid", to use your word.

Study: Published by the "Post Carbon Institute". They're not even trying.

Article: Written by an author whose only credentials are a pretty face and a B.Sc. in biology. Can she spot bad stats? Probably not. Is she likely to take any damning claim about the oil sands the study makes at face value without a second thought? Yes.

Publisher: insideclimatenews.org. They're a little more cagey about revealing their biases than the Post Carbon Institute, which is to say they're still about as subtle as a club to the head.

Now, don't get me wrong. I live close to the oil sands and will pay a greater price than most reading this for that oil. I am not in the O&G industry, but I have deep concerns about how the oilsands are being extracted. Specifically, groundwater seepage from tailings ponds is probably one of the nastiest local consequences. Perhaps even more concerning is that accountability is going down as foreign ownership climbs. Just as no Hollywood blockbuster makes money on paper these days, my concern is that once the oilsands are no longer commercially viable, parent companies will quietly abscond with the profits while the oilsands companies go bankrupt and fail to follow through on the long-term cleanup that will be necessary.

However, all this is no excuse for giving a pass to blatantly biased articles. When we give attention to articles such as this it detracts attention from well-researched independent studies reported on by people who actually have the chops to spot bad stats and tease apart biased studies. It makes those who are against oilsands development look like a bunch of clueless tree-hugging hippies!

"Given that you obviously feel you can kill foreign citizens in their own countries along with an "acceptable" number of innocents without fear of reprisal, do you feel you can do the same in your own country where you have complete authority?"

While I feel many of Obama's policies are laudable, I think his wanton disregard for international law is reprehensible and ultimately doing more harm than good. Extraterritorial strikes are based on the classic notion of attrition warfare. i.e. If you kill enough of the enemy eventually there won't be any left. This strategy failed in Vietnam, failed in Iraq, and is in the final stages of failing in Afghanistan. What should make Pakistan any different? If it weren't for the Taliban's own atrocities (e.g. The shooting of Malala Yousufzai), anti-American sentiment and pro-Taliban support would be at an all time high due to outrage over the regular violation of Pakistan's sovereignty by drone attacks.

These strikes also set a very ugly precedent. As private use of UAV's begins to take off, it's going to become increasingly hard to prevent foreign interests from using them on U.S. soil. e.g. How will police be able to distinguish a tacocopter in San Francisco from a UAV packing a charge of explosives for an assassination? If foreign countries have the capability of killing U.S. citizens on U.S. soil who are inconvenient to their interests, what legitimate protest could the U.S. possibly raise against the practice at this point?