Because, like, you can't execute one sh script in another sh script! Oh thank you Microsoft for giving us what 40 years worth of scripting coders never had! How did we ever live without Redmond?

The uninitiated are going to have as much trouble with Powershell as sh.

And with a whole different argument syntax.

I like conciseness. It's a personal preference. I use Powershell when I have to (which is fortunately fairly rare these days), admit it's significant power, particularly with Server 2012, and yet there's nothing it does that I can't do in Bash.

And yes, I know "OBJECTS!" Don't care. I end up having to filter everything to ASCII text anyways, so I find it an irritating extra step and distraction. You like it, bully. I think it has to be the worst shell since C shell.

I'm not interested in the utterances of astroturfers. Powershell is too fucking verbose.

Microsoft is running up against 40+ years of Bourne shell and its descendants. I doubt even Microsoft could really hope to defeat that kind of legacy.

Except that you end up turning those objects into text anyways in a large majority of scripts, making the "object" innovation little more than an annoying gimmick.

How does "mv" not explain what the command does?

Powershell's warts, or at least it's biggest wart, its extreme verbosity, is what turns me off. Yes, the GNU toolkit, while having taken great strides to create uniform argument syntax, still retains some legacy cruft, but Chr-st almighty, the sheer amount of typing for even the most mundane scripts just makes me loath Powershell. I still prefer sh and its descendants, and I'll admit that is in part because I've been using them for 25 years, but Powershell is just way too bloody verbose, and it's why I still do most of my scripting in bash.

Build a script library based on short mnemonic commands.

Powershell's naming conventions and basic script library is insanely verbose. Man I hate that language. Damned useful, to be sure, and light years better than any Windows automation tools that came before it, but how I long for commands like sed, ls, mv, cp, head, tail, and so forth.

I've used my Nexus 7 that way, and it works reasonably well. The biggest problem, as always, is that apps that are optimized for the small displays of most mobile devices simply don't work that well on larger screens. I have used it quite frequently with a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard and RDP software to work on our terminal services server, and there really isn't any noticeable difference between that and a PC remoting in. It's rather a special case, to be sure.

Yes indeed. Opportunity has to stand as one of NASA's greatest post-Apollo accomplishments.

The one arena that is is not contentious in is in the climatology community. Yes, there are a very small number of skeptics, but then again there are a small number of skeptics in the biology community who insist on some variant of Creationism (or Intelligent Design, as they like to market it these days). But all in all, the contention among scientists is over degree, and not over whether or not human-caused CO2 emissions are radically altering global climate.

Because industrialists and mining firms have never ever dumped toxic chemicals that ended up in drinking water before. No fucking sirreee, they're fucking angels and we should just let them do whatever the fuck they want,,, because MONEY!!!!

Well great. I wager I can produce really cheap toys by manufacturing out of substandard materials. Sure, the materials might be toxic, might even be highly flammable, but hey, all that fucking counts is profits! We should just let companies fuck everything and everyone up because MONEY!!!! We should let them lie and distort and attack anyone who questions because MONEY!!!! Fuck every single human being on earth, because MONEY!!!!

Let me ask. In what arena is AGW contentious?