Don't worry about UI abstraction and other conveniences. If they are curious and bright enough, they will muddle through it and grasp the underlying structure. If they can't or won't do that, then they would never be able to develop the next generation.

I never looked deeply at mechanical calculators or punch cards, and I am doing just fine with what we have now. The stuff you know and love today will be museum pieces to your kids. That's just how it is.

I imagine it is a case of frustrated expectations.

When a person hears that $BOOKNAME by $AUTHOR is being made into a movie, that person probably expects the movie to be a faithful adaptation. That expectation is magnified when the original text carries some personal significance.

Seeing that adaptation become a parody---one that overlooks or mistakes key aspects of the original work---crushes those expectations. At that point, the producers have misled the viewer and replaced the treasured story with one of their own.

In this particular case, Verhoeven could have written his own story to expose his views, but instead he preferred to leverage the notoriety of a third party. It is dishonest in addition to being disappointing to anyone who enjoyed the original work. That, I believe, is the "Bingo."

The refinements according to Wikipedia:

"Improvements include the addition of a HUD, GPS, INS (Inertial Navigation System), and TCAS as well as PMP (a propulsion modification to improve low-altitude engine thrust)."

And don't forget the T-38 is a trainer aircraft. It does not need to compete with the F-22 because it is a classroom in the sky.

It is not designed to fight other modern aircraft; it is designed to expose pilots to supersonic flight and provide basic maneuvering experience. More advanced training (and eventually combat/recon missions) would involve the aircraft model that pilot is assigned to fly.

Get Iridium for latency-sensitive traffic (if you have any) and a geosync provider for bandwidth, and then configure QoS on your router to meet your needs.

The cost of a decent router will be incremental compared to the dishes, and you gain a degree of redundancy. (Latency will go out of spec or bandwidth will be at capacity, depending on which link failed, but it is better than nothing. At least you can send an email explaining the situation.)

Your measurement method is bogus. You assume the entire area consists of transistors. It does not, and it never has.

If you used your method on an older "accurately sized" process, it would disagree there as well. Once again, this is because your method assumes the die is made entirely of transistors.

If you were to compute the average transistor density of a Pentium-era or P4-era chip and and adjust modern chips, then maybe your math becomes relevant.

"You ADMIT that the government is incompetent in how they spend the public's money ('while not providing any healthcare") while wanting to take a well working health care system and dismantle it and give it to the government to control! This is just insane thinking."

The current model is extremely expensive, and other nations have demonstrated more cost-effective models. Adopting one of those models is not insane thinking.

"You've already admitted that the government won't be able to improve money spent"

The post to which you're replying stated no such thing. You don't get to assign arbitrary statements to someone you disagree with. If you want to claim the government is incapable of improving anything, you get to support that claim.

> The casino can't legitimately claim that they know he was cheating because he folded on good hands unless they were cheating and knew what his hands were.

They can record the games and review them if anything suspicious happens. Perhaps there was other odd behavior, or perhaps the winning streak was unusual. When they reviewed the footage, they saw highly abnormal behavior that prompted an investigation.

As long as the casino employee at the table isn't getting information from the surveillance, the outcome of the game remains the same.

You're focusing on the wrong issue there.

Money laundering is about taking money obtained illegally and providing a credible legal source for it. It's essentially creating a false paper trail.

If a drug lord has millions he didn't pay taxes on, he can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But he can't very well put "income from drug trafficking - 2010, $3,800,000" on his tax forms.

The drug lord isn't rigging the machine. His buddy the casino operator does that. The operator takes a small cut in exchange for a documentable paper trail.

The law against paying out on "broken" machines closes that exploit (from a legal perspective, anyway).

> Im not saying it doesnt "work"; it "works" in the same vein that ARP poisoning works: You will get results, but EVERYONE will know what you are up to, and in this case it would result in the revocation or un-trusting of whatever root CA issued the phony intermediate cert.

If he is the domain administrator, his users probably cannot revoke or remove the root CA he created. He could even prevent them from seeing which CAs are trusted at all.

His claims are completely accurate for his proposed environment, which is a fairly typical corporate setup.

The contracting office is staffed almost entirely by contract-law lawyers.

They often have no means of assigning value to the proposals submitted for review, so they accept the lowest bid with an overall "barely meets requirements" rating from the technical reviewer.

A well-designed cluster can present the same IP address to external clients regardless of which component system is servicing that particular interaction.

Since rats do not learn human social cues readily, it would be difficult for anyone to teach it to "hit" on a person or vehicle they want to search.

This offers a modest resistance to misuse (compared to police dogs).

> Restoring domain controllers from images is a dangerous game.

Why would you restore more than one? That's just begging for problems. Replication exists for a reason.

Restore one DC from backup, and rebuild the others. Or demote all, restore one, and promote them back.

You will have an intact domain as long as you seize all FSMO roles on the restored DC before promoting others.

This isn't 1999 anymore; there should be no problem restoring a domain if you have an intact copy of the directory.

The DoD just started offering benefits for same-sex domestic partners.

If his Windows XP installation disc was built by the manufacturer (i.e., has Dell's logo in addition to Microsoft's), it will validate the BIOS as being from the correct OEM before permitting installation.

He would have to purchase the motherboard from Dell (if it is still available) or else have access to their BIOS tattooing kit (usually only certified techs get that).

And as for using a different CD with his key----no. Windows XP discs supported different sets of product keys depending on their distribution channel. A Dell OEM key will not work for a full retail, volume license, or retail upgrade disc. His Dell key will only work with Dell media.

Microsoft knocked off that nonsense in Vista, thankfully, but shops with legacy systems will have problems until the day XP is no more.