Ah....how come companies world-wide rely on MS Malware? Because it does what they need it to do. Yes, it is inelegant, yes it is buggy, yes it is a pile of insecurity that could knock a dead buzzard off a shitwagon at 20 paces. Until recently, there's never really been an alternative. Much of the military is doing the usual kinds of things it takes to keep a large organization functioning, i.e., payroll, retirement plans, accounting, etc.

Wot? That's not related to national security? Yes, it is. That's what it takes to make a large organization into a functioning large organization. And given the size and scope of the weapons systems they must buy (hint, they stopped making their own stuff years and years ago), you wouldn't want it any other way. They are only now getting to where they can produce an audit of their financials.

Wot? They didn't have auditing until now? Nope, they had the same mentality you do. This is the military, they could just whack together systems right? But now they have a new problem. In the past, they were a big enough market unto themselves they could pretty much define what companies will build for them. No longer. The military is not a large enough market for most companies, if they are going to build something, they need to sell it outside the military as well. So, now take Congressional mandates into the equation where product providers cannot be shown preference. How do you get software for over 1 million people? You cannot farm it out to several companies, the software won't work together. By the time you get the software, install it, train people, and use it, you have a large sunk cost. Redoing that every 5-10 years is beyond expensive.

I have a relative, a nurse no less, who sees nothing wrong with homeopathy. She thinks it is just as valid as regular medicine.

The basic problem here is that the modern world generates simply too much information for some (I would argue, most) people. So rather than disbelieving everything, she appears to find a way to believe everything. It is easier for her, she doesn't have to make any informed decisions. In this way, she's sort of like an Electric Monk from Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency.

"who knows how much more strong and vibrant Korea would be were they all free and prosperous like the South."

China does, that's why they don't push over the Norks and let the S. Koreans run the entire joint. The last thing Chinese leaders want is a united Korea showing the Chinese people how its done with no Communist Party of Kleptocrats.

Not natural paranoia, it is more the government has less of a say over regulating life than other countries. The governments could mandate it over there while in the U.S., it just looks like yet another Washington experiment.

Also, the U.S. is an island nation, more or less. And large enough to have its own economy. Europe is composed of little toy countries that are much more interconnected. They need a system of easy conversion just to help erase the borders a bit. The U.S. economy has been big enough not to give a flying rat's ass. That's slowing changing now that everyone wants a net positive export/import balance of payments. The free trade deals the U.S. pushed through in last 30 years encourage that. And the push for metrics would have more behind it if it weren't for the Chinese. Americans see the free trade deals as the Chinese taking advantage rather than dealing fairly...a bit like how they are raping Africa.

The American involvement might have something to do with the agreement NATO and the Russian signed to preserve Ukraine were they to give up the nukes they had after the Soviet Union collapsed. They dutifully gave up the nukes, Russian reneged, the U.S. attempted (weakly) to honor the agreement. They rest of NATO is AWOL, as they so frequently have been.

Tell you what, go to Moscow and get on a soap box and tell the Russians what a pisshead Putin is. Now go to Washington and get on a soap box and tell the Americans what a pisshead Obama is? What? You never made it out of Moscow?

"people in charge of the nation's security"? I give up, just who is that? The FBI? They aren't claiming it. NSA is interested in data collection and analyzing, not protection. DoD? They do not have the job because it is a domestic problem. CIA? They are foreign intelligence. TSA? They aren't in the business of protecting industry or the government's computer systems.

There is no one in charge of the nation's security. And just about everyone on Slashdot would be whining about government overreach if there were.

"This is a lie." No, it isn't a lie. It is the posters opinion. Stop imputing motives from your imagination.

What? And drag them back to the 6th century where they would be more happy?

Solar flares. We know they will happen, we know big ones will happen.

You are assuming the underlying system is correctly and securely designed. That's a big assumption and one you have no way of ascertaining that.

I agree the current way of funding uni in the U.S. is bad. However, if the government guarantees a uni attempt at a degree, how does the government put a price on it? Is Harvard comparable to Ohio State University? Does a uni degree attempt become another entitlement? Entitlements are already breaking the U.S. budget.

Maybe the U.S. could fund degree attempts at state unis. The problem there is that states have been pulling money out of higher ed. then turning around and claiming their state schools are still state schools. The some of the increase in tuition at state schools is directly the result of the state legislatures pulling money out. The legislators then turn around and claim there is a crisis in higher education with ever higher costs for the average person.

Pudden'Head Wilson. That's the title of a Mark Twain short book which investigates some of the prejudices around being a fraction African-American. It was a very snarky book for its time, it still is.

What is it about Republicans them makes so anti-science? I don't think they are uniformly anti-science, but rather they think of science in different ways depending upon the end result they are aiming for. In general:

1. Science conflicts (in their eyes) with Christianity (many Muslims believe it conflicts with Islam in the same sense). Science tells them we evolved which contradicts their literal interpretation of the Bible.

2. Science costs money. This conflicts with their general idea that the Federal government spending money is somehow bad. They do not think of Science as an investment. Rather, they believe Science just happens spontaneously by universities and companies, with a preference for the latter because then they can see something tangible. This is very close to them thinking that all theory is wasted, just produce something from the research, no one needs no stinkin' theory.

3. Scientists are mostly left of center. Well, those at unis are, so Republicans will be damned if they are going to support them via Federal research grants.

4. Science conflicts with their thirst for profits so they can retire in luxury, preferably before they are 40. Science says there are external costs that should be considered (global warming, etc.) which, if they were paid for, would reduce them to retiring at 65. This is dangerously close to their belief that G-d said in the Bible that man shall have dominion over all the Earth and all its creatures...which they interpret as being able to screw it up to their hearts content. And if they screw too hard, Jesus will come back to save them or tell them to stop screwing because they are producing too many mouths to feed...Jesus will provide, they can generate as many sprogs as they like.

5. They are essentially that crowd of hacks you saw in high school that were part of the cool crowd who miserably failed to learn anything, last of all science (the Left has a lot of these as well). So they do not know what to make of it. Science is confusing, it takes a lot of time to understand much less so, to do, so better relegate it to the uncool crowd they remember from high school that they never liked in the first place.

Errr...I'm certainly no MS apologist, but maybe companies insist on using MS because all their homegrown apps and store bought apps run on MS? If your organization has $1 Billion invested in MS Malware, it isn't an easy sell to shareholders or company execs than you need to spend another $1 Billion or more rebuilding just so you can feel at peace with FOSS. There needs to be a business case.

Ah, but you say, invest the $1 Billion now and never have to pay MS again. Correct. Now put a money figure on precisely how much it will cost the company to do FOSS rather than MS? More importantly, how will doing this increase or decrease profits. Be specific, real figures are necessary to make a business case as well as documentation on the methodology used to do the analysis. BTW, is that analysis vetted? How good is it? How do we determine this? What will it cost to determine this?

But, but, but....you can audit FOSS for free. Yes, now please staff up to audit FOSS and be able to explain how the findings will contribute to the success of your company. Please be sure to include the cost of the audit. And since you are into auditing, this is gift that keeps on giving, you'll be wanting to audit forever more.

Most companies will just say screw it, hand me the MS Malware and let's get back to business.