Agreed! And the way alcohol lowers inhibitions, makes individuals anti-social, destroys families, and allows one to forget their problems (instead of confront them), I don't think there's a bar recipe for success in The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks either. I don't know why we ever repealed prohibition!

I'd like to think that the whole Active Directory ecosystem is moving in a positive direction because of efforts like these. I have no problem with the LDAP + Kerberos + DNS + "Forests" and standardized structures model that Microsoft has championed; it is a very successful, flexible, and apparently extensible model and technology stack.

Let's just say that what Einstein called God (the God of Spinoza) was not really what anyone trying to justify their own religious beliefs would want to use to support an argument from authority.

Spinoza's central claims were that 1) there was no immortal Soul or afterlife 2) God is abstract, impersonal, and unknowable 3) God is Nature (capital N). This is the exact opposite of the personal god of any current modern Abrahamic religion would like people to believe.

What Einstein was effectively saying when he believed God wasn't playing dice with the universe was that he didn't buy into weak or modified anthropic principle to explain random vacuum fluctations eventually leading to -> big bang leading to-> our observed universe with singing dancing meat. He thought it was more deliberate, but that isn't remotely the same thing as intelligent design either. He (nor Spinoza) didn't necessarily believe that humans were special or the "goal" of Nature. Spinoza didn't even believe in free will although he believed that men _believed_ they had free will and that the distinction is important.

That was how humble they were, as far as that went. They were too humble to think we are special, nor can we make strong assertions about things that they felt are unknowable.

Spinoza and Einstein chose to call this idea God out of lack of a better term to describe the ultimate insignificance of us to it (Nature).

Because I always rooted for those bitches, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A5XFA84tMs, they're so punk and badass.
Even bought the band shirts, I still get strange looks for it. (http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmxzjydGZP1qe75x7o2_1280.jpg, http://www.toplessrobot.com/1305-3785-large.jpg)

I would get an android phone in a heartbeat but google in its infinite wisdom requires carriers and handset makers to include a camera to officially call it an Anrdoid device. They need to rethink this. You could suck up half of the extent BB market with a simple policy change.

QNX has had some security issues in the past, weaknesses built-in access control mechanisms and legacy capabilities that I think are dangerous to the uninformed, maybe giving you enough rope to hang yourself.
But he certainly seems to be reinventing the wheel; if security is paramount I'd recommend GHS Integrity RTOS. If you need something more well-known, it's certainly possible to develop secure firmware with VxWorks as a base.

The real security comes from a sound design on top of the COTS product(s), and a workable way to integrate that with external C&C, which is the responsibility of the group designing the whole package, and it can only be enhanced, not enforced, by the developer of the RTOS and other components.

If Kaspersky builds something that, as he claims, cannot be used insecurely, he may also develop something no one would want to use.

Windows XP 64 _is_ Server 2003 x64, uses the same security patches, and is most definitely supported.
Example: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=30605

I also know of two pairs of now-married employees in my corporation are both very similar.
One such couple are both very narrowly focused in aligned skills and interests, geospatial app development.
Another such couple are both high-level engineers that do program management.

I think it just depends on the people. If you put your career first, and then the relationship happens later, then I think it works great! This particular story is one of people getting involved with someone they just met on a particular team, and this particular individual sounds like a leech (and I know of a few in our corporation too, we tell people to stay away from them).

http://djlobsterdust.com/index.php/mashups/maybe-we-found-love-carly-ray-jepsen-vs-rihanna/

Pop music still has its uses.

At least I'll get Mike Mignola's autograph.

They standardized the naming convention of thread primitives for C11-compliant compilers and C-libraries. The system can still use posix threads under the hood, but now there is a <threads.h> intended to be forward compatible that you can leverage.

You will still be able to use one or the other. In some implementations you may be able to leverage both facilities (like using _Thread_local storage qualifiers in code that otherwise uses posix threads).