I've never even heard OF it. I'm not arguing anything, I'm just noticing your rhetorical devices, you make it pretty easy to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you (they must not know what they're doing; you obviously do). That's called No True Scotsman. If someone disagrees with you, then instead of debating their points and possibly conceding your own you just say they don't know what they're doing, they're not a "real audio guy", because a "real audio guy" wouldn't have that opinion. This attitude is all over the "high end audio" world. Just ask the guy who decided that the Pear Anjou cables are "danceable". I think of those kinds of reviews and people whenever I see or hear someone say something like "no one who knows what they're doing would say this doesn't sound good."

No true Scotsman, huh? What's that, you heard the Pono and don't think it sounds great? Hmm, you must not know what you're doing audio-wise.

Whatever, if Neil Young doesn't want me to listen to his music on a streaming site because it's the worst quality ever, fine, I'll just request and then record his songs on local FM radio the way he intended them to be heard.

I'm not sure that I quite understand, can you introduce an even more ridiculous level of hyperbole? How about some FUD? Maybe it would help if you compared me with a Nazi (c'mon, mandatory labeling? It shouldn't be that much of a stretch for you).

OK, so why do you have a problem if the food I buy needs a GMO label if it is GMO food?

Now who the hell considers themselves an opponent of labeling GMO foods unless they have a financial stake in it? Is there anyone walking down the street who has nothing to do with the food industry and considers themselves an opponent of labeling GMO foods?

So a law that requires that GMO foods are labeled as GMO foods would be a barrier to accurate, consistent information? Someone wrote that quote without even bothering to check what the issue was, didn't they?

The sun actually looks remarkably like a star from the surface of the Earth, too. And Venus looks oddly like a planet for some reason...

The sun isn't going to just look like any other star from the surface of Pluto. The sun is many, many, many times closer to Pluto than any other star. Since the amount of light that is cast on an object is exponential with regard to distance, that means that the sun is shining a ridiculous amount of light onto Pluto compared with any other star. I would even bet that the sun illuminates the surface of Pluto significantly more than every other star combined.

They are visible light pictures, taken with optical cameras using a variety of color filters to try and get a true representation. There might not be a ton of light reflecting off Pluto back to the camera (relative to Earth, anyway), but Pluto is by far the brightest thing around the spaceship. The cameras can probably soak up that light for minutes without getting over-exposed.

Which would explain the giant, young impact crater that no one has noticed yet.

What are you basing that statement on, "currently accepted theories" that we had before flying a ship past Pluto and noticing relatively young features?

Hmm, the article says "posted 1 day ago", is that yesterday or the day before?

Elizabeth Warren would have a great chance if she ran. Personally, I'd like to see both Trump and Sanders lose their respective primaries and then enter the general election as independents. I'd like to see the hand-wringing that occurs when people across the country question why only the Democrat and Republican are in the TV debates even though there are other popular candidates.

The exploration of Pluto is key in understanding the phenomenon of the solar system.

Are you kidding me? Your company is crippled with old software because you guys want to avoid a $400 expense? Holy hell.

Yeah, and nothing causes share prices to skyrocket like saying we don't want to spend $400 to get rid of old, outdated, depricated, insecure, buggy, vulnerable, easily-exploitable software.

We dumped Cisco years ago, good riddance. We're only 2 servers away from cutting ties with Microsoft as well, and we only build training using Flash if the customer specifically requires it, otherwise it's done in HTML 5. And, no, we do not use Java for anything. I've instructed people to make sure Java is off their machine.

You know what else we don't use? IE8, IE6, or Flash 11. We don't even test on IE8 any more, we have language in our contracts which say that if customers find bugs in their training which are only present in IE8, and they want those bugs fixed, they need to pay to have them fixed. We no longer provide free support for IE8, and no one cares. Our customers know they need to upgrade, instead of paying to fix bugs that only affect them they find it a better use of their time and money to update their software and other materials. Most companies find that to be a necessary and useful expense, in fact.

I notice that you didn't address the "impossible" nature of replacing your software. It's obviously possible, modernizing your company is clearly possible and one day will be necessary, you just have no desire to actually do it. Don't make it sound like you have no choice, you guys are just lazy. This is what happens when you have a CFO determining IT policy instead of a CTO, but I'm guessing you don't want to pay a CTO either. Those shareholders each need their additional penny that a competent CTO would cost the company, right?

That's not true. When Flash dies porn sites will either adapt or die also.

Help me understand. If a piece of software was written once, why couldn't a piece of software that has the same functionality be written in a different language? Was there some sort of resource expended in creating the original software which no longer exists? Or are you using a different meaning of the word "impossible?"

And your solution is to keep using IE 6 and Flash 11? This is the best that the brightest minds at your company have come up with? The company I work for makes training all day, every day, using modern standards, so what exactly is stopping your company from updating your materials? We get update contracts all the time, why is your company special? Is it because you have shit management and no plan for the future?

I hate to point this out, but you already are sticking with an obsolete version, even though newer things are available now. You have made the decision that you are going to stick with old outdated things, even though you have newer options. Your decision did not have anything to do with browsers not running Flash, so if Flash is locked out you will still be doing the same thing you always have. Apparently you guys haven't figured out that updating your materials is the only realistic long-term strategy, instead you've decided to hang on to the obsolete until your position is completely untenable, and then rush around replacing everything at great expense. That's some pretty impressive decision-making you guys have going on over there. But, please, stop trying to pull everyone else down with you. We're moving on from Flash. We don't care if you will or not, we're going to do it anyway. You guys can either figure out that your solution is the worst of all possible solutions, or you can keep holding on to your ancient technology and rock yourself to sleep with the cold comfort that things will never, ever, ever, change.

I think you've got that backwards. Some advertising board doesn't get to dictate what technologies we use. We figure that part out, and the advertisers can either adapt or stop advertising. If Flash adoption goes down to 10%, do you think the advertisers are still going to be pumping out Flash ads?

It's similar for me. By car, my trip is about 26 miles and takes about 30 minutes and uses about a gallon of gas. The bus would take about 2 hours and cost $4, according to my local bus trip planning web site. Right now the bus is more or less the same cost but takes 4 times as long, and requires me to walk in the lovely desert heat for about 2/3 of a mile. Cutting that $4 cost isn't enough to make me give up the hour and a half (each way) of extra time required.