Comment Re:Yes. (Score 1) 227
And Politicians would be awesome if they quit trying to dictate science.
I agree.
And Politicians would be awesome if they quit trying to dictate science.
I agree.
"Troll"
Damn - did a lot of MCSE's get bored and mod points today? Can't even respectfully disagree?
Bill Nye has been known to wander off into nutter territory on occasion, lumping all religious folks into the same category as the literal-6,000-year-old-Earth nutters that he opposes.
Theories aside, you have a solid point.
Science celebrities (DeGrasse-Tyson, Sagan, etc) would be awesome proponents of science... if they would stop yapping politics. Seriously, scientific discovery and history are wonderful things. Enticing folks into wanting to know more about our world and universe is an awesome thing.
But... when you have some scientist-turned-celebrity yammering on and on and on about some purely political viewpoint (and worse, misrepresenting opposing ones and falling victim to even the most basic of logical fallacies), then it sucks.
A good example of a science celeb? Dr. Michio Kaku. Dude sticks to science for the most part, and doesn't try to recruit political acolytes to gain points, controversy, or notoriety.
I disagree on the costs at first blush...
* you can get each user a Mac Mini, and overall it shouldn't cost any more, and would likely cost less since they're not coming apart as often as the typical Dell or HP workstation.
* unless you have some ungodly incompetent users, the amount of image dump/restores would go down considerably (consider that Winrot means an image dump every 9 months or so on average, while I've had a PowerMac that ran for 3 years on 10.3 then 4 more on 10.5, and no OS reinstalls.)
* while not perfect insofar as security, it is miles better than the typical 'doze box.
* you don't have to put up with as many amateur sysadmins mucking around with the system (a shell prompt tends to scare off the idiots more readily than a DOS-like one.)
I'd be interested to see your numbers and how you compiled them.
Just an aside: I'm no fan of MS, even though I have to work in a Windows environment; however, when dealing with MS Servers, I have found that the recent versions of the Microsoft RDC Client for OS X is actually even more capable, just as fast (or maybe even faster), and a WHOLE lot better-mannered than even the Windows native RDC Client.
I can agree to that (I use it)... works a whole hell of a lot easier and better than the native RDC client in Windows. I use it on Yosemite w/o problems.
Serious question - does it also fix that bullshit Metro/Modern/Whatever UI?
Same here - I keep a Windows 7 VM (VirtualBox) on my MBP, but only because I have old CG tools that don't have an OSX or Linux version.
Pretty much - most corporations have just barely (as in 2-3 years ago at most) updated from XP to Windows 7.
Good luck with pushing 8 to the corporate world... it's about as adoptable as an angry badger with syphilis.
More and more, I'm finding myself working at places where I really don't have to use a Windows UI if I don't want to. Right now I'm typing this on my corporate-issued MacBook Pro, and only rarely do I bother logging onto a Windows server (vSphere client, and even then only out of habit since the web-client works pretty much as well).
Don't get me wrong - Microsoft will still be in the business world for a goodly long time - we still use Outlook/Exchange, Active Directory, and even Sharepoint (for HR/Corp crap - all the important stuff is on Confluence.) Thing is though, Microsoft's hold in business is beginning to show cracks, and I suspect in about 5 years, there will be a bit of a crisis in Redmond...
Pretty much every wacko that has done something while being muslim has been labelled a terror attack, and after every "attack" the talking heads announce that we have to give up any pretense of freedom to maybe be able to stop the next one.
Partially agree - I agree perfectly with the latter half of the quoted sentence.
The former half? Well, if the guy is shouting "Allahu Ackbar!" and expressing desires to die a martyr while attacking unarmed civilians? It's gonna fall under the definition of terrorism.
The politicians' grab for power is a grab at opportunity, not a construct.
He said fast
It was a Tesla vest.
Worship of and total allegiance to the State is not Christianity.
A leadership who actively pushed a pseudo-norse mythology based on ubermenchen and "racial purity" is not Christianity.
Nice try and all, but your argument fails. It fails twice over in the face of the fact that activity from the Vatican itself managed to directly rescue an estimated 800,000+ Jews and similarly-targeted folks throughout WWII (and indirectly rescued far more) - in spite of it being unarmed and surrounded.
They were not standard terrorists, That was a military strike team. This is not the typical idiots that shoot with the gun over their heads, these guys were Navy Seal level of skills.
Yet none of the news outlets are talking about it.
Yes and no.
They had *just enough* training to be comfortable with the weapons and have a plan, but consider that they went up against newspaper editors in an office, and not a hardened military squad. And yes, judging by my radio on the way in, it is being discussed (albeit on the more right-leaning shows... the left-leaning ones are too busy trying to loudly restate the obvious, as in "OMG islam is a peaceful religion and these guys are not representatives of it and OMG they're no different from Jerry Falwell when he sued Hustler!**
I mean, c'mon - we're used to bumbling fools like the frickin' underwear bomber, so any terrorist with even a small modicum of military training is going to look like a 'SEAL-Delta-Para-Ranger-Force-Space-Shuttle-Door-Gunner(!)' to the masses.
TBH, at most they probably have about the same skill and training as, say, the typical Army boot half way through OSUT training. In other words, they know and are skilled enough to pull off the stunt they did, but would most likely collapse/die/fail if they faced anything stronger than a gaggle of cops (which is pretty much the most that they'd had to go up against so far).
** No shit - some idiot commentator on MSNBC made that comparison yesterday. And they wonder why no one takes that damned channel seriously these days...
if I had to guess, it might to be not tip off the cyber criminals using the exploits that will be patched. its the only logical reason I can think of
It is a logical reason, but it only means that the patching itself will be delayed in many cases, as testing by the end-users (well, the professional ones) won't have advanced notice to work up potential courses of action to take.
What I mean is, if a sysadmin knows there's a patch for IIS coming out, he would have a few days to at least work out a quick plan for CAB/Change-Control in order to test and implement it - now he gets to wait until Patch Tuesday to even work up a plan, because he's not going to know what's coming out and what components will be affected.
No skin offa mine (I work in the *nix world, and even my workstation is a Mac), but I can certainly see where this change would cause a bit of an inconvenience, and it wouldn't really do much more than shift the timetable over for the 0-day exploit crowd.
Actually...
"According to Rear Admiral D.P. Mannix, who fought the Moros as a young lieutenant from 1907–1908, the Americans exploited Muslim taboos by wrapping dead Moros in pig's skin and "stuffing [their] mouth[s] with pork", thereby deterring the Moros from continuing with their suicide attacks."
"Moros" = Filipino muslim rebels.
Not saying it was a good move or a bad one, and I can't say for certain how effective it was, but you can't argue with the results.
Any given program will expand to fill available memory.
