We sadly get maybe 5 kids because of our location and quiet street. So the kids that do stop by get hand fulls of the standard/tasty candy. The parents may hate us, but the kids' eyes light up.

It is absolutely true that correlation does not imply causation, but people seem to use it (especially on here) as if it magically refutes everything. Usually more so when they don't want it to be true, or just don't want to deal with it.

I hit you with a bat.
You are bleeding on the ground.
'But.. but.. correlation does not imply causation.. Maybe I started bleeding spontaneously...'

I can agree to a point. I certainly know people/places that just throw money at a problem. And I know that when systems and down and the customer is starting to panic, that I've come up with some interesting and very good solutions. However there are problems with always trying to solve solutions with 'hacks'. They become unsupportable, they fail in unexpected ways, and they make it harder for you to get a budget to do things you simply can't/shouldn't hack a solution together for. 'What, why do we need a SAN? Remember how you wired those netbooks together for our web farm! Figure something out for us. KTHXBYE.'

But I do agree you need someone who can think creatively and not be locked into marketing speak anytime a problem comes up.

I can only hope that this allows teachers to truly teach the controversy, and why science is science, and that faith is faith. And be able to lay down all the facts without worrying about getting fired. You can imagine that a teacher trying to teach science would get spooked by a student asking about creationism: are the parents going to bitch to the school? is the teacher going to get hung out to dry to appease the conservative christian parents? I feel bad for teachers and today's ultra-reactionist society who want to blame everyone else for bad kids or for not agreeing with them.

As an aside, I'm Christian and don't believe in creationism. In fact the Bible/Genesis has _two_ versions of creationism, so it doesn't even agree with itself.

Just like anything else, it's different so some people will find it weird or wrong in the beginning. Or assume you are looking at porn in service or some equally ridiculous claim. And the only reason this is even a story is because it involves churches which are often steeped in tradition and not generally the first to use tech, although that's really a church by church decision.

VMware is still the best product for hardware virtualization, and they do have some great home/consumer products. The biggest issue right now is their change in licensing to start charging you for how much RAM you plan to use. For a lot of customers, this may not make a difference, but at the enterprise level its definitely a nuisance and causing irritation. Will that irritation be enough to change vendors? I don't think so although managers may want it.

It seems like any tech company (we stick with that since this is a geek/tech site) gets this adjective attached at some point. Either a company is not a threat or they are evil. Are there big companies that don't fall into this? Microsoft has been evil forever at this point, now they are falling by the wayside a bit in browsers and devices, so no one says it anymore. Google was great, until they weren't. Now they are evil because of ads and clouds and random other buzzwords depending on the article. Apple was the well designed underdog until they got popular, then they became evil because 'hey my iPhone and iPad are locked down'.

I think the problem often is 1) we are not normal users 2) we have our own biases and can't agree on a damn thing. The user part you can get past. Just go to the store with your spouse/friend/mom and you can see their reaction to devices/features and get a better understanding. The bias part is much more difficult. We all know (and maybe you are) someone who you can't have a discussion with because Apple/Google/Microsoft/Sony/etc are Evil (TM). End of discussion. Nope don't tell me about the good points, I just want to be happy in my hate towards them because you know they do it just to spite me.

Everyone thinks someone else is evil, so in the end either everyone is evil or no one is because our definitions need to be adjusted a bit.

Of course I read earlier today that there were rumors that it was being pushed back a month or two. Everyone likes rumors because they seem illicit. You weren't supposed to know that! Much sexier than an official announcement of some kind.

This is one of those geek debates that most of us don't care about except for a fun discussion. The people who are really pushing from one side or the other have motives of some type. I like the idea of tablets, am planning on buying an iPad, but I don't care if it's considered a PC or not. I'm going to use it regardless.

I like it. Especially compared to v2. And I like the whitespace since it gives a cleaner, uncluttered look. It's not over the top, but enough to make it read better.

What? What?! Really? Again? Someone tried something, so NOW we will make it illegal. Yes, that makes so much sense. So by this logic, if someone tries to smuggle a bomb on themselves, the TSA will then begin banning passengers. You know, because someone may try again ! I'm not saying these is an easy solution to this, but really the solution is not banning random items that have been used in the past. How about spending money on good training and good employees? How about having a dozen lines for screening so that there's less need for urgency because there are plenty of screeners who can take their time to be effective?

The quickest way to get me off your site/article is by making me watch an ad before the video starts. I don't like watching videos when I could just read an article in general, but something occasionally seems interesting enough that I click play. As soon as I see the 'your video will begin in 15 seconds' or hear some ad start, I close the tab and move on. I understand that ads are needed for some sites to generate revenue, but you've got my attention for _seconds_ so when I have to spend any length of that time watching a commercial I just move on.

I think it can be hard to plan for this far into the future. Look how much the web has changed, and the things we do now with even just HTML and CSS that people back in the beginning probably would never have even considered doing. You build something for your needs and if it works then you are good. Sometimes you don't want to spend time planning it out for the next 5, 10, 20 years because you assume (usually correctly) that what you are writing will be updated long before then and replaced with something else.

Don't we already know that babies can pick out shapes/voices/etc that take computers all sorts of processing power to figure out. Or how we are still trying to refine things like recognizing a face or depth or whatever, when people just 'know'. The brain is still amazing despite all the power computers now have, regardless of human or insect species.

It's certainly a strength to have so many options available for technical users, but normal users get confused by just the few version of Windows out there. Try and explain the various versions/distribution options for Linux and they immediately start thinking how maybe they'll just stick with Windows. I personally love OS X, and even among friends/family who know that and trust me for tech advice, they have a hard time thinking of anything outside Windows/Microsoft. There are lots of reasons why Linux hasn't taken off, but I don't know that I'd call it dead.