The fact that it is using Windows 8 (A desktop level OS?) means it may fill the void about software.
Except that Windows RT can't run x86 Windows apps since it uses an ARM processor.
Yes and I have yet to see anything useful released on the Surface Pro to know how things would work with a full-function OS on a tablet.
If the Chinese government is using Windows for their government computers, they're fucking insane. In fact, we're insane for using it. Closed source is not secure. Period. Closed source and compiled in a foreign country? Absolutely bat shit crazy.
For what we know, Microsoft practically hand the kernal source code to the Chinese government for their business. There's no telling they re-engineer the whole thing and use it internally. The best you can say about it is the lack of security but I'd say there are very little chance to have an intentional bug left in the source code for the purpose of spying.
Plus, why would Microsoft do that anyway? It doesn't help them in any way, shape, form. You know the government is going to bust their tail any time they get close to monopolistic practices anyway...
Where did I advocate a complete return to the 1900's-1920's era? I said nothing of the kind, other than to point out that America was able to prosper and that the bureaucracy of that era was able to politically govern the whole country at the time.
The tone of your first post suggest that the lack of government involvement and the small size of the government agency is a good thing. mcgrew merely points out the necessities of the newer agency with the new technologies in our daily lives today. Those technologies have a bigger scope of impact that necessitate a national level coordination, thus that would be the role of federal government, as our Constitution has delegated.
Also, Mr. Teancum, I don't see ANYWHERE Mr. McGrew called you out to be a Luddite. He had politely made his case in response to your post. I think you should at least have to courtesy of hearing what he says, and agree to disagree. Most readers respect your opinion, whether we agree with it or not. Please don't start the name calling here in Slashdot. There are still plenty of old timer here who know how to read and how to discern who is trying to be the troublemaker here.
What? My fellow coworkers/engineers? They ALL tell me tales about the "stupid thing" their husbands or wives did last weekend or last month. They claim to be happily married, but certainly don't sound it.
Your coworkers tells you the stuff because they happily oblige to do the "stupid thing" for the ones they love. I'm sure they don't be saying a thing if they truly think those things in any way degrading their enjoyment or the integrity of their lives in any way, shape, or form.
Oh, by the way. Would someone please explain it to me why we Americans can have nuclear power and nuclear weapons but other countries can't?
Try this analogy: I have a gun on my hand, not pointing at you. You went around looking for a gun while screaming and whining that I have a gun and I am about to shoot you, so you must have a gun, and point your shiny new toy at me. I don't think 1) that makes me feel secure, simply because I inevitably has a gun first, and 2) people around you feels very sane for you to have a gun, because you are yelling and screaming that you want to hurt me.
that's sums up why american doesn't want someone else to have nuclear weapons. The less nations has it the less likely we are towards planetary destruction.
From what I've heard, there's no trade off between reliability and cost. The cheaper vehicles will probably be the more reliable ones as well, due to learning effects from increased launch frequency.
I agree with your first statement. The more launches SpaceX does execute the more they can learn from it to reduce cost.
What I think was going on with NASA was overengineering parts for a ride with over a 1% loss rate. One can spend a lot of money making a nearly perfect part or process more nearly perfect. But if the overall system is unreliable and remains unchanged despite the improvement, then that expenditure is effectively wasted.
Actually the first reason (I don't disagree with you) why the cost was never reduced is that NASA's engineer was never given an incentive nor an opportunity to redesign to incorporate all the lessons learned to BE MORE EFFICIENT. As a result we are left with outdated equipment with limited amount of spare parts. We are forced to make modifications on an outdated equipment to make it "safer" when we could have done the same thing by building/designing a new crew vehicle. In another words the lack of refresh/upgrade cycle is what bite NASA in the end, and mostly because of political reason.
Youtube is a private business and can ban any speech they want.
If you are a service provider you have the right to make the rules. However you are also expected to upheld the rules you created and enforce the rules evenly with all the customers who agreed to the same agreement. Thy can ban any speech they want but that better be on their user agreement. This is call contractual agreement and has nothing to do with free speech.
Same thing for the "at will" employment. It is true your employer can pretty much tell you to quit whenever they please but they cannot not just kick you out for a specific reason that is not applied evenly. Then their action become discrimination and it very much prohibited by law.
A meeting is an event at which the minutes are kept and the hours are lost.
