I don't think I've ever seen this idea explained in such a succint and clear manner - truly a comment worthy of the label "Insightful".

No! No! Making me exhale coffee through my nose is bad! Bad! For both me and my screen!

Save the worlds nostrils! Protect monitors! Mod parent down!

(Funniest 4 words all week, kudos sir!)

Better yet, the bug is 17 years old - the bug existed before XP was a twinkle in lil 'ol Gates' eye....

For the sake of fairness...

Well, all Macs have remote ssh support so if you were so inclined, you could spend 3 minutes wrting a shell script to restart a service or rename 500 macs. Out of the box (assuming you configured each appropriately when setting them up on your LAN, as you would have to do with Windows as well).

If you're working at that level, there's not a lot of difference between platforms to be honest. If you're referring to GUI level tools and utilities though then yes, OS X is lacking in that regard compared to Windows (OTB).

Are you sure about that?

I've always been told that it refers to hardware compatability - namely the XT/AT standard and BIOS. Macs have no BIOS, they have EFI but support a BIOS emulation mode, which is why you can run Windows on them - That means they are compatible.

Phones, PDAs, specialist embedded devices that don't follow PC architecure are not IBM compatible without some form of emulation.

However, I do remember buying DOS games that required an "IBM compatible PC", and I'm sure that was meant as a euthamism for "Runs MS-DOS" but since MS-DOS was also in the list of requirements that didn't make much sense.

Either way, it's not any kind of solid standard to follow and was more a marketing term than anything, I think.

Much as it pains me to defend it, Outlook does this too - in fact, it can even pick up your logon name automatically (assuming you're on a domain machine).

What this really depends on though is the version of Exchange and it's configuration more than anything else. Specifically, you need to have autodiscover set up correctly. Also it's quite easy to have it working externally but for it to not work inside your LAN if you don't have a split DNS.

Shuriken.

If the whole world was ninja-tastic, everyone would be more careful with what they do for fear of unleashing point-star-of-death revenge upon themselves. No more stupid ass laws and dodgy software GUIs!

Or something like that.

(Spoilers, don't read end if you intend to play either game)

The playstyle is incredibly similair - there's even a direct correlation between game features:

Plasmids > Cybermodules
Vending machines (hackable) > Replicators (hackable)
Bonuses via research camera > Bonuses via chemical research
Turrets, hackable > turrets, hackable

Even major plots twists were the same:
Halfway point in both games: Major ally turns out to be the major villian.

I enjoyed Bioshock. It's blatantly a labour of love - I found the art direction fantastic and enjoyed it a great deal. But that it was a prettier, easier clone of System Shock 2 was obvious very early on.

That's not what I read - they're _adding_ a single-window mode. You don't have to use it.

Check out http://noooxml.wdfiles.com/local--files/arguments/TheCaseAgainstOOXML.pdf for an interesting breakdown of the problems with MS OOXML.

For example one setting is defined as "useWord97LineBreakRules"

The standard defines implementing this thusly:

“To faithfully replicate this behavior, applications must imitate the behavior of that
application, which involves many possible behaviors and cannot be faithfully placed into
narrative for this Office Open XML Standard. If applications wish to match this behavior,
they must utilize and duplicate the output of those applications.”

I'll leave describing why this makes fully implementing the "standard" as an excercise to the reader!

There is JS involved as well though. And (yes, anecdotal) the delay I get from clicking "Preview" to actually submitting since upgrading is substantially less - I'd say twice as fast on average.

Active Directory is in turn an implementation of LDAP - the schema (the data structure) is MS specific but the underlying protocols are not.

You're not wrong but come on, everyone's been cloning from everyone making little tweaks, changes, additions, snips - nearly every piece of software out there, be it FOSS, Microsoft, Apple - is deriviative at some level.

The question is - how derivitive does it have to be to be "wrong", and at which point do you start letting fly the patents?

Reading isn't enough. You have to be able to implement the standard, freely and without fear or threat. That's what being a standard means - it's not owned or controlled by a single entity.

MS got it's format ISO certified. This means that ISO is no longer the badge of trust when it comes to recognising standards, not that OOXML is a good "standard" format.

I'm not going to explain why OOXM is not fully implementable as that's been covered many times already - but it should be obvious that "Do X the same way closed and patented software Y did X" is not really the kind of description that belongs in an open standard.

Let's turn it arround.

To combat terrorism we will take away some of your rights for your own good:

Privacy (wire taps)
Free speech (right to public protest, right to insult)
Right to a trial (Gitmo)

But it's ok, you can still watch government approved TV so it's OK.

Car travel is dangerous - more so than terrorism. So we will take away some of you rights to help combat car accidents:

Keys
Accelerator Pedal
Gas Stations.

But it's ok, you still have the car so don't worry about it.

Combating a threat (even a greatly exaggerated one such as terrosism) is all well and good. It's the methods that are the problem and the proportiionality of the response. Seriously, if the GPs figures are correct then car accidents are 130 times more threatening then how come none of your car owning and driving rights have been taken away?

I don't wholly beleive the whole "Inalienable rights" spiel - rights and expectations are a human creation and they will always change as society does but you cannot expect me to believe that the response seen in the US, UK and other countries to this "evil terrorism" is in any way proportional.

At best it's popularist politics at work, and we suffer for their continued careers and at the other end of the scale it's a mopre sinister power grab. Neither is good.

Although I agree, it's a convenience thing. There's been times where I have to browse and view loads of different PDFs via online links and having to first download then open each one is a pain. Safer, certainly but a nice, non-adobe-full-of-exploits in-tab PDF viewer would be nice.