I don't know that I'd say it's better, but for most people it's not any worse. That's the truly important thing. Most people have already memorized the conversions they need, so it's already just as easy for them to use imperial as metric units. The only people that a switch to metric benefits are those who have to do lots of imperial-metric conversions, or kids who are currently in school and haven't learned the conversions yet. For everyone else, metric is actually a huge pain in the ass, because they have to re-learn to think in those units. So, for most people, the switch doesn't benefit them - but comes with a large drawback.

It's really not hard to see why the US isn't in a hurry to switch. And as one of the people for whom a switch to metric would be nuisance rather than benefit, I hope they never do (or at least, not in my lifetime).

"Sense" has nothing to do with anything you or him are saying. You're using very specific terms with very specific meanings in wholly inappropriate ways. It's the equivalent of someone who uses "Nazi" or a similar negative label as a synonym for "someone I don't like". It's the most laughable thing I've ever heard. I would have had no problem if you both simply said that you didn't feel Steam was an acceptable thing to have on your PC, because as I said - one can make legitimate arguments to that effect. But no, you had to go off into fantasy land and start calling things "rootkits" and "malware" which are legitimate software, and then try to defend your "arguments" (such as they are) with factually incorrect statements. It's one hell of a joke, and I have never seen anybody quite so woefully ignorant before.

You really are an idiot, and have no idea what the fuck a rootkit is (or perhaps no idea what the fuck Steam is, it's hard to say). Steam does not trick you into installing it. It does not hide the things it does. You may not agree with its activities (and as I have already said, one can reasonably do so), but it is quite up front about what it does and what its purposes are. That singlehandedly disqualifies it from being a rootkit.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seriously, stop that bullshit. There are legitimate arguments to be made against the use or acceptance of Steam. I personally feel it is worth the drawbacks and/or risks, but I have no problem with those who feel otherwise. But slinging about terms like "malware" is complete bullshit, and does the community a great disservice.

You either have absolutely no concept of what a rootkit is, or absolutely no concept of how to accurately present information. Pick one.

I'd be willing to respect your opinion if you said that using Steam to access software you purchased is an unacceptably large amount of DRM, or somesuch argument. I'd be willing to respect your opinion if you said that it was too much power to put in any company's hands, or even Valve's in particular. But when you start calling Steam a rootkit, you veer off into pure bullshit land. It's just ridiculous.

Bullshit. A company's fiduciary duty to its investors does not include unethical behavior, despite the fact that many unscrupulous businesses use that as an excuse for their poor behavior.

No, I have a sense of fair and ethical behavior.

No, no deception at all. Just hiding the money they made via accounting tricks. </sarcasm>

Do you really believe that ethics stops and starts with the law? For God's sake, we teach children in school about how legal behavior is not the same as ethical behavior. Everyone should understand this fundamental concept.

Only if you promised them to maximize profits at any cost. Which no ethical business would do, and no business period is under an obligation to do.

You clearly don't understand my point. My point is not to pay more than you have to; my point is to stop using shady means to get out of your tax burden. I didn't put any extra money into my taxes next year, but neither did I set up offshore corporations to play accounting games. That crosses a line, and you ought to recognize that instead of defending the people who are defrauding us (or in this case, the people of the UK).

Some businesses have good ethics, to be sure. But enough don't that the statement has significant merit. Look at companies like Foxconn, and how many people will rise to their defense, despite their piss-poor treatment of their workers. You don't need to shit on everybody else to make a profit, but that is what a lot of companies will do to maximize profits unless prohibited by law. Nor do you need to engage in shady-ass behavior like setting up tax shelters. Using such means to exploit loopholes in the tax code is profoundly unethical.

You act as though I'm advocating for lots of taxes, but I'm not. I'm advocating for not wriggling out of your obligations using shady tactics. The current tax law can stand a ton of improvement, but exploiting loopholes in order to avoid it... that's unacceptable.

This has jack shit do do with "wealth envy". Stop spouting generalized rhetoric and address the issue. The point is that exploiting legal loopholes to avoid your tax burden is unethical. It's unethical when an individual does it, it's unethical when a corporation does it. The fact that it is commonplace does not make it justifiable behavior.

You're looking at it wrong. The point is that exploiting loopholes to escape your tax obligation (and don't give me the "it's legal" crock of shit; setting up offshore accounts and corporations in other countries is obviously shady however legal it is) is unethical, not that paying taxes is ethical.

No. If you answer yes, you have a sense of ethics. But you're right, such a person will probably be replaced because businesses don't tolerate ethical behavior unless said behavior is required by law.

You mean things that are either essential parts of AD and can be assumed to be implemented, or things which were specifically called out in TFS as being supported? Granted: saying they support it is not the same as actually supporting it. But unless you've already installed and tested this thing, it's a bit early to be calling bullshit on their claims.

Why? Isn't the whole point of a test environment to find out if something has issues? I think that interested parties should put it into a test environment immediately, cause that's why they have a test environment. But yes, wait some time to put it into production.

Uh-huh. Right...

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but cloud-based services complement traditional computing environments, they do not replace them. If you're in certain situations (e.g., a small business with only 10 employees), the cloud can indeed be your entire IT infrastructure... but that won't work for everyone. Different needs for different organizations.