Sure.

Apple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Google > Microsoft > Blackberry

I'm not fanboy, but I'd imagine a lot of people feel strongly about supporting the lesser of the two evils in the mobile market.

Corporate IT is very "if it aint broke, don't fix it"., and that's both a good philosophy to have, and one that the emerging IT culture needs to re-adopt. I've worked with many young sysadmins that have what I call "update obsession". Everything always has to be the latest and greatest, and they pay the price for it. Stick with what works. This is the main reason I still use Cisco equipment that runs IOS. IOS hasn't changed much in decades, but it doesn't need to. You configure it, and leave it... for years. This new generation might cringe at the IOS CLI when they're used to web GUIs, but hey... if it aint broke... don't fix it, and Cisco knows that. Someone also needs to bring this philosophy to Microsoft, Google, and Apple. You don't need to reinvent the wheel every 5 years, just because it's been 5 years.

What immediately ticked me off with 10 tech preview was how they hide creating a normal account on the local SAM database. They are really trying to force Microsoft accounts and the cloud down everyone's throat. They need to f*ck off with that immediately if they want any attention from the enterprise.

This. Port your entire project to Java/MariaDB and then you never have to ask this question again. Make your life easy and build your forms with netbeans.

Netbeans makes working with swing forms a breeze. I'd like to vote for java as well.

California tried to give everyone iPads: very expensive multi-purpose tablets. It was a terrible decision.

Something like this could work but the device would have to be specially designed for the purpose. Something with an e-ink display would be ideal.

ghash.io has secured the presidency for [insert whomever paid the most].

I'll take your attempt at condescension as an indirect admission of losing the argument. You know very well that you can launder cash through gambling or currency exchange as well. The point remains that there are more ways to launder cash than there are to launder bitcoins. Bitcoins are no less lacking in "accountability" than cash, gold, or any other medium of trade except maybe digital currency controlled by the federal reserve.

Not true. It's a common misconception that the decentralized nature of the bitcoin protocol makes all transactions anonymous. Bitcoin is actually easier to track than even cash considering every transaction is recorded in a public ledger that is required for the entire mechanism to work: the block chain. This makes it very difficult to "wash" bitcoins as the washing mechanism could not be tied to the theif like it commonly is today (ie. a small business front for money laundering). De-centralized just means lack of control from an establishment. The actual use of the currency is very trackable and law enforcement friendly.

Bitcoin has problems, but a lack of accountability isn't one of them. You could argue cash has "zero accountability". What stops you from stealing cash? The law. Because the law doesn't care about bitcoin, yet, doesn't mean it never will.

Bitcoins major problems are two:

1) Fixed supply ideology. Anything with a fixed supply, when up against the nature of human economics, is deflationary. Bitcoin proponents will aruge that coins are divisible so wages and prices will scale accordingly, but this is an incorrect assumption. If that were true no amount of inflation or deflation would ever be a problem as the market would just auto-adjust. The truth is, targeting a small amount of inflation in a currency is ideal for a lot of good reasons I won't ramble on about. You will never get them to listen on this point anyways.

2) The 51% problem. The only labor involved in "mining" bitcoins is the creating the integrated circuits that can solve the SHA hash. Because only specialized industries can provide this labor a 51% monopolization of the network is almost a certainty. We can already see ASIC manufacturers getting dangerously close to this today. Bitcoin proponents will argue that ASICs ruined everything. If we could have only kept mining exclusive to general purpose CPU's everything would be fine. What they don't understand, is the problem of specialized labor, being the only labor required to mine a bitcoin. Because of this, whether it's intel, or ghash.io, or AMD, it doesn't matter. Someone is always going to be able to use their specialized labor to monopolize the market. It will never be safe.

Bitcoin is a great idea. We need something like bitcoin going forward. However, we'll see better success in something like bitcoin2.0 as the current implimentation is just broken from a technical and economic standpoint.

This summary makes things sound worse than they are. From my interpretation of tfa it sounds like Canadians are just going to start getting a lot more warning letters. Considering that the max penalty is 5 grand, and the copyright holder has to take you to court to get it, I'd imagine these letters are going to relatively benign.

Technicians are going to be needed to service the machines. Anyone who grew up in an area influenced by the car industry will tell you that. We all started training to be technicians and millwrights years ago.

I grew up near a national park that had lost most of its large animal populations except for deer. The deer, having no natural predators, would routinely breed out of control and cause all sorts of problems for the forest. To fix this issue, about once a decade the government would hand out extra deer tags and let the local hunters sort things out for them.

As a child I remember recognizing the parallels of this to the global human population. I remember trying to explain to people that the world was of a fixed size for us, just like the forest was for the deer. It amazed me then, just as much as it does now, that nobody wanted to talk about it.

You're being obtuse just for the sake of arguing. Anyone who knows even 1 traffic cop can tell you that they have, what they call, "honey holes" or "fishing holes". These are areas usually at the bottom of a hill, coming onto or off of a highway, or in places where its unclear if you've transitioned to or from a highway or normal city street.

There is no magical perfect science figuring out speed limits. They are always either 30, 50, 80, 100, or 110km/h in my area. There are many areas of my city where 50 is too slow, but 80 is probably too fast... so the limit defaults to 50. And traffic police will routinely sit at these "fishing holes" and pull over anyone missing that mark by a mere 10km/h (the lowest deviation they can write a ticket for). They also always seem to be set up at the end of the month too. What a coincidence.