The subby did finish it. Just read it as an exclamation of joy. "Astronomers something something stuff - YEAH!!!"

FTA: "The walls and other components of the structure were fabricated offsite with a diagonal reinforced print pattern and then shipped in and pieced together. The company then placed beam columns and steel rebar within the walls, along with insulation, reserving space for pipe lines, windows and doors."

From the text and what few pictures of the actual construction material they show, it looks like they basically print it with voids specifically for skewering it with rebar on-site.

Now, whether or not you trust the final assembler to actually *do* so and then backfill the voids with some sort of mortar so the rebar actaully has something to stick to... Well, we'll find out in the first big earthquake they get, I suppose.

Okay, technically we have an "interglacial" period, if you want to get pedantic.

When the "ice age" really ends - We have a problem.

Obligatory XKCD - And this one might actually educate rather than amuse!

Now look at the last 12000 years - The last ice age completely ended 9500 years ago.

Every. Single. Time.

The problem is that no one is asking what sucks about IT. Could it be:

I agree with all of those, but, not one of them discriminates against women vs men.


one has to ask is there something that is preventing women from getting jobs in IT

Yes, one does. You haven't.

So given that we know where to find it and could use the orbiter to send a strong, tightly-confined signal that its (poorly placed, apparently) antenna might have some small chance of detecting - Any possibility that we could revive it at this point, send it some sort of "reboot and try again" signal?

So where can I buy 900 foot runs of cable that have the ends already on them that I can fish through conduit easily?

Right next to the switches that can handle that extra 578 feet.

After 3 months most people forget what they were conversing about anyway

Yes, they do, except I draw a different conclusion from that than do you.

I get questions literally on a weekly basis along the lines of "Why the hell did you do it that way?"

I find it somewhat satisfying to answer by simply forwarding the asker an email, usually their own, in which they insisted I do it that way, typically over my objections that it wouldn't work correctly "that way."

Both of which were caused by Microsoft giving into OEMs and allowing cheap hardware. Same mistake as Windows 8 allowing machines without digitizers or capacitive / resistive touchscreens to run Windows 8.

So they keep making the same mistake, and you just give them a pass on that?


Linux changes much faster than Windows does.

You've conflated updates to individual packages with the one thing most users care about - The look and feel of it. If I wanted to, I could run a fully-patched Linux box with the look and feel of a circa-2000 KDE2-style desktop today, and I fully expect I could keep doing so for the next dozen years as well without much difficulty.


They serve us in the aggregate not in the individual case.

Win7 didn't overtake XP until October of 2012 (the same month Windows 8 came out). Win7 still, two years and two versions after Win8 came out, has 56% of the desktop market share (and that includes Apple and Linux) - And we have an FP telling us about mainstream support for 7 ending? I'd have to call a solid majority "us in the aggregate".


Sorry I don't agree at all.

Fair opinion, and you have every right t it. If I regularly had the majority of my customers still running something two versions old and actively protesting what I considered the latest and greatest, I'd take that as a hint to quit changing things. YMMV.

Microsoft made a terrible mistake in allowing enterprises to remain on XP so long and thus allowing this culture of not upgrading to take place.

"Allowing"? Good one!

If Microsoft had tried to force companies to migrate to Vista, we would have seen 2007 as finally the year of "Linux on the Desktop".

Software vendors need to get a grip on their role in the ecosystem. They serve us, not the other way around. When people still run XP (hell, people still run 95!), that should tell Microsoft everything it needs to know about the viability of continuing its current trend toward forcing rapid unwanted change on people.

Unless IT security gets real, non drill, respect, what's the point?

IT security won't get real respect until they actually know more than the people they annoy with their (literally) useless rules.

When you have some moron with a CISSP telling people who write network protocol stacks for a living what browsers they can use (this week), do you really expect to see a lot of "respect" flowing in that direction?

Modern InfoSec amounts to little more than snake-oil. AV vendors have admitted that their products can't keep us safe, while Mr. CISM insists on cranking up the settings to the point that an 24-core behemoth can barely get out of its own way.

Meanwhile, we hear about yet another fortune-500 compromise, with its own highly-paid head of IT security, on a daily basis.

You want respect? I get my job done. Try doing the same.

So you do not ever support disclosure. Okay, valid stance, though I do not happen to agree with you.

If no one forces their hand, companies have proven, repeatedly, that they will simply sit on known vulnerabilities until hell freezes over. In the mean time, countless millions of systems remain vulnerable. And if one random security researcher could find the exploit, so can government-funded hackers such as Dimona, the Russian mob, the NSA, Bureau 121, etc.

I would rather have critical exploits patched eventually, even if it means two days of increased visibility to the problem. YMMV.

Try "No, 90 days already gives you waaay too much time with vulnerable devices in the wild; so, time to play name-and-shame and see if that motivates you more than 'quality' or 'self-respect' did."

In fairness, I loathe FaceBook as well.

Key difference, though, Facebook doesn't nag me to join every time I check my email or calendar or pull something off my Drive. No doubt, they would if they offered any other services I had an interest in using without using FB itself; but since they don't, that doesn't really apply.

First, I consider myself a fan of the Googlesphere. I love Android, love Chrome, love GMail, enjoy the availability of their online Apps, and so on. (Hate hate hate Google+, though).

And saying that - Google needs to come to terms with the fact that they can't get away with the same bullshit update cycle for an OS installed on physical hardware, as they do with Chrome. For a desktop browser, weekly updates with support ending more-or-less after a year counts as an annoyance, but not a deal-killer. For an OS, just "no". My last phone lasted a decade - Support your devices (at least for critical vulnerability patches) for at least that long, or GTFO of the playground.