Just pretend that you're giving a presentation to your parents on software development; only you won't have to 'dumb it down' so much for second graders.

Cash, Internet cafe, translate, translate back, send.

Research money well spent huh.

All we need now is a beautifying pair of glasses, it's kinda re inventing the wheel though, beer has been removing pimples, moles, blackheads and warts from the face of the people you're looking at for centuries.

I kind of agree here. Most of what I've dealt with in the past has been fully redundant; mostly with load balancing and H/A. Any company that implements systems like this have at least quarterly windows where we would fail one side of the cluster in a purposefully "bad" way (ie. pulling the power cables). So most of the best built systems I've ever worked on have no more than 90 or so days uptime.

I have however had systems with more. 1284 days on a sun ultra 1 is the most. I've been a sys admin for a long time and I'm very much of the persuasion that I almost never have to reboot a unix box, and I'm almost always able to solve issues on the live system.

The highest uptime boxes however, had absolutely nothing to do with my pride in their uptime and pretty much everything to do with the fear of what what would happen if this ancient little obscure system with software that hasn't been sold in 9 years went up in smoke on reboot.

I'd have to agree with this. I'm really surprised that the number isn't higher. I guess it depends on how diverse of a group they're including in the over arching term "IT professionals". I'd guess that if we were limiting ourselves to server/network administrators the number would be much much higher. Personally, I have not tried, but I'd put any amount of money someone wanted to wager on my being able to gain the highest level access available at my previous employment in a matter of minutes.

This is simply from the fact that I know the architecture of the network in detail, as well as the attitude towards security.

"There is no anonymous"

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making the world believe he didn't exist."

I hope it wasn't meant to replace a priest.. the rectangular shape of the iphone would be mighty uncomfortable, .. I mean, sure it has vibrate, but still.

Talking to a smartphone? .. the vatican won't have it .. if it's not telepathic, and it's not done to an invisible 2000 year old zombie Jewish carpenter it just isn't religion.

To paraphrase Hitchens.

'we're approaching the day when a messianic regime gets their hands on apocalyptic weaponry"

That people who do all they can to impose their barbaric ass-backward, anti science 'religious' ideology's all the time, are none the less able to cynically usurp the products of rational thought and the scientific method - is the saddest part of all.

See this is my thinking. People who are stupid enough to take medical advice from Ace Ventura and and Miss October can only be helping humanity by increasing the odds that their offspring don't get the opportunity to have offspring of their own.

Sand and rocks are now drinks.

Awesome, so basically news corp. will be inventing news on a new platform now.

Actually, I think it is kind of 'cheating' in a sense. Without Bing, your google results would be perfectly fine. Without google your bing results (depending on the search) would suck. Toyota may look at a car and copy the parts, but they don't get the actual parts from ford, they still make their product from the ground up. After toyota has copied the car, if ford goes under, toyota doesn't.

Look at it this way, Bing copies results from google, they compete and Bing wins the search engine war. The day google folds, Bing instantly becomes a worse product than it was the day before. Remember, they're not trying to mimic googles algorithm, they're using it and claiming it's their own. Designing a search engine like google and actually being dependent on google are two different things.

The main issue is that anyone familiar with the scientific process understands that there is a huge difference between the theory of evolution and string theory. People that learn about science in the wall street journal and the new york times don't understand this. Yes, the fringe of theoretical physics houses some exotic 'theories', but not all theories have the same level of evidence. I really wish that all of science used mathematical terminology, ie. string conjecture, the multi-verse conjecture etc. When something is proven to the extent of plate tectonics or biological evolution, then it should be promoted to theorem. This way, the idiot masses would know that when they read about string conjecture in the wall street journal, it's an idea that scientists are working on, trying to test etc.

It would also put an end to the "it's just a theory" crap when fact and reality run up against the magical fantasy's of two thousand year old Palestinian goat herding desert nomads.