I don't have a problem with this, but I almost never carry cash. It's always an after thought with a 'Oh, hmm, they may only take cash at the parking garage'. I'm surprised sometimes how people who complain about carrying coins, carry so much paper money. If it's a hassel use your check card which is the same as cash. Although if you are the tin foil hat type, then you have a whole litany of why you won't.

My wife and her best friend see Black Friday as a sporting event. They make tshirts, go out, shop like crazy, drink lots of coffee, and have a good time (while getting almost all our Christmas shopping done). She enjoys it, and I get to sit at home and do whatever I want. I avoid going out completely, because people are insane and it makes me want to shoot them. I imagine a lot of people on here have similar situations.

I understand that a CEO should be pushing his own products, but really? This is his reasoning? And it's not even reasoning, but sad marketing pulp that I don't think anyone actually believes (including the Microsoft people). People love their iPads, and people love their Android tablets. Sure, there are people who aren't happy and maybe flip, but I somehow doubt Microsoft is going to be the innovator in this part of the market.

I would have actually agreed if he said something like: most people are familiar with Windows and probably use it at work/home, so now we've tried to put together a tablet that uses an OS they are familiar with! *
br /. * Except that it's running Windows 8 which no one is familiar with.

Anyone who has had to learn outside of a classroom understands that sometimes it's necessary: training manuals, certifications, just learning for personal enjoyment. Sometimes time and money are a factor. However, if you've ever struggled with a concept, you understand how much simpler it is when another person is involved imparting their knowledge in a personalized way to help you learn.

We sadly get maybe 5 kids because of our location and quiet street. So the kids that do stop by get hand fulls of the standard/tasty candy. The parents may hate us, but the kids' eyes light up.

It is absolutely true that correlation does not imply causation, but people seem to use it (especially on here) as if it magically refutes everything. Usually more so when they don't want it to be true, or just don't want to deal with it.

I hit you with a bat.
You are bleeding on the ground.
'But.. but.. correlation does not imply causation.. Maybe I started bleeding spontaneously...'

I can agree to a point. I certainly know people/places that just throw money at a problem. And I know that when systems and down and the customer is starting to panic, that I've come up with some interesting and very good solutions. However there are problems with always trying to solve solutions with 'hacks'. They become unsupportable, they fail in unexpected ways, and they make it harder for you to get a budget to do things you simply can't/shouldn't hack a solution together for. 'What, why do we need a SAN? Remember how you wired those netbooks together for our web farm! Figure something out for us. KTHXBYE.'

But I do agree you need someone who can think creatively and not be locked into marketing speak anytime a problem comes up.

I can only hope that this allows teachers to truly teach the controversy, and why science is science, and that faith is faith. And be able to lay down all the facts without worrying about getting fired. You can imagine that a teacher trying to teach science would get spooked by a student asking about creationism: are the parents going to bitch to the school? is the teacher going to get hung out to dry to appease the conservative christian parents? I feel bad for teachers and today's ultra-reactionist society who want to blame everyone else for bad kids or for not agreeing with them.

As an aside, I'm Christian and don't believe in creationism. In fact the Bible/Genesis has _two_ versions of creationism, so it doesn't even agree with itself.

Just like anything else, it's different so some people will find it weird or wrong in the beginning. Or assume you are looking at porn in service or some equally ridiculous claim. And the only reason this is even a story is because it involves churches which are often steeped in tradition and not generally the first to use tech, although that's really a church by church decision.

VMware is still the best product for hardware virtualization, and they do have some great home/consumer products. The biggest issue right now is their change in licensing to start charging you for how much RAM you plan to use. For a lot of customers, this may not make a difference, but at the enterprise level its definitely a nuisance and causing irritation. Will that irritation be enough to change vendors? I don't think so although managers may want it.

It seems like any tech company (we stick with that since this is a geek/tech site) gets this adjective attached at some point. Either a company is not a threat or they are evil. Are there big companies that don't fall into this? Microsoft has been evil forever at this point, now they are falling by the wayside a bit in browsers and devices, so no one says it anymore. Google was great, until they weren't. Now they are evil because of ads and clouds and random other buzzwords depending on the article. Apple was the well designed underdog until they got popular, then they became evil because 'hey my iPhone and iPad are locked down'.

I think the problem often is 1) we are not normal users 2) we have our own biases and can't agree on a damn thing. The user part you can get past. Just go to the store with your spouse/friend/mom and you can see their reaction to devices/features and get a better understanding. The bias part is much more difficult. We all know (and maybe you are) someone who you can't have a discussion with because Apple/Google/Microsoft/Sony/etc are Evil (TM). End of discussion. Nope don't tell me about the good points, I just want to be happy in my hate towards them because you know they do it just to spite me.

Everyone thinks someone else is evil, so in the end either everyone is evil or no one is because our definitions need to be adjusted a bit.

Of course I read earlier today that there were rumors that it was being pushed back a month or two. Everyone likes rumors because they seem illicit. You weren't supposed to know that! Much sexier than an official announcement of some kind.

This is one of those geek debates that most of us don't care about except for a fun discussion. The people who are really pushing from one side or the other have motives of some type. I like the idea of tablets, am planning on buying an iPad, but I don't care if it's considered a PC or not. I'm going to use it regardless.

I like it. Especially compared to v2. And I like the whitespace since it gives a cleaner, uncluttered look. It's not over the top, but enough to make it read better.

What? What?! Really? Again? Someone tried something, so NOW we will make it illegal. Yes, that makes so much sense. So by this logic, if someone tries to smuggle a bomb on themselves, the TSA will then begin banning passengers. You know, because someone may try again ! I'm not saying these is an easy solution to this, but really the solution is not banning random items that have been used in the past. How about spending money on good training and good employees? How about having a dozen lines for screening so that there's less need for urgency because there are plenty of screeners who can take their time to be effective?