There are numerous reasons. The look of adults will remain more consistent throughout the filming of a movie and between sequels (not to mention a TV series), while no amount of contractual obligation can stop a child actor from growing. I heard on a director's commentary of a film (can't remember which one) that said that they had problems reshooting parts of an earlier scene because the child had changed between the start and end of the movie; probably no so noticeably as you watch the film sequentially, but when it they intercut shots into the same scene then it could be obvious.

Child actors also have limits on how long they can film and require schooling during the shoot. It's possible that trained actors are easier to direct and put in better performances, but that is just speculation and there are definitely examples of children doing some stunning work. Finally, teenagers can be right pricks sometimes (although so can some prima donna actors too).

Of course they do. Most people in the world will have never heard of Sylpheed, let alone know what it is for. It is pretty arrogant to think that people don't use the built-in email simply because you don't.

But the problem is that you don't get an intuitive and user-friendly system. You might get a clean system without clutter, but then have to figure out and dragging from the top of the screen to the bottom is the way to close a program. Or that clicking in the space that used to have a design element (but is now just blank) was the way to bring up the start screen. Or that things that look like they are just decoration are actually active buttons, but you only know this (and what function they perform) by blindly clicking, dragging, swiping over every part of the screen.

Even when you do this, you still have to face the final insult when you find that the function you are looking for was removed from the software because it was deemed too advanced for modern users - even though Windows has been able to perform that function for decades up until now.

Modern user interfaces have absolutely nothing to do with intuitiveness. I looked at some really old software recently and found it so pleasant because I could tell exactly what functions were available and how to perform them simply because they used textual buttons and menus. It was so much better than being faced with a bunch of similar-looking graphics with no mouse-over pop-ups to explain what they were for.

That is a complete lie. I just did a search and found only one mention of the words SmartCar or Prius, and they were written by you.

I just said that the issues of replacing incandescent light bulbs is over which is why it needs longer needs any discussion. We also don't discuss this new color TV that we have had for decades because it is no longer news for nerds anymore. Don't try to make out like it is some conspiracy to bury the topic just because there are other technologies that have yet to prove themselves.

Now that sounds very alarmist. The idea that the economy will be so ruined by a carbon tax that people will die from lack of basic life needs is extreme and unsupported.

Blue, and with a partially restored ozone layer too. That's right, there have been many instances where we have spent money to fix environmental problems.

Allow me to take a leaf from your book and say: Citation needed...

How exactly does the scientific community state that the world will end? Do they say that it will explode, like Krypton? Do they say that the oceans will boil away? If there is one thing that you can say about scientist it's that they always show their workings, so it should be easy for you to give an example of some paper that describes how the world is supposed to end.

But we both know that nobody has said that the world will actually end.

Are you seriously saying that you have heard nothing about replacing incandescent light bulbs with LED bulbs? Seriously? That conversation has already been had. Go out and buy a light globe and tell us what choice you have now? Why would we still be hearing about that now when that is the one thing that has already been fixed?

And why should economic sense be of highest importance? Slavery makes economic sense, and yet we pay more for our goods so that the people who make them get paid because it is the right thing to do. Why can't we do the same thing so that we don't stuff up the environment?

I really wish that this was true, but I'm afraid the denial war is a constant and relentless presence. Only the bogus reason-of-the-month used to discredit the entire scientific community seems to change.

Russia does have fabs. The Mikron Group made the Elbrus-2SM processor. They can't do less than a 90nm process yet.

These are fabricated in Taiwan. You had best keep using your abacus for a while longer.

I don't see why there would be such a delay when the article says:

As for the "five years behind comment" (which was not anyone bragging but instead criticising), I suspect that the article mashed together two different quotes into one. In terms of performance (which put them between the i3 & i5), they are five years behind mainstream performance. But it is difficult to compare this and the other performance metrics because of the architectural differences. This isn't a x86 CPU, it is more of a hybrid design. It runs at a very low clock speed (800MHz) and it's power requirements (45W) are low for a 65nm process.

It's not really the important part of the story though. For some countries affected by US export restrictions, having an alternate supplier makes them better than nothing. This CPU will not make the company a household name in the West, but they will continue to have a market in the places that the big boys can't play.

If you have a need to recompile Powershell, it would be because it lacks something. What is it lacking? I understand that ideology is important and that open source is a reasonable thing to prefer, but that it not an answer to my question of what Linux does that Powershell does not.

I think that you have put way too much thought into this. It is just not important. The original comment was inaccurate and just not insightful. If it is so wrong to correct the examples offered, then perhaps it was equally wrong for the AC to make the original post in the first place as it serves no point other than to perpetuate the myth that the language is too verbose to use.

I do acknowledge your pedantry though.

Except the majority of people running Windows don't use Powershell, so *.ps1 files cannot be used as a mechanism to infect those systems with malware. And you can still use Powershell interactively without having to change the security. This only affects people who want to run script files.

And there is no one operating system that has every single security feature, let alone has them enabled by default. Just because OpenBSD doesn't have it, doesn't mean that it isn't a security feature on Windows.

Have you never heard of people getting the wrong impression of something? I have merely corrected the impression that Powershell will always be verbose where *nix is concise.

Yet I have already shown you that it has built-in short aliases for common functions (some which use standard Unix names), and you can add your own. For the long commands and parameters Powershell has tab completion that is miles ahead of bash as it works for parameters and values too.

When the initial remark was "I can do a lot more with old linux tools than powershell have ever had the capability of" and the grandparent said "If you know linux well enough, you have complete control over everything including the kernel", then short (and cryptic) command names is an underwhelming example to choose.

Who has been doing this? Scanning through the posts here shows a lot of nay-sayers who are obviously uninformed, but I don't see any people saying that Powershell can do things that Bash can't without offering an example. And even if they do, why don't you ask them for examples like I did?

In the meantime, I still have to keep asking what it is that Powershell can't do.