How dare you try to lay our sorry state of affairs at the feet of President Jackson! Don't you realize what a fucked up country he inherited from John Quincy Adams?!? You've obviously been spending WAY to much time in your RWEC. (Right-Whig Echo Chamber)

Technically, Bell's Theorem only rules out local hidden variables.

"No, a firewall is an application"

Please learn what the hell you are talking about. I accept your apology.

I'm with you as one who actually uses a mac as intended. Pretty much any time I'm in front of it, at least 12GB of the 16GB of RAM in the machine is in use, and at least 2 of the 8 logical CPU cores are pegged, if not more; on not-rare occasions, I see 8 pegged cores and a ton of swapping as 16GB isn't really enough (though it's the max for this machine) for some of what I'm doing, which, of course, leads to a very non-responsive system. Budget woes and the unavailability if better-spec'd portables dictate that I have to make do, however. I could get a new rMBP with a marginally faster CPU and marginally slower SSD, which would actually make the situation worse as I can't get one with more than 16GB of RAM and, thus, would still swap... to a slower disk. Oh, and I don't have $3200 to drop on, essentially, a downgrade; and yes, to maintain the same amount of storage as my current MBP, I would have to upgrade the SSD size (the upside being that *all* of that 1TB would be SSD, but I really wouldn't see any benefit from moving bulk media storage off of a spinning disk).

Sadly, my current MBP is the last portable Apple made that I find interesting. If I could get an rMBP with 32 or 64GB of RAM, that might change. A Mac Pro would be nice, but falls outside of my budget and would be much less useful when traveling, as my internet connection (and, indeed, the best I can get where I live) doesn't have decent enough upstream to allow me to interact effectively with the applications I would use it for, when remote.

The 17" models were a niche when Apple stopped selling them, yes; however, so was every other model they sold at the time. Now that Apple has clout with an demographic that's a bit more savvy than broke college kids who want to look cool, they could sell a 17" model to a much wider audience. Part of the allure to the larger models is the ability to cool a faster CPU more effectively and allow for more hardware configuration options; it's not all about screen size. There is a reason the 13" model comes standard with half as much RAM and you can't order it with the same speed CPU you can put in a 15"; and a 17" would allow for a yet faster CPU, possibly a second drive bay (alternately filling that area with more battery), and maybe a couple RAM slots to augment the on-board 16GB.

As someone who uses their machine to its potential, I'm certain you understand this, so this post is more directed at others who may read it than it is at you.

It's easy to cheat at Missile Command- use a touch screen.

Since light emanating from one point loses brightness exponentially as it spreads to cover an area, the backlight of a larger screen will draw exponentially more power than the backlight of a smaller screen, for the same given brightness. The bigger your screen gets, the more the ration of backlight power to panel power skews toward the backlight, so you can't really say a 3820x2160 display will always draw more power than a 1920x1080 display; it may be true at the panel level, but what use is the panel without the backlight? And no panel is drawing 120W by itself, period.

While a panel with 4x as many pixels can be expected to draw roughly *up to* 4x as much current, the switching voltage of each individual pixel drops as the pixels become smaller, so the wattage of the panel does not scale linearly with resolution, but it does scale with size. Since the brightness requirements of the backlight scale exponentially with size, a larger screen quickly begins to draw more power than a smaller screen, even if the smaller screen packs more pixels.

I'm sure I've made some factual error, here, and welcome someone who actually has an EE degree to step in and correct me; however, I'm certain I've gotten the basics correct.

"We are also blocking the ports at a local level using hosts.allow and hosts.deny. You don't NEED to use a firewall process to block things."

A firewall isn't a process, and you misinformed us. You originally claimed you don't have a firewall, but you just said you do have a firewall, you just don't know that you have a firewall. That being said, Have a nice day though!

Nope. That's too much of a chore, boy.

Sorry, with bitcoin I'm afraid it's not that simple. At this point in the discussion, I'm not going to bother with writing out a treatise explaining my position. If you really want to understand the issues involved, I suggest you check the bitcoin wiki along with the many threads on the topic at bitcointalk.org.

I think you are pretty confused. If you need to use enterprise level tools you use enterprise level hardware and network configurations. This means that, if you are going to use it you have a separate NIC for each node and an "Oracle Only" subnet. If you don't / can't do that, you are most likely using a tool for which there is no actual need. In other words, you're doing it wrong. Even in this case, you should certainly be blocking the unneeded ports in the 0 - 1000 range.

" If I occasionally drink alcohol, then yes, I'm at risk of becoming an alcoholic."

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Your belief that you "become" an addict based an a use pattern is what makes it blairingly obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Until you have a drink of you have no idea if you are one on not. Once you do, if you are an addict (or in your words, an "alcoholic"), then you will drink differently from other people immediately. It affects an addict differently than a non addict.

"I claimed that responsibility decides whether you resist the temptation to experiment with drugs or not. "

Yes, and I pointed out the fact that you are an idiot who seems to think he is one of the few responsible people on the planet.

"But I would prefer if you keep the insults to yourself. Unless that is your addiction."

Yes! You nailed it on the head (pretty good for an idiot, actually.) I wasn't an inslult addict, but then I insulted you just one too many times, and now I'm an insult addict! Moron.

While I think that Jackson is an opportunistic jackass, resorting to racial epithets is completely unnecessary and only serves to undercut your message. Be better than this. You owe it to your society and yourself.

Has it been scheduled yet? Been hearing about this off and on for 30 years now.

Fuck yeah! I love Spinal Tap!

Right, I think he meant 0.2.0