At the current download speeds it's going to take 2+ years to finish. Pretty inconvenient when you have to download everything to get at even one of the contained files.

Of course I don't actually give a fuck, since I don't have anywhere near enough time to waste on 20 year old arcade games. But if I were the sort to want any of this, it'd be a rather long wait to get anything.

Because Windows 8 is better?

GP is saying that the amount of electricity being "wasted" by the bulbs in the form of heat would be more efficiently turned into heat using a furnace.

So what you're saying is that it's Microsoft's fault your business held out for post-Win7, despite the knowledge that the end date was 2014 (and heck, that's been moved out by 2 years from the original date!). And it's also Microsoft's fault for not planning your app upgrades (what, you thought Win8 would be more compatible than Win7 for your XP apps)? Sounds to me like you think your lack of planning should constitute an emergency on my part. Bzzzzzt. Wrong. You made your bed, now you get to lie in it.

That comment in no way changes what was said in the GP post (though for clarity, while you could still buy WinXP about 4-5 years ago you are still not a current customer). The other point to consider though is the customer (company) who has 20x WinXP machines, 100x Win7 machines and 50x Win8.1 machines. They still are a customer, obviously, but IT moves so much faster than most older industries - it's like complaining your 1955 Studebaker isn't getting new parts made any more because it's 2013, and the original moulds/specs have been lost. The only difference is that you can't even retro-fit a cloned part.

I don't see that much difference. What are you talking about?

Actually - that their software is open is irrelevant to the problem. Are they running their own servers with openssl/openvpn/??? or using third party appliances? Did THEY create and build the hardware from the ground up or purchase it from a third party? The balance of probabilities may say their inter-DC encryption is done on a secure, up-to-date and built-and-operated-to-best-practices RH server, but it's not a guarantee.

And just like this scenario with Microsoft, how is anyone going to audit the deployment? RH will most certainly not allow twenty million users to tour their datacentres and audit each and every device. So just like Microsoft's environment, and despite RH's code potentially being open, there is absolutely no way to vet the environment. You have to trust the organisation (and each and every person involved in the decision tree). I really don't see a significant and meaningful difference - the open code has no bearing whatsoever on what's actually running (both code-wise and configuration-wise).

He probably works in OH&S (Occupational Health and Safety - or your local equivalent) or at an employer who has been burned in the past and now requires every possible risk to be itemised and managed (even if it makes a project cost 300% more).

I'd guess the potential killers have higher moral standards than the execs, and don't want to inflict the mental pain / sorrow on the not-guilty family members. Sadly this means the morally bankrupt studio execs can't be expunged from the gene pool.

That and there's a huge line of contenders to replace the execs anyway, all with moral compasses permanently set to "screw everyone except me".

Think of it more like a reminder and a chance to begin the education of those who were suckered in by their friends/colleagues (and who aren't/weren't privacy-conscious to start with).

I don't have a Facebook account now because of privacy concerns. But I didn't get one originally (04-05 I guess?) because frankly I'm a bit of a loner and I couldn't think of a group of people I'd rather avoid than those with whom I went to school. Yes, I've missed out on staying connected to people with whom I'd want to continue to associate (Uni friends), but I'm not sacrificing my privacy for it now. I'd rather be detached and a little boring. It's a choice - but I hope an informed one.

True also for Dell, Intel and HP. And the KVM switch vendors (e.g. Avocent). Problem is that while they'll pay for certs for the newer stuff, they're not going to release any new firmware for the older "not supported anymore" stuff. So all those console switches in your datacentre? Worthless, unless you stick with old Java. Same for managed PDUs hosting a little Java applet. Possibly even some rather large web-managed UPS. Same for thousands upon thousands of other supporting appliances of God-knows how many types. Heck, there are companies still rocking servers that are 4, 5 years old; those aren't getting updates to sign the Java applet either, let alone the 10 year old stuff that still hosts the NT4 app that no-one knows how to replace or migrate.

So basically this is going to force companies to replace perfectly good infrastructure or deal with losing remote access to things, as well as screw with hobbyists who have older stuff in their basement/garage/closet/bedroom.

You can of course water down the "intelligent design" claims until they don't mean that much anymore, but originally the term was used in contrast to natural evolution (including natural selection). "intelligent design" implies that someone had a specific design in mind when he/she/it started designing. Such a property however has not even been postulated in the religious books as far as I can recall. Therefore, what you really want to call such an argument is called "directed evolution", not "ID".

Epigenetics does in general not change or mutate genes(*).
At least the most common examples for epigenetics are cases where a gene's activity has been increased or decreased, which can be explained by molecules attaching to the DNA. The study is talking about evolution, hence mutation, and not about epigenetics.

(*)Of course, someday someone will find a rare example where epigenetics actually changes the mutation rates of genes.

My understanding of the slashdot summary is that what you are saying is exactly the point of the study or at least the point that the author of the slashdot blurb wanted to make. No idea why someone labelled this with "intelligent design" as that means no evolution at all.

1. build reactor 2. decommision reactor 3. profit