> This is just like the rush to judgment against the engineer, who everyone was ready to lynch after the accident;

Because in the vast supermajority of cases, it always comes back to operator error.

*looks at userids*

Yeah. He's new here. /pre-emptive UID-off.

It's not my responsibility as an end user to uphold someone else's broken revenue model. I'm responsible for the safety and security of several hundred PCs, not the salaries and expenses of advertising companies.

The lifetime of your computer is, and always will be, your motherboard. Once it becomes old, outdated, and time for a replacement*, then you also must purchase a new Windows license. That is how it already works today with OEM copies of Windows.

* If it fails, then that's a different story. MS allows motherboard swaps, but it's basically an honor system and they'll stop approving non-human activations if you start abusing it

At 7KWh, the battery really wont do anything except for the occassional brown/blackout and really how often does that last. if you dont have solar, there's absolute no point in getting one of these. And if you do have solar it'll just make the payoff slightly better. It'll still take you 3-5 years to pay off the powerwall for little to no gain.

> affordable battery packs

Not yet they aren't.

I don't really understand why Apple wants to sell iMacs. They're a huge PITA to service, cost a fortune to ship and aren't particularly more capable than Mac Minis.If there were an Apple product line with a definite justification to end, it would be that one.

You can get an entry-level Mac Mini, sure. It'll be physically larger and it'll be slower. You can also get slower Broadwell NUCs if you're actually price-sensitive enough to make that comparison. Figure that you'll pay $100 for 16GB RAM and $120 for an m.2 SSD + $25 for an Intel or Broadcom wireless card if you think you need one + whatever the barebones box costs ($300 for the Broadwell i3 up to $535 for the Broadwell i7). Apple's pricing on the Haswell Mac Minis is $500, $700, $1000 for an at-best 2.8GHz i5 with 8GB RAM or for a slug-like 1.4GHz ULV i5 with 4GB RAM and a magnetic drive on the low end.
To me it looks like the late 2014 Mac Minis lose out all the way around unless you're THAT hung up on getting OSX preinstalled or think Apple support is magic.

Any mITX rig with stock Intel cooling, a PicoPSU and an mSATA/m.2 SSD actually has plenty of room for airflow since the bulky metal boxes of hard disk and power supply are out of the way. I also find the Antec NSK150, which has a front-mounted PSU, to work well enough for mainstream desktops.

We can't have CVE-1234, no no, must be RageBoner or PantShitter or no one will take it seriously!

We can't have CVE-1234 exactly because no one will take it seriously, though I suspect you have the cause and effect reversed.

When the CVE list numbers in the tens of thousands and contains everything from the trivial (program may crash) to the severe (remote code execution), CVE numbers are meaningless. It doesn't tell me just how important this vulnerability is and whether I should be concerned. Whereas if someone takes the time to name it, it means it was important enough to get a real name.

Which is a terrible precedent to set, but if anyone has a better suggestion for naming vulnerabilities that gives them unique, easily communicated names, and in the process makes it clear whether they're a significant threat or not, well then I'm all ears. Otherwise for the time being, this is like complaining that people call oranges oranges rather than Citrus x sinensis.

THUG THUG THUG

For consumers this is likely a great thing. But given enterprise customers and their traditionally fickle software, how are they going to keep up with major Windows changes every few months?

Even service packs break things, and those still aren't as complex as these proposed updates in some ways. Enterprise customers pretty much count on Windows not changing/ And even if Microsoft goes the LTS route, will they support one of these branches for 10+ years like Windows Server 2012 will be?

My read on the "IRS Scandal" is that conservative groups with iffy not for profit status are upset that laws still applied to them in ways that they hadn't under the Bush Administration. I don't believe the matter will be otherwise resolved while the current administration is in office and moreover, I'm not particularly surprised that executive agencies might have differing methods for enforcing their mandate from one executive to another, especially given the free pass given to some groups under a previous administration.

Actually, if you were of voting age during the 1992 Presidential elections, you might remember that Bill Clinton was open that he would be working very closely with his wife on the matter. That might have been overshadowed by the spectacle of Ross Perot being a general-purpose sideshow, but it definitely did come up at campaign events and the like.

With regard to scandal or the lack thereof, the closest thing the Obama administration in general has had to one is probably the standard of care for veterans and specifically at Walter Reed. Benghazi has just been an ongoing conservative circle jerk and the Snowden disclosures have really just highlighted the overreach available LEGALLY to the administration.

You might say that the State Department under Obama has allowed relations with Israel to sour in favor of greater ties to other states in the region, but it might also be said that Israel is a big-boy country now that doesn't need the USA to enforce its will. Putin's expansionist aims been an ongoing issue since before Obama took office and the case can certainly be made that the US did not need to intervene on the ground in Iran, Libya or Syria in spite of whatever amount of sabre-rattling conservatives have wanted to do to the contrary.

Bearing that in mind, where do you see scandal in the Obama administration or more specifically in its foreign policy?

She crafted and presented a workable health care bill that was torpedoed for political reasons and would have avoided the current clusterfuck the USA has now.

She also served successfully as secretary of state in an essentially scandal free administration, no matter how much republicans wish it were otherwise.

I'll probably vote green party regardless (that's as much throwing away my vote in Indiana as voting for a democrat), but I do recognize that she has foreign and domestic policy experience in government.