Stupid, inane post simply to say ... thanks, that is an excellent comic that you linked to with an excellent point.

I'm not so sure about that. OSX is already on what, 10.7 or something like that? I doubt most people would fall for Windows 10 vs. OSX 10.7 [insert cat name here]. That STILL looks like Windows is behind, so it'd be failed marketing if it was a marketing gimmick.

I'm pretty cynical when it comes to tech companies, but I don't think Microsoft's marketing is quite that stupid nor their dev teams quite that stupid.

IMO, they probably wanted to bump the kernel number ... and decided to bump it to match the version. Maybe they actually want Windows 10 to use the Windows 10 kernel. Maybe they want OS version and kernel version to actually match/make sense/be in sync, and are using this as a good time to do it (versus the OS patch that was 8.1).

I have worked on software (as both tester and developer) that went from 1.9 to 1.10.

There's no way it's marketing. Marketing does not care about the kernel version. Seriously, most people who use Windows have absolutely no idea what a kernel even is, let alone what version their Windows kernel is. And the people who do know what the kernel is and what the kernel version is are not going to be interested in marketing anyways.

You really have to watch out for those sheep and their computational needs. They've been demanding more processing power for years now. :)

They *sent* the password? Which means they actually store it in a way that they have access to the password itself (and not just a hash or whatever of it)?

Telecommute options. :)

I think the summary was actually saying that Apple did NOT clearly spell out its support schedules like many other software companies DO. Rough quote - "this would not be noteworthy if Apple, like other software vendors, DID...."

So it's saying other software vendors DO do that, but Apple does not. Which is what you're saying. Can't we all just get along... ;)

For all of Microsoft's failures, bad business practices (particularly in the past), etc., they seem to be doing some things right these days. I'm not too big of a fan of the new start screen (easily fixed) ... although my wife, while finding parts of it annoying, also finds it somewhat intuitive ... but Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 seem to be pretty solid OSes.

I see critiques about the current system all the time. There are things broken, things that could be made better, etc.

Actually, how would Metro be a bad thing? This is pretty much exactly what Metro is meant for - one application, completely full screen, used with a touch screen ...

I'm actually more concerned with the those ATM teller machines outside of my bank.

Some nerds like guns. Some nerds REALLY like guns. In fact, some nerds are defined by the fact that they play a ton of games that revolve around, pretty much, guns... So, guns themselves aren't "anti-nerd."

Also, I totally forgot that this was a Q&A and you were asking Adler. Ha. :)

I'm not quite as up on the oils part, but there does exist a reusable steel mesh filter for the Aeropress as well, from Kaffeologie. I just got one and it seems to work pretty well.

Other than the simple examples (polio, smallpox, etc.) ... could you elaborate? Say, for example, the Hep. B vaccine given to infants (as in, at birth)?

Are you arguing for vaccination in general or arguing, specifically, for every single vaccination that is recommended?

It's simply not as clear as you want to believe, with reference specific vaccines. And no, I don't actually subscribe to the debunked/fraudulent vaccine-gut-autism link by Wakefield. But I have actually looked for specific data regarding specific vaccines and found them to be incredibly lacking. Or non-existent.

In the case of the Hep B vaccine, it is given to infants, and yet, according to the CDC, the way infants get Hep B:
How does a baby get Hepatitis B?
A baby can get Hepatitis B from an infected mother during childbirth.

But the infant is given the vaccine regardless of whether the mother has it. Huh. Yes, there are risks related to Hep B, but what are those risks to the infant if the mother is actually tested? Suddenly, we are narrowing it down to the risk of getting Hep B and the risks of the illness itself ... narrowing those risks down to the amount of women who are tested for Hep B and are given a false negative...

tl;dr: don't assume that people who refuse individual vaccines (1) think all vaccines are bad and (2) only research quack sites.