So, now it isn't 100%, just something greater than 99%, eh?
I've worked in two enterprises that use core everywhere they can, so I see the value.
Since there is no credible source of how widespread any internal server OS is deployed, we can't actually talk stats. We can share personal notes, and mine is that two companies I've worked for with servers measured in the 1,000's would use this a lot.
Oh, so if it is only useful on most enterprise server installs, it must not be worth messing with, eh?
Have you considered the powershell itself is also "rare" if you looking at all windows installs?
There is a 100% chance that nearly every "Package-Install" command will just be downloading the app for you and launching the graphical installer you normally see.
Tell me more about this 100% chance of a graphical installer on Windows Core (non-GUI).
If they have to make it work in core, why would it fire up a graphical installer?
I'll take any bet that it is something less than 100%....
I think the "faith" of logic or science is that we posses the mental and sensory ability to understand the world around us.
We have conflicting evidence if this is the case. For example, we don't know what happened before the creation of the universe and have no means to determine this.
At the same time, my whole post is attempting to apply logic to test if logic is logical. I think I found a way to break an AI with recursion.
There are still 11 labs world-wide, and 5 of them are in the USA. http://research.microsoft.com/...
I suspect Silicon Valley is just a VERY high-cost location, and I know I wouldn't work there without 3x what I make now working in the midwest.
You can work remotely, you know...
True work from home.
My office has 1gb to the desktop. If they use the same ISP as I have at home, and I have 1gb to the home over fiber, now working from home is, from a technical point of view, exactly like working in the office.
That can be a pretty big divide.
And before some people chime in and say "but that's not what we mean", let me say that's exactly what some people mean by net neutrality.
Then then need to work on their English comprehension.
NETWORK Neutrality means I treat one network as equal to another. Therefore, I will treat packets from Akamai the same as Netflix and the same as Comcast.
What you're thinking of is PACKET or APPLICATION Neutrality, where I treat each packet the same regardless if it is voice, email, FTP, torrent, or video.
In Network Neutrality, it is perfectly acceptable to treat video has higher priority than FTP, as long as you treat video from every *network* the same way. So, internal Comcast video will get the same QoS marking as Netflix video.
Just because some people don't understand the words they're using isn't a reason to abandon a whole idea.
We as Canadians have a different approach to government and how we want to build our society.
Bully for you! Now, go build your own Netflix that fits your model. Netflix can turn off access in Canada, which a lot of Canadians seemed to complain about before.
Why does Netflix get shit over this? The people that own the content Netflix sells (Hollywood) will not stream it without DRM. People on Linux wanted Netflix. This was the only reasonable solution.
Their other options were:
1. switch to another closed format from Adobe or similar
2. Stay on Silverlight and tell Linux users to piss off.
3. Remove DRM completely, and abandon all streaming outside of their own self-created content and a bunch of independent moves that few people would pay to see, since they're likely already available for free.
Either tell me which one you would choose as the owner of Netflix, explain what one I'm missing, or STFU.
No, they are saying that the more you earn in this country, the more you have benefited from all of the things the taxes pay for: military, infrastructure, education, etc.
It is a flawed system, and there are better ones (I prefer everyone paying a flat income tax with no dedications), but saying that there should be only sales or use-based taxes is wrong.
To do that, they would have to show that it works better than already-proven technology like the police radio.
In the TFA case you would have to prove that a typical cop either would not have texted while driving or that a typical cop would not have crossed the lane while texting. Both of those would be really hard to prove in a court of law.
Ok, so either the police department is liable for his death by requiring police to drive in an unsafe manner (because typical cops would drift lanes while texting), or the officer is liable because most officers can stay in their line while texting. I don't see how neither can be at fault.
His duty to respond over the computer is unquestioned. While this would be normally illegal, he was allowed to do it since the job required it.
Unlike speeding to catch someone, the "line of duty" didn't require or even suggest that he should violate the lane or traffic yielding rules. He should be prosecuted on THOSE grounds.
For example, a policeman can't be arrested while responding to a call and speeding to get there.
A policeman, even on duty, CAN be convicted of violating the law if speeding because they wanted to get to lunch quicker.
In this case, the cop didn't break any laws or regulations.
Incorrect, he broke two in fact. He failed to yield to traffic on the road ahead of him (the bike), and he crossed the solid white lane when he entered the bike lane.
People that live in not so profitable areas need to pay more for living there, not offset the cost on other customers that have done nothing to deserve it.
Many of those people live in not so profitable areas because they are growing food for people in the profitable areas. Not everyone in a rural area is there to get away from it all.
Also, there are many young people that would LOVE to move away from the sticks, but without access to the Internet at a young age, they'll be stuck on the farm, at Walmart or in the energy business.
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.
