Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Of course there will be... (Score 1) 167

by CannonballHead (#48436235) Attached to: Windows Kernel Version Bumped To 10.0

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).

Comment: Re:Guffaw! So much overhaul it's FOUR better! (Score 2) 167

by CannonballHead (#48436171) Attached to: Windows Kernel Version Bumped To 10.0
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.

Comment: Re:It's only Apple. (Score 1) 241

by CannonballHead (#46359275) Attached to: Apple Drops Snow Leopard Security Updates, Doesn't Tell Anyone

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.

Comment: Re:Duh (Score 2, Informative) 462

by CannonballHead (#45622913) Attached to: U.S. Measles Cases Triple In 2013

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.

If God had a beard, he'd be a UNIX programmer.

Working...