> Let's talk price, shall we?

Hyper-V is essentially free if you're already invested in the Microsoft platform.

With an Enterprise license, you are allowed up to 4 instances on the same box. If an instance is used only to support virtualization, it doesn't count toward this limit. Note that with 4 instances, Enterprise is the same cost per instance as Standard so the price will be equivalent assuming reasonable VM density.

In addition, since failover clusters and enterprise certificate servers require Enterprise, most Microsoft customers will already be licensing Enterprise anyway.

With Datacenter edition, an unlimited number of VMs can be run on the same box. This does, however, require attention to the underlying hardware as it is licensed per-CPU unlike the other editions. With Intel's current offerings, a cheap 2-CPU server can have 12 cores (24 with HT). If it can handle 6 VMs, it reaches price parity with Standard edition---and it can probably handle far more than that.

tl;dr - Hyper-V is more cost-effective than VMware for a Windows or hybrid shop, but there are some features it currently lacks or implements poorly.

With the 2008 R2 service pack, this is no longer the case, as VMs can now be live-migrated. It is not as smooth as VMotion, however, so Hyper-V is still technically inferior.

There is a notable cost advantage when Enterprise or Datacenter versions of Windows are used on appropriate hardware, but I don't know if that will last if/when Microsoft reaches feature parity.

Does anyone use a single HVAC unit? If your datacenter cannot sustain the failure of a single HVAC unit, you need to invest in your infrastructure a little more.

The same would apply to submersion-cooled equipment. Redundant pumps with sufficient cooling towers to tolerate failures.

The failure of a single part should never bring anything down unless the part that fails is "the building".

There are no ARM desktops being mass-produced for the corporate desktop. Windows on ARM isn't replacing that platform, so WoA doesn't need its army of third-party apps.

On phones and tablets, most users consume content (web browsing, videos), stay in contact, or view/edit basic documents. Taking WMP, Office, and IE in combination with Flash and Adobe Reader gives a typical office user everything they're expecting on a mobile platform.

Of course there's going to be a help desk application, an ERP database, or a custom accounting app that won't run on WoA. But until Microsoft OEMs try to put ARM into desktops, it doesn't matter.

My dad's an electrician. He needs access to his email and some spread sheets when he's working. He's covered by the suggested basics, and he ditched his laptop in favor of a smartphone a few years ago.

Care to tell me what you consider a real job? Because I'm pretty sure you're considering only people whose jobs are almost entirely on computers---and ignoring the majority of people who use computers to expediate their non-IT jobs.

It is not patently unconstitutional; it is common practice.

While the changes generally tend to remain on-topic (e.g., one net neutrality clause is stricken and replaced with another), the Senate can legislate in a way that completely opposes the House bill. This is a long-standing practice.

Technically, the revised bill must go through a reconciliation process, although this usually consists of the House signing off on the Senate version. Still, they can reject it or insist on further modifications.

In case you didn't accept Jumperalex's explanation, you are wrong.

Classification is based on the threat posed by the acquisition of the information by a hostile entity.

Sometimes, otherwise non-sensitive information received from a particular source may be classified if it could expose the source.

E.g., if there's a concern that Tidbit A would only be known to Alice and Bob, we cannot let Alice know that we know---because she will know that Bob leaked. So even if Tidbit A doesn't merit a higher classification on its own, the risk it poses to Bob could lead to its classification.

Classifications are *always* derived from the content of the document, specifically the risk associated its widespread distribution. The higher the risk is, the higher the classification level.

No. As the summary indicated, it's meant to bring parity to taxation of hybrids and electric vehicles. While these cars may be better for the environment, the wear they place on the infrastructure is the same as their gasoline-fueled counterparts.

As an example, imagine a world where all vehicles are electric and we still have road maintenance. The gas tax may help cover infrastructure costs, but as gasoline consumption wanes it will become increasingly irrelevant. Mileage metering places the tax burden properly on those who are (A) contributing most to the deterioration and (B) using the infrastructure the most.

I believe a mileage metering scheme (possibly with a multiplier based on vehicle type) would be the fairest system. If we require new cars to be built with meters now, we can realistically retrofit legacy vehicles in about 10 years and run with it.

At the rate SSD storage is growing (and the capacity is being used), it is conceivable that a company could choose cheap MLC drives and simply plan on upgrading them before their expected time of death.

With modern wear-leveling algorithms, reduced write amplification, and better physical longevity, I can see cheap SSDs lasting the 2-3 years their capacity would be good for.

SATA SSD over iSCSI is starting to look very appealing now compared to Fibre Channel or SAS. Since silicon performance and capacity scale much faster than mechanical performance/capacity---and SATA devices are compatible with SAS host controllers---it should only be a few more years before this becomes commonplace.

As a DBA, I would love to have solid-state storage instead of needing to segment my databases properly and work with the software dev guys to make sure we have reasonable load distribution.

Where can I get someone to pay a million dollars so I can do substandard work?