An exception that proves the rule. Even with minor novelty vendors like bitmunchies, at some point there needs to be an interaction with a real economy. That is, with suppliers, with landlords, utilities companies, so on and so forth. At those points, for the business to continue existing, there needs to be the large scale conversion of bitcoins to USD, or whatever the local currency is. However you might be personally be about to avoid bitcoin conversion on the small scale, that's only the tip of the iceberg.

People who sell drugs have to eat. Grocery stores don't accept bitcoins.

Assuming that a user will have a mouse for using windows isn't a huge mistake to be fair...

This is not for home users, it's for corporate environments. You've obviously never managed one (successfully) if you're asking things like "why should people in finance NOT BE ABLE to run a debugger".

Windows can map your "home" directory to a network share just as easily as linux can. That had nothing to do with what I said about user control.

How does DHCP control where your home network share is, and auto-change it when you move offices permanently? If you're in Dallas, and move to LA, you'd want your default network storage server moved to one in LA.

If accounting buys 3 new computers, with linux how do you install all of the software that accounting needs? In a windows network you simply add those machines to a group, and next reboot the entire list of software attached to that group gets auto-installed.

If you don't want people in HR to be able to log onto your web servers, while still using 100% network based logins and not local accounts, how do you manage that in a large way (hundreds/thousands of servers) in linux?

I know how to do this in Linux, and it is not as easy as in Windows. As I said, it requires custom work that is not standardised and relies on ad-hoc techniques.

The summary was wrong, as was the first article.

"generally speaking, a 180-pound man could consume four beers or glasses of wine in 90 minutes without reaching the current limit. At a limit of 0.05 percent, he could legally consume only three. "

"A 130-pound woman could probably consume three drinks in 90 minutes and be legal under the existing standard; if the limit were lowered, she could consume only two. "

And even that is a downward estimate, without eating anything, etc.

If the First Amendment is broken, and commonly abused to create a government alienated from the needs and wishes of the people, then it needs to be fixed. I can never comprehend the US trend of continuing to allow the letter of laws pervert their intent.

And I bet they regret not leaving it intact to keep out the English.

If they're anything like typical modern laws then they've finally been recycled to be useful.

For thousands of years mass starvation was common, infant mortality was huge, the majority of people were chattel slaves living on a barter system, while the tiny minority of aristocrats lived in decadent luxury as their gold magically became more valuable through no effort of their own. Yeah, that'll be a *great* thing to go back to.

Yeah, reward saving - when large proportions of the population live a precarious enough existence as it is, with *nothing to save*, and would under a deflationary system see the debt they have instead automatically increase over time.

Too bad you don't understand what the word 'most' means.

You can look at the buying power of the USD in terms of commodities, yes, and to make it fair, you look at commodities that people actually normally spend money on, like groceries and rent, rather than stuff that is the preserve of speculators like gold and silver. That's how inflation is calculated.

Silver is more valuable, because if you sell your silver and buy stuff with it, you can buy a lot more stuff these days. $1.25 in 1964 would have the buying power of approximately $8.78 in 2010 dollars, according to CPI inflation measures.

Why pick silver? Why not pick gold? Houses? Cellphones? Water? Oh right because you had better use the specific good that backs up your ideology, I guess.

Actually no, the problem is that Mr Dell IS interested in Dell which is why Icahn's mechinations aren't going well.

When people say AD they don't mean the LDAP part with centralised user accounts. That's been doable for ages.

When windows admins talk about AD, they are talking about all of the things that you can do with group policy and how those policies apply to different containers in a hierchical or cross cutting way, depending on configuration.

With AD and GPO you can:
-choose who has access to which desktops or servers and at what level in a granular or structured way (web admins have admin on web boxes but not mail servers, etc)
-choose what machines have what software installed and in what way
-set things like storage quotas (mailbox or otherwise) depending on a user's position/job
-delegate a login server and storage cache depending on a user's physical location
-enable and disable OS features (developers get IIS and debugging, people in finance don't)
-configure access to shared mailboxes/other resources

So if Jim moves from finance to web development, you drag and drop is user into another OU and add him to 5-10 groups on the AD server. Next time he logs on his access levels, what software is installed, what mail he has access to, his quotas, etc all change instantly.

This CAN be hacked together with a bunch of scripts, a custom repository, NIS/openLDAP, and some other stuff in Linux, but it's not well documented, well supported, or something you can ask ANY linux admin to do and they will do it in the same way.

anthropomorphize computers. It makes them angry.

Depends on what country you're in. In most of Europe it has been for years. Lately in the USA the purchase of strictly defined health insurance has become mandatory for everyone who isn't already on government coverage so that's de facto public sector. The few places where health care is not at all public sector are either communist countries like China and places with dysfunctional or barely existing governments like large sections of Africa.