I make money cleaning malware. A huge correlation are business and home users on XP with updates turned off or use older browsers.

MOST users are ignorant and do not know what a browser is? E standards for internet and they use Google as their internet just like we buy Fox and cnn TVs right? But you are downright an idiot if you know what a browser and OS and proudly refuse to keep current with updates take basic precautions. FF 3.6 had +50 exploits last time I looked Wow,

If he's stuck on Access, he's more or less stuck on Windows. He'd need some man power to convert those ancient DB files, It would be worth it in the long run, but he might have a tough time convincing managment of that. I'd suggust a skunkworks program done in secrecy over a period of time, then propose the solution when you already have it up and running in a back office.

yes IE since 9 is a drastic improvement since IE 6 & 7.

Its not the same buggy piece of shit it once was. However Firefox has improved too! It is fast and uses the least amount of ram since 14. IE 8 sucked hard. ... so did FF 3.6 and 4 but at least it was standards compliant.

Today FF is better than IE as IE has no plugin support and 11 is buggy and crashes with dynamic flash creation and action script.

Users will just downgrade to IE 8 on their XP and then whine to the webmasters that they need to make their site look as good as their foxfire. At least IE 8 works right?

Google it!

I am at version 17 with the latest security fixes and it will updated to 24 next week:)

Next version is a year away with continual security. Addon work now and what Mozilla should have done back in 2011

MS Access, Really? I'd like to think those aren't used by anyone for anything serious. I haven't had anyone ask me to do anything with access in a long time. I hope that means they are really dead.

Care to share the Distro of choice on those linux based non chromebook machines? Is it a free employee option ? Are there a set number of pre-approved distros? Is there a top-secret Google Gnu-Linux Distro that dispenses chocolates on the half hour?

It's always comical when bigots and oppressors try to whine that they are the victims, try to pull the "show tolerance of intolerance" crap.

If someone wants to deny people equal rights, deny people the right to get married, based on the color of their skin or their religion or gender, then I will defend their rights such as free speech. However I will not invite them to my dinner table. I will not welcome them in my home. I will not welcome them in my social circle. I will earnestly endeavor not to put on damn dollar in their pocket. And I will damn well use MY right to free speech to call them a vile bigoted scum.

Tolerance is a virtue, but tolerance-of-intolerance is self contradictory. Tolerance does not mean I need to be polite or accommodating to a Ku Klux Klan group who are directly harming innocent people, or who inflict or advocate indirect harm of innocent people via laws or other force of government to deny them equal rights.

Whether it's interracial marriage or gay marriage, I do not need to be "tolerant" of the HARM inflicted or advocated in denying people equal rights.

-

Open source is free. Saying anything else is crazy fud talk. Opportunity costs apply to everything you do or use. Only a good faith examination of all technologies strengths and weaknesses will allow you to determine the right solution.

ESR was only looking at the negative side of LInux back in the day. How many people spent time learing linux only to have it lead to a promising career. Far from costing anything for these people, the time spent setting up Linux was money *earned*.

Or it was a terrible misquote of him in the slashdot summary.

His real quote was

“The current system for Universal Credit is a conventional system being developed on a waterfall approach. When you look at digital [the enhanced system], it’s very different – it relies not on large amounts of tin, black boxes, but uses open source and mechanisms on the web to store and access data,” Shiplee told MPs.

When asked why he didn’t adopt this approach two and a half years ago at the start of the project, Shiplee said: “Technology is moving very rapidly, such things weren’t available as they are today.”

So he might not have meant that opensource wasn't availible, but that the" mechanisims on the web to store and access data" weren't *as* available as they are today. Without knowing what technologies he's using, he could be right. They might not have existed, or have been as mature as they are now.

Most polls use the sample size to obtain a 3% or 4% error margin. The percentages I posted was the midpoint of 6 polls taken this year, and they were all within +/- 3% of what I posted. Very consistent. The vast number of polls over the last few decades show a strikingly clear and steady shift.

The political and other major events on the subject don't seem to be really pushing the numbers around. It seems that this is something that's just plain percolating through society, and the political fireworks and the court battles and the news items are more like an effect of this process rather than a driver of it.

I suspect almost the opposite. I think positions are changing faster than feelings. I think a lot of the shift is people who are still "uncomfortable" with the idea of gay marriage, but who are actively overcoming that discomfort to try to "do the right thing". I suspect a lot of the ideas and attitudes and understanding developed during the interracial marriage shift are directly responsible for the speed of the gay marriage shift. I think a lot of people are recognizing that "doing the right thing" here means supporting other people's equal rights, even when it means taking an uncomfortable position.

All of the complex factors behind it is why I find it particularly striking to compare it to the equivalent polls on interracial marriage. The shift on gay marriage is almost exactly twice as fast. Whatever the forces and processes are, they are twice as fast this time. That's huge.

-

There is now a .308 (a rifle cartridge) in test markets that's a polymer case, metal primer, powder and metal bullet.

They are trying to find ways to contain the heat a bit longer, long enough to get it out of the breech on a bolt gun.

The purpose of that is to keep the rifle barrel at a lower and more stable temp longer with sustained fire, making snipers more effective because a warmer barrel puts the bullet in a different place.

It will not be long before the case and possibly the primer will be plastic. Leaving only the projectile as the last step.

Sigh.

No. It is not illegal to sell a gun that you made yourself.

It is illegal to make a gun with the intention of selling it, and then sell it.

If you make it, decide you want a different grip shape, sell the gun, and use the money to buy more raw materials. Totally legal.

If you are going to participate in gun control discussion, get the basic facts correct.

You are correct, but there are still broad classes of people who are unable to own firearms. Anybody with a felony record, for example, is generally unable to own a firearm. Additionally, illegal aliens and green card holders are generally (completely?) prohibited. We are adding whole classes of "mental illnesses" to prohibited categories. As 3D printing becomes more commonplace, these people will be able to obtain firearms for themselves.

I am personally not worried about it...

I am with you, and partially because couple of things:

1. In the US a "Felony record" is something that, for the past couple of generations, you could get for smoking pot. Well, not if you were a middle class white kid or could afford a lawyer other than a public defender. Color me unafraid.

2. Anyone with cash could get a gun already if they really wanted one

3. Guns are not hard to make, in places where they are harder to get, people have made them. A couple of guys in a german prison made their own shotgun (talk about ingenuity and determination!), recent reports from an african refugee camp found "home made rifles". See point 2....anyone who really wanted a gun can have one right now.

You are a liar. Here, let me quote:

Homicides are not a good measure of defensive actions. Defensive homicides are what happens when the criminal does not back off when warned, is too violent too fast for a threat backed by a gun to work, etc. The vast majority of defensive gun uses are simply displays. Like the guy up thread with the gun on his lap. The criminals were there, and may have been working themselves up to act, but left because of the gun.

Your assertion that a gun has to kill to do it's job is both myopic and factually incorrect. Heck, often a simple display indicating this victim will not go down as easy as they thought is enough to prevent the crime.

Why would you need to LIE to support your position unless your position was wrong? You sir, are a LIAR.