Mod this up, folks!

I know at least five different business environments which have been, essentially, shut down by a Windows update. One of them was signing a new service contract as I was talking to him—he had been down all day, unable to see his customer files, his books, the jobs his company was supposed to be doing, unable to route his employees to where they were supposed to go. They went back to a paper only system they have not used since 2002 and they were guessing at that. They were taking credit cards over their website, but could not record the result in their books and had to just save all of the emails and spend an additional day or so just doing data entry into their bookkeeping system.

Of course, these are anecdotes (which is what the anti-vax community uses instead of Science). The problem is not the update, it is what Microsoft does to the computer upon emerging from the update. Elsewhere, people have written of resetting all of the browser preferences, BSODs and other issues. Microsoft needs to restore the previous state of the computer or server (as much as is practical) after the patch. They need to go in like a surgeon with the same motto: "First, do no harm." And if they figure out how to do that, their updates will be seen as innocuous as Apple's

I met Buzz Aldrin some years ago when he was on a book tour signing books. Very nice guy. I respect him but I think he is wrong on this issue.

Firstly, right now, they are testing how fire works in micro-gravity on the ISS. Knowing how to deal with fire aboard a craft on the way toward Mars is essential research. Some people on earth don't know how to deal with a kitchen fire and training astronauts in necessary knowledge can prevent unnecessary deaths. Apollo 1 happened in my lifetime (as well as Buzz Aldrin's) and that was caused by fire in 1G. Apollo 13 had an explosion (fire) that could have killed three astronauts on the way to the Moon.

We continue to learn more about long-term weightlessness on the ISS. We continue to learn more about EVA (spacewalks) and repairs to the exterior of a spacecraft. We continue to learn about how the surface tension of various liquids works and we are learning about how to grow plants (that can process Carbon Dioxide into oxygen safely) in micro-gravity.

In short, the ISS is serving an excellent function.

What Buzz Aldrin needs to to is to start encouraging a priority change for NASA. When we mounted the Apollo program, NASA's budgets were very high. After all, we were in a space race. We did not achieve all of the planned Moon landings because NASA's budget was cut. Surely Aldrin recalls this. So, were I to meet up with the distinguished gentleman again, I would ask why we're spending so much on war that could be spent on NASA and engage many of the same companies who are lobbying for war contracts. We need to change the US priority from war to the peaceful use of much the same technology for exploration.

Oh, and Martian regolith may well be poisonous, so were we to begin colonizing Mars, we would need to address that.

It is said, "That which you fear the most will befall you." And I recall, in the 1990s, while I was doing work for Waggener-Edstrom (now WE Worldwide) for Microsoft, Bill Gates feared the engineers at Apple. Gates was constantly exhorting his code teams to innovate because, "The other guys are going to overtake us." He also dismissed the Internet. He said, "This is a gold rush," and "People have a gold rush mentality with respect to the Internet." I think that Gates theorized that the only people who made good money off the gold rush were the stores that sold the tools that the "rushers" needed.

So Microsoft dedicated themselves to making tools. They made Internet Exploiter, their web browser—but they ignored standards. In 1996, they purchased FrontPage from Vermeer Technologies, Incorporated and that ignored standards. They built a platform for serving web pages from their server, called IIS, which costs a lot and doesn't run very many websites. They created a server-side programming language that almost nobody uses called ASP.

They didn't reckon with the likes of Google (now Alphabet) which has replaced their office suite with apps that run on web browsers using websites that do not ignore standards. They didn't figure that "information at your fingertips" would mean the Internet, Wikipedia and the Worldwide Web.

They also didn't figure that, once everyone had a copy of Microsoft Office that worked with their operating system on a Mac or PC—or had a tool that replaced that function (on Unix or Linux)—sales of Office would decrease.

Microsoft didn't make hardware. They saw making hardware as something that would compete with the PC makers they sold their operating system to and they did not want to do that. But they also did not create appliances, save the Microsoft Mouse. Apple created an appliance model with what they learned from building computers and, today, they are the largest company worldwide with a market capitalization of $800 Billion. Not bad for selling phones!

I blame Steve Ballmer. While Gates was running Microsoft, he made few mistakes. The stock price doubled every year. Under Ballmer, Microsoft stagnated and grew complacent. I don't think that anyone really needs them any more.

My Mac is a 2 x 2.93 GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon system with 8 slots. The folks at Crucial told me that I can pack in more RAM than what Apple originally told my I could do and I may go to more density later. I find that the best way to extend the life of a computer is to max out the RAM.

But I think that Apple is not all that interested in computers any more. They're an appliance company.

I have the iPad 3. It uyses the wide charging/data transfer cable. It cannot be upgraded to the latest iOS and there are some new applications that will not run on it. So, I have to respectfully disagree with your characterization of its lifespan as "incredibly long." This is not to say that it's useless, but it is going through the same replacement cycle that early personal computers did, with application and operating system "improvements" driving replacement frequency.

I have been a tenant. In fact, I was a tenant for a good 30 years. And I was a very good tenant; I always paid on time, I never made trouble for my co-tenants, I was quiet and respectful of others, I concerned myself with building security, not letting anyone in that I did not know, did not trash any of my apartments, always left a forwarding address with my landlord and the utility companies and contacted my landlord in writing and by telephone whenever there was an issue in the apartment. I was described as a model tenant by more than three landlords.

I never, once, tried to gain leverage over a landlord by using the laws which favor tenants. I wanted a place I could call my own with no issues and with the kind of privacy that one generally wants in one's life. That was my perspective as a tenant. Pay on time, pay in full, be respectful, be quiet.

Landlords who have tenants like this never, ever want to lose that tenant. We did have a tenant like that and we loved him. But the maximum that a tenant will stay in an apartment is, on average, two to three years. We like our current tenants, even though they are louder than the previous one.

That will depend on your state.

As a practical matter, lifting your hand against a tenant is usually a bad idea. Since my apartment is in an owner-occupied building, getting a restraining order against the tenant may be the best way to move them out, though I may forfeit back rent.

We had a lease that allowed them only one car in the driveway. They had two. We were "okay" with two until they started violating their lease and trying to get us for mold (there was none) in their apartment. They actually took us to court over mold, even though they brought out two people (county health inspector and a testing company) who said there is no mold. As tested, the amount of mold "in the ambient" (this would be the outside air) was higher than it was in the apartment.

So, we posted a sign stating that unauthorized vehicles would be towed.

The fifth day that sign was posted, we towed one of their cars. And, ladies and gentlemen, that got results. We also discovered that they were taking a child to another town to go to school, so we told that town (giving them proof of the child's true residency as well as photographic evidence). That was a really bad week for them

We eventually paid them $500 to leave, which was about half rent. Then they took out a lien on the house because they had not received their security deposit or the $500 yet. Our attorney was holding the money for them until they could not appeal the judge's decision. Since he was holding the money, the lien was "property libel." and they could have gotten in serious trouble for that. Our attorney informed them that they would be lifting the lien immediately, or else they would find themselves in prison. They sent him a check to release the lien.

Towing a vehicle is the exact thing to make a tenant fear you, especially in the middle of the night by a tow company that does repossessions (they are quiet). So our current lease states, "Parking is a Privilege, Not a Right." Violations of the rules or the lease gets them towed.

Wage garnishment is just this side of impossible, but I have to get social security numbers in order to check credit.

I did go to court against the two who were trying to make money off of me. The deck was well-stacked against me. I watched as the judge gave at least 20 tenants continued rights to their apartments while they paid their landlords nothing. On average, a smart landlord who is very pro-active will need three months (of no rent) to get a tenant out. The only way he or she can recover past rent is in Small Claims court, and that is close to impossible when a tenant moves and moves to avoid service.

I have a Mac Pro; it is my production machine and it's an early 2009 "Cheese Grater." It has 32GB of system RAM and, I am told can go higher (though Apple says it can only pack 32GB) and I have definitely upgraded the standard disk drive that it came with (I have all four trays full). I will probably get an SSD drive for its startup drive fairly soon.

But Apple has become an appliance-maker with a limited "shelf life." They make way more from their tablets and smartphones than they do with their computers and I believe that adding the word "pro" to their tablet is an indication of something. There are no user-serviceable parts inside their phones and tablets, even though iFixit regularly takes them apart. But they're pretty clear that you cannot upgrade the insides and all you can do (if they offer parts) is replace what is there.

This means that the lifecycle of the phone or tablet is one to two years, which is a real moneymaker for Apple. I kept my last Mac for ten years and plan to keep my current Mac Pro for ten, as well. As to the cost of their computers, I really don't care as long as I can expand it—their trashcan model is definitely not expandable and one cannot change out the graphics card, so I have not been tempted to look into purchasing it in the slightest.

As to ports, I have what I really need on my Cheese Grater, though it does not feature the faster Thunderbolt port that the newer Macs have. It does, however, have plenty of USB ports and it has an internal bus that I can swap out cards on. I can also change my GPU and I note that Apple tends to have a love-hate relationship with GPU makers, generally switching companies every one to two years. This means that if you purchase a computer with a built-in GPU, Apple will change their software and their OS to not be optimized for it in a couple of years. Want to use your computer as a main production machine with the latest software? Sorry, your investment is now obsolete.

Apple will be transitioning you to a tablet soon. They do not care about computers any more. Their hardware will be designed to be replaced in one to two years.

I own a duplex and live in one half. We do not cover our mortgage with the rental. I would look at this as an opportunity as, if you look at the laws in my state as well as many other Eastern states, the laws are heavily biased against the landlord. Because what the landlord sells is time, and you can never get that back.

So, what I found interesting is that the landlord gets information on the possible renters. That way, the landlord can pre-screen.

What we use now is Craigslist, Zillow and a broker (all three at once). We also put a sign out. We get "inquiries" off the websites and the only information I get is the name that the person decided to use on the website (which may not be real) and a phone number. When I call back the phone number to set up a showing, frequently the person will simply say, "Oh, I clicked by accident, I was just looking around." And I get no qualifications. Can they actually afford rent? Do they have full-time jobs? Are they the type that make their living off of screwing landlords (we had a couple who do that)?

So what we have is a long, three-page form we use for qualifications. We check credit, we check past employment. We check everything, except their last landlord who, if they are trying to get rid of a bad tenant will give them a very positive review. We also insist that their take-home pay is three times or more than the monthly rent.

Anything that would allow us to see who is interested in advance would be positive. As, if we need to get a tenant out, we are at a severe disadvantage. Landlords in our area must take at least three months in order to evict a tenant and, meanwhile, the tenant has full use of the apartment without paying any rent and will frequently trash it.

I do realize that lots of readers are good tenants who would never trash an apartment, and who always pay on time, but I have seen the other types and they are just not fun to live right up against. I never, again, want to hear the words, "You don't know what I'm capable of," from a tenant.

What about the approval of his countrymen? We (the United States) do not necessarily agree with everything that Angela Merkel or David Cameron does, but they remain in power. And there are countries without nuclear weapons and missiles. We may not agree with everything that Luis Guillermo Solís, Juan Carlos Varela, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf or Ernest Bai Koroma (none have nuclear weapons, ICBMs and all were popularly-elected) do, yet they stay in power and there is no threat to their position from the United States or from other countries.

The idea that you have to "rattle a saber" in order to stay in power is foolish. Only despots have to develop a system of force to gain, consolidate and remain in a position of power. And that is what makes North Korea not funny.

Watching North Korea fail, and do so repeatedly is really funny. What is not funny is their determination. I note that others are suggesting that their rocket scientists are probably short-lived, as are their nuclear scientists. Nonsense. Kim Jong Un does offer special favors for those persons who are successful but a nuclear scientist or a rocket scientist are unlikely to challenge him or his heirs to government positions of power. They are scientists, not political operatives and, thus, are seen as commodities to be used, not existential challenges to be met.

The determination they are showing that they will do everything in their power, including starve their people, in order to produce weapons of mass-destruction is the real takeaway here. While I am happy at their repeated failures, I am not happy at their persistence.

what about the Page Three Girl

That is very important news!

The last computer I homebuilt ran Windows 3.1

It had an Intel 80486 DX-2 processor and, for that time, lots of RAM and a pretty good graphics co-processor. It couldn't hold a candle to what I have now. But Apple makes good computers and my current one is the fastest Cheese Grater Apple made.