What do you mean? The time zone is perfect, best Olympics ever! Well, except for the fact that the first week was a complete disaster, but the time zone is perfect at least!
Seriously, you Europeans only think about Europe, well we've got 860 million people within three hours time difference of these olympics, so you guys can just suck it.
(I'm teasing, of course, don't get your panties in a wad)
God, it's bad enough that we have all these non-olympic events like curling, figure skating, "ice dancing", and hocky (just to name a few), but now you want to add frickin commentator sports?
That's just because your cable company sucks, on my DVR I get a description with all the events in the block well before the events take place (of course it changes if an event is delayed).
It's a bit of a misnomer to say renewable sources are more abundant than less renewable sources (they were created naturally in the first place, so they are certainly renewable at a certain timescale). The fact is, wind turbines and solar panels both need far more space than any hydrocarbon energy source needs. Also, while sunlight and wind (and tidal movements and everything else) are continuous over the long term, they only provide a certain amount of useable energy at any given time, and as such there is a definite finite limit to how much energy can be generated from renewable sources.
Renewable energy is just as finite as hydrocarbons, the only difference is in what way. Hydrocarbons provide more than enough energy for our needs up until the point at which they run out, while renewable sources will never run out but also never satisfy our need for energy.
I also think you are seriously underestimating the amount of natural gas we are sitting on - most of it is simply pumped back down wells to boost oil production. A small bump in NG's price would make it more cost effective to pump that gas out, thus drastically increasing the global supply.
The insulation needs aren't all that unreasonable, knife forges can get well above that temperature, often pushing 3,000F, and the ceramic insulators keep them cool enough to use on a wooden workbench. In fact, here is a home made forge that safely handles 2,000F+ made of just a thin metal bucket and a durablanket insulator.
You've also got to remember that for an automobile you would be replacing the engine and its trappings (which, if you haven't noticed, are what fill the inside of the engine bay), and maybe even to some degree the transmission, with the fuel cell and an electric motor. By no means is the fuel cell limited to the size of a lunch box.
Natural Gas is (mostly) methane, you know that right? Right now energy companies practically throw it away, and what little they do sell they sell for dirt cheep because the market is so small. Up on the North Slope, and indeed anywhere oil is produced, we are sitting on massive quantities of the stuff, and generally the oil companies just pump it back down the holes to push more oil up.
Getting it to market en-masse would be cheap, the infrastructure is already there, as natural gas is ubiquitous as it is even though we only use a small percentage of what is available. The price of gas would not raise much, because only a demand a slightly higher price are needed to make it more valuable to ship out than to pump back down the holes.
How the hell do you think they are saving $100,000+ per year on these things? Magic?
Actually a backup generator would be completely unnecessary in this scenario. The reason you need a backup generator is because you are relying on grid power, and if it goes out you need to generate the electricity yourself. If you are already generating the electricity the backup generator is redundant (and not in a good way).
Basically, if the fuel cell is good enough to reduce the size of your generator then it is good enough to eliminate it completely, because the generator is there for catastrophic failure and not supplimental power. So if the fuel cell can handle the whole load all the time, then it can be made redundant itself without the need of a second type of generator.
However the principle can work in reverse if the relative cost of the system goes up over time instead of down. There is a strong possibility that a more effecient energy plan for corporations will be mandated by law, in which case the demand for this type of system will skyrocket, as will the relative cost.
In an inflating economy, $1 today is always worth slightly more than $1 tomorrow, however you still lose money in the long run if you could have purchased the gizmo at $1 today, but chose to wait till tomorrow and now have to pay $3. The value of money doesn't decline that fast.
That's the gamble here: the time value of money is not the only consideration, and if they are right then cirumstance demands they make the purchase before the relative price goes up. If they are wrong, of course, they lost a bit, but lets face it $4 million spent less than ideally is not going to hurt a company like eBay in any significant way. I company on the margin might be better off trying to game it, and wait till the last possible minute to change, but that's extremely risky if the cost is going to skyrocket.
In any case, it's always better to make the decision now rather than put it off until later.
Actually that would be including the cost of methane or hydrocarbon fuel, what do you think they have been running on this whole time?
The basis for the cost per month to run is the cost of fuel plus the cost of labor and regular maintenance.
The only thing that makes these hard to swallow is the initial investment and 30 years to recoup the cost. Assuming they don't fail before 30 years, though, they aren't a bad investment.
Do you think it's cheap to hook into the grid and supply yourself with a backup generator? Frankly, since these would handily replace such a generator, the benefits for a new building are huge.
In this case it would be libel, as slander only applies to the spoken word, and the judge ruled there was nothing at all libelous about what the kid.
Basically, the kid said soandso was a terrible teacher, which is a personally reasonable opinion to have, and the principle suspended her.
If there were any slander or libel involved, the teacher should have brought a lawsuit against the kid (or more likely her parents, since she was not considered an adult yet, and the parents are responsible for their child's actions).
Since this was done outside of school among third party individuals (not directed toward or involved with the school in any way) there was absolutely no reason for the principal of the school to get involved, and there was definitely no reasonable grounds for suspension.
One of the points the OP made, though, was that there was no legal basis for the judge's decision at all, no matter which side he chose. Obviously the fair thing is for the girl to have never been suspended (based on our belief in the freedom of speech), but there is no law that says what a student can or cannot be suspended for. The first ammendment doesn't even apply, because the girl was never prevented from voicing her opinions, simply punished for their content in a way that in no way restricts her future right to speak out. That distinction has been upheld numerous times (it's a requirement for libel and slander laws to exist at all).
The judge in this case basically became an adjudicator for an argument that has little legal basis or consequence.
Hey, I've got an even better idea! Just ban people under 25, since that's where most of the trouble comes from! That way he doesn't have to close his doors, he can stay in business. Man, I'm a genius.
Oh wait, that's the opposite of what you were trying to say.
Sorry bro, "ageism" doesn't happen for no reason. It happens because people can be grouped together by age fairly accurately, and folks under 25 tend to be the most destructive and the most expensive. It would be nice if you could simply use "good judgement" to decide whether a potential tenant will be destructive, but sometimes the most destructive people act the nicest, and seem the most responsible, while people you were sure would wreck the place leave it in better shape than it was in when they got the room. The line is arbitrary, but the fact is it happens a lot more often with people under 25 than over 25.
It's not like nobody over 25 is destructive, it's simply that it happens less and less the older people get, and 25 is a rough break-even point. They could have made it 24 or 26 and wouldn't be too much worse off, but pushing it further than that makes a huge difference. At 27 they loose too many good customers, and at 23 they accept too many bad customers. 25 is nice and tidy in the middle, and it works well for a lot of situations where you don't have the option of extensive backround checking.
That is, by the way, the only good alternative to a blanket age restriction: full background checks to rent a car or a condo for a week or whatever. Naturally these take time, and would have to be paid for by the applicant regardless of whether or not the renter approves you, so you wouldn't be able to just walk in and rent anything on the spot.
That's the kind of incredibly stupid law that leads to women being banned from hotels. It's obviously stupid, but if a hotel owner gets hit often enough it just might be worth it.
Of course, they wouldn't say "no women", they'd say "no prostitutes" and simply say any woman who comes in looks like a prostitute and the law doesn't allow them to profit off of any activity they pursue while at the hotel, and therefore they cannot rent them a room.
I wonder if that law actually did anything to the pimps, or if all of the sudden all the prostitutes simply got "agents/body guards" overnight.
Except of course for the significantly higher repair bills they seem to get so often after people under 25 have rented a room from them. Doubly so if the area is considered a major party destination.
People don't do things for no reason, especially when money is involved. Even racists will take the money of people they hate if they will make money on the deal.
The only reasonable, and in fact the most plausible, explanation for the "no under 25" rules is that people under the age of 25 tend to be far more destructive in almost every way than people over 25. It's arbitrary, sure, but there are a lot of statistics to back it up.
Of course MOST kids under 25 aren't destructive, that's not the point. The point is the few that are destructive cost more money then the majority that aren't bring in. Therefor, if you don't want to lose money you just nix the lot of them and deal with safer clientel.
That also happens to be the exact same problem that faces the black community. Most black kids are just as stand up as anybody else, but the few that aren't more than make up for those who are, and the culture is such that it can be hard to tell the difference just by looking at them and even sometimes talking to them. To prove my point, note that white kids (thugs or no) who dress and act the same as black thugs are discriminated against in very similar ways. On the flipside, a black kid who dresses sharp and has good manners is not often a target of discrimination. The skin color doesn't really matter usually, except as a distinguishing feature - it's the profile that usually triggers the discrimination. Most white folk aren't white supremicists, they just draw from their own experiences and the experiences of others to make the best decisions they can. Young people often hurt, rather than help, their situation.
No, it's still a straw man. In fact the landlord is excluding far more whites than blacks, and you have no evidence that these landlords are doing anything more than limiting the potential damage to their property by younger people who tend to be more destructive.
If what you're actually saying is that black people cause all the damage from parties that drive landlords to their age discriminating policies, then I have to say I think you are a racist and I would challenge you to show some evidence that the majority of damage is caused by the 15-20% black population and not the 80-85% white population.
You can't have it both ways, and unless you can prove the second possibility your statement is a complete strawman, and racist to boot.
Personally, I believe the landlord should have the right to discriminate based on any criteria he wishes, since it is his property. Only for publicly owned/managed/funded areas should discrimination be illegal (and it often isn't, if you consider a wide enough perspective on discrimination).
That said, I completely agree that if the landlord has a "no under " policy, in principle he is doing it wrong. However laws are usually written such that renters get to walk all over landlords if push comes to shove, and it is a hell of a lot easier to simply not deal with the problems that occur more often with younger tenants than with older tenants.
For example, did you know that in my state it is illegal for a landlord to forcibly remove a tenant from an apartment, even if there is a court ordered eviction? The punishment for not leaving when evicted is slight, and often it is not worth a police officer's time to arrest a squatter, so it ends up being extremely low priority and can take weeks to deal with, and that's AFTER months of getting the court on your side.
That's a bit extreme, but I know someone who it has happened to. A much more common horror story is the tenant who stays for 6 months and causes $5,000 in damages. That $600-1000 deposit doesn't go very far in those cases, and it isn't like the landlord gets to save up those deposits to make up for a bad tenant, he gives it back when someone leaves (less any damages, of course). A lawsuit would probably cost the landlord even more in the long run, so when they see a pattern they end up cutting out a whole swath of people to avoid the problem.
It's the same reason car insurance is a lot higher for people under 25, statistically drivers under the age of 25 get in the most accidents, and it isn't by a small margin. That costs the insurance companies more money, and if they don't raise rates across the board they won't make any money on that particular group of people. 25 is certainly arbitrary, but an insurance company won't feel comfortable with you until you've crossed that magic age marker.
First of all, that's not Microsoft's fault, that's the fault of that installer. I'm not sure exactly what would cause that, but I'd wager that it could happen if the installer runs a bunch of different programs to take care of sub-tasks-- usually Windows handles this seamlessly, though, which means that it must be doing it in a funky way.
If the software follows Microsoft's best practices for security by installing itself in the proper directories, there is no UAC interaction at all. None. I've installed a number of programs like this. If a piece of software insists on installing itself in protected directories, or insists on running with administrative privileges, you may want to think twice about running it. Those are the kinds of software that open gaping holes in your PC's security.
I'd wager the GP's software was attempting to do something it really had no business doing, and every time the installer did something unsafe, UAC double checked with the user first. It's annoying, yes, but only when you install shitty software, and it's really exactly the type of behavior you should want out of your security system.
If the software really did need all that access to do something legitimate, and if they publisher had bothered to test it with Windows 7 and discovered the problem, Microsoft would have added an exception specifically for their software to group all the UAC requests into a single request to streamline the process. They do that kind of backwards compatability stuff all the time.*
*They actually tried not to do this with Vista even though they did it for every previous version of Windows. That was part of the reason there were so many incompatibilities between XP and Vista, and it bit them in the ass. They reverted back to their old policy for Windows 7, and even put a seemless XP VM in the business and ultimate editions.
That's all fine and dandy, but the GP, or GGP, or whoever, wasn't talking about SELinux, they were talking about sudo specifically and UAC specifically, and between the two frameworks each of these items resides in the Windows framework is far more granular and robust.
Windows 7 isn't billed as a hardened OS, just a secure OS, and it indeed fits that description very well.
What's really twisted is that every cushy cushy feel good bill that comes down that looks like it spreads the wealth a little bit ultimately just shifts more money into the hands of the rich, because they were the ones who wrote the thing in the first place.
Public schooling, free health care, social security, you name it - it's all designed to keep the poor poor by tricking them into thinking they are actually getting wealthier. Meanwhile the rich control the systems that govern each of these programs and use them to further line their own pockets.
Its the kind of shit that makes you want to fly planes into buildings... but then they label you as "crazy" rather than try to understand why you were crazy... even when you write a perfectly sound explanation as to why.
Actually the only way you could call what that guy wrote as sound is by ignoring at least half of it. It is completely self contradictory, for virtually every point he made he later made a separate, contradicting point. Take one set of arguments or the other and you have reasonable explanations based on differing philosophies. The two philosophies he combined were like oil and water, though, they can't mix. The man was off his rocker, he had lost it, and didn't really know what he believed - as evidenced by his manifesto. All I can figure out that he really knew for sure was that he hated the tax man so much he was willing to kill himself trying to hurt them.
unless you want to move to a different server OS, or a different client OS, or a even a newer version of the *same* client OS.
They do not want to move to a different server OS, or client OS, or a newer version of the same client OS. That's the whole point.
You should really try working for a business that needs to actually, you know, turn a profit instead of upgrading to every shiny new system as they come out.
What an IT manager wants and what is practical is often not the same thing, and a good IT manager will develop the trust needed to steer the company toward the products and upgrades they truly need. Unfortunately, a lot of companies don't bother to hire good IT managers, often outsourcing it to people who could care less, and you get stuck in situations where a company spent $10 million on a web app that only works in IE6 a year before IE7 was released. You can bet your ass that company is going to want to get more than a few years out of their $10 million investment. Ergo, no upgrade.
Uh, that's not evolution. That's... change over time.
The actual definition of the word "evolve" is "to achieve over time". It is more than just change, it implies improvement. It is a synonym of "develop". I would definitely consider our current universe a vast improvement over the mass of hot gas that existed shortly after the Big Bang. Evolution is definitely the right word, and you don't have to stretch the definition at all.
What you are thinking of as "Evolution" is simply biological evolution, or as another poster more descriptively put it "evolution by selection". Natural selection is the fitness function you mentioned, replication and random mutation are actually selectees of the fitness function. An organism that never replicated could never be selected (it is automatically rejected), and an organism that never mutated would have no variance to select from (it simply stagnates, does not evolve). Breeding, on the other hand, is artificial selection, and produces results much more quickly than natural selection. It is a more guided evolution akin to the evolution of the airplane. Biological rules must still be followed, but the selection is far more deliberate.
In the case of TFA, we are talking about artificial selection attempting to achieve the same process as natural selection would have. No matter how you slice it though, it's all still evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you mean? The time zone is perfect, best Olympics ever! Well, except for the fact that the first week was a complete disaster, but the time zone is perfect at least!
Seriously, you Europeans only think about Europe, well we've got 860 million people within three hours time difference of these olympics, so you guys can just suck it.
(I'm teasing, of course, don't get your panties in a wad)
And neither ice dancing nor hockey belong in the olympics anyway, damnit.
What's next, olympic ice sculpture?
God, it's bad enough that we have all these non-olympic events like curling, figure skating, "ice dancing", and hocky (just to name a few), but now you want to add frickin commentator sports?
It's madness man, MADNESS!!
That's just because your cable company sucks, on my DVR I get a description with all the events in the block well before the events take place (of course it changes if an event is delayed).
It's a bit of a misnomer to say renewable sources are more abundant than less renewable sources (they were created naturally in the first place, so they are certainly renewable at a certain timescale). The fact is, wind turbines and solar panels both need far more space than any hydrocarbon energy source needs. Also, while sunlight and wind (and tidal movements and everything else) are continuous over the long term, they only provide a certain amount of useable energy at any given time, and as such there is a definite finite limit to how much energy can be generated from renewable sources.
Renewable energy is just as finite as hydrocarbons, the only difference is in what way. Hydrocarbons provide more than enough energy for our needs up until the point at which they run out, while renewable sources will never run out but also never satisfy our need for energy.
I also think you are seriously underestimating the amount of natural gas we are sitting on - most of it is simply pumped back down wells to boost oil production. A small bump in NG's price would make it more cost effective to pump that gas out, thus drastically increasing the global supply.
The insulation needs aren't all that unreasonable, knife forges can get well above that temperature, often pushing 3,000F, and the ceramic insulators keep them cool enough to use on a wooden workbench. In fact, here is a home made forge that safely handles 2,000F+ made of just a thin metal bucket and a durablanket insulator.
You've also got to remember that for an automobile you would be replacing the engine and its trappings (which, if you haven't noticed, are what fill the inside of the engine bay), and maybe even to some degree the transmission, with the fuel cell and an electric motor. By no means is the fuel cell limited to the size of a lunch box.
Natural Gas is (mostly) methane, you know that right? Right now energy companies practically throw it away, and what little they do sell they sell for dirt cheep because the market is so small. Up on the North Slope, and indeed anywhere oil is produced, we are sitting on massive quantities of the stuff, and generally the oil companies just pump it back down the holes to push more oil up.
Getting it to market en-masse would be cheap, the infrastructure is already there, as natural gas is ubiquitous as it is even though we only use a small percentage of what is available. The price of gas would not raise much, because only a demand a slightly higher price are needed to make it more valuable to ship out than to pump back down the holes.
How the hell do you think they are saving $100,000+ per year on these things? Magic?
Actually a backup generator would be completely unnecessary in this scenario. The reason you need a backup generator is because you are relying on grid power, and if it goes out you need to generate the electricity yourself. If you are already generating the electricity the backup generator is redundant (and not in a good way).
Basically, if the fuel cell is good enough to reduce the size of your generator then it is good enough to eliminate it completely, because the generator is there for catastrophic failure and not supplimental power. So if the fuel cell can handle the whole load all the time, then it can be made redundant itself without the need of a second type of generator.
However the principle can work in reverse if the relative cost of the system goes up over time instead of down. There is a strong possibility that a more effecient energy plan for corporations will be mandated by law, in which case the demand for this type of system will skyrocket, as will the relative cost.
In an inflating economy, $1 today is always worth slightly more than $1 tomorrow, however you still lose money in the long run if you could have purchased the gizmo at $1 today, but chose to wait till tomorrow and now have to pay $3. The value of money doesn't decline that fast.
That's the gamble here: the time value of money is not the only consideration, and if they are right then cirumstance demands they make the purchase before the relative price goes up. If they are wrong, of course, they lost a bit, but lets face it $4 million spent less than ideally is not going to hurt a company like eBay in any significant way. I company on the margin might be better off trying to game it, and wait till the last possible minute to change, but that's extremely risky if the cost is going to skyrocket.
In any case, it's always better to make the decision now rather than put it off until later.
Actually that would be including the cost of methane or hydrocarbon fuel, what do you think they have been running on this whole time?
The basis for the cost per month to run is the cost of fuel plus the cost of labor and regular maintenance.
The only thing that makes these hard to swallow is the initial investment and 30 years to recoup the cost. Assuming they don't fail before 30 years, though, they aren't a bad investment.
Do you think it's cheap to hook into the grid and supply yourself with a backup generator? Frankly, since these would handily replace such a generator, the benefits for a new building are huge.
In this case it would be libel, as slander only applies to the spoken word, and the judge ruled there was nothing at all libelous about what the kid.
Basically, the kid said soandso was a terrible teacher, which is a personally reasonable opinion to have, and the principle suspended her.
If there were any slander or libel involved, the teacher should have brought a lawsuit against the kid (or more likely her parents, since she was not considered an adult yet, and the parents are responsible for their child's actions).
Since this was done outside of school among third party individuals (not directed toward or involved with the school in any way) there was absolutely no reason for the principal of the school to get involved, and there was definitely no reasonable grounds for suspension.
One of the points the OP made, though, was that there was no legal basis for the judge's decision at all, no matter which side he chose. Obviously the fair thing is for the girl to have never been suspended (based on our belief in the freedom of speech), but there is no law that says what a student can or cannot be suspended for. The first ammendment doesn't even apply, because the girl was never prevented from voicing her opinions, simply punished for their content in a way that in no way restricts her future right to speak out. That distinction has been upheld numerous times (it's a requirement for libel and slander laws to exist at all).
The judge in this case basically became an adjudicator for an argument that has little legal basis or consequence.
Hey, I've got an even better idea! Just ban people under 25, since that's where most of the trouble comes from! That way he doesn't have to close his doors, he can stay in business. Man, I'm a genius.
Oh wait, that's the opposite of what you were trying to say.
Sorry bro, "ageism" doesn't happen for no reason. It happens because people can be grouped together by age fairly accurately, and folks under 25 tend to be the most destructive and the most expensive. It would be nice if you could simply use "good judgement" to decide whether a potential tenant will be destructive, but sometimes the most destructive people act the nicest, and seem the most responsible, while people you were sure would wreck the place leave it in better shape than it was in when they got the room. The line is arbitrary, but the fact is it happens a lot more often with people under 25 than over 25.
It's not like nobody over 25 is destructive, it's simply that it happens less and less the older people get, and 25 is a rough break-even point. They could have made it 24 or 26 and wouldn't be too much worse off, but pushing it further than that makes a huge difference. At 27 they loose too many good customers, and at 23 they accept too many bad customers. 25 is nice and tidy in the middle, and it works well for a lot of situations where you don't have the option of extensive backround checking.
That is, by the way, the only good alternative to a blanket age restriction: full background checks to rent a car or a condo for a week or whatever. Naturally these take time, and would have to be paid for by the applicant regardless of whether or not the renter approves you, so you wouldn't be able to just walk in and rent anything on the spot.
That's the kind of incredibly stupid law that leads to women being banned from hotels. It's obviously stupid, but if a hotel owner gets hit often enough it just might be worth it.
Of course, they wouldn't say "no women", they'd say "no prostitutes" and simply say any woman who comes in looks like a prostitute and the law doesn't allow them to profit off of any activity they pursue while at the hotel, and therefore they cannot rent them a room.
I wonder if that law actually did anything to the pimps, or if all of the sudden all the prostitutes simply got "agents/body guards" overnight.
Why is your opinion of what the society should be more valid than his?
Is he not just as much a part of the society as you are? What gives you the right to demand that he should give up his rights?
Except of course for the significantly higher repair bills they seem to get so often after people under 25 have rented a room from them. Doubly so if the area is considered a major party destination.
People don't do things for no reason, especially when money is involved. Even racists will take the money of people they hate if they will make money on the deal.
The only reasonable, and in fact the most plausible, explanation for the "no under 25" rules is that people under the age of 25 tend to be far more destructive in almost every way than people over 25. It's arbitrary, sure, but there are a lot of statistics to back it up.
Of course MOST kids under 25 aren't destructive, that's not the point. The point is the few that are destructive cost more money then the majority that aren't bring in. Therefor, if you don't want to lose money you just nix the lot of them and deal with safer clientel.
That also happens to be the exact same problem that faces the black community. Most black kids are just as stand up as anybody else, but the few that aren't more than make up for those who are, and the culture is such that it can be hard to tell the difference just by looking at them and even sometimes talking to them. To prove my point, note that white kids (thugs or no) who dress and act the same as black thugs are discriminated against in very similar ways. On the flipside, a black kid who dresses sharp and has good manners is not often a target of discrimination. The skin color doesn't really matter usually, except as a distinguishing feature - it's the profile that usually triggers the discrimination. Most white folk aren't white supremicists, they just draw from their own experiences and the experiences of others to make the best decisions they can. Young people often hurt, rather than help, their situation.
No, it's still a straw man. In fact the landlord is excluding far more whites than blacks, and you have no evidence that these landlords are doing anything more than limiting the potential damage to their property by younger people who tend to be more destructive.
If what you're actually saying is that black people cause all the damage from parties that drive landlords to their age discriminating policies, then I have to say I think you are a racist and I would challenge you to show some evidence that the majority of damage is caused by the 15-20% black population and not the 80-85% white population.
You can't have it both ways, and unless you can prove the second possibility your statement is a complete strawman, and racist to boot.
Personally, I believe the landlord should have the right to discriminate based on any criteria he wishes, since it is his property. Only for publicly owned/managed/funded areas should discrimination be illegal (and it often isn't, if you consider a wide enough perspective on discrimination).
That said, I completely agree that if the landlord has a "no under " policy, in principle he is doing it wrong. However laws are usually written such that renters get to walk all over landlords if push comes to shove, and it is a hell of a lot easier to simply not deal with the problems that occur more often with younger tenants than with older tenants.
For example, did you know that in my state it is illegal for a landlord to forcibly remove a tenant from an apartment, even if there is a court ordered eviction? The punishment for not leaving when evicted is slight, and often it is not worth a police officer's time to arrest a squatter, so it ends up being extremely low priority and can take weeks to deal with, and that's AFTER months of getting the court on your side.
That's a bit extreme, but I know someone who it has happened to. A much more common horror story is the tenant who stays for 6 months and causes $5,000 in damages. That $600-1000 deposit doesn't go very far in those cases, and it isn't like the landlord gets to save up those deposits to make up for a bad tenant, he gives it back when someone leaves (less any damages, of course). A lawsuit would probably cost the landlord even more in the long run, so when they see a pattern they end up cutting out a whole swath of people to avoid the problem.
It's the same reason car insurance is a lot higher for people under 25, statistically drivers under the age of 25 get in the most accidents, and it isn't by a small margin. That costs the insurance companies more money, and if they don't raise rates across the board they won't make any money on that particular group of people. 25 is certainly arbitrary, but an insurance company won't feel comfortable with you until you've crossed that magic age marker.
First of all, that's not Microsoft's fault, that's the fault of that installer. I'm not sure exactly what would cause that, but I'd wager that it could happen if the installer runs a bunch of different programs to take care of sub-tasks-- usually Windows handles this seamlessly, though, which means that it must be doing it in a funky way.
If the software follows Microsoft's best practices for security by installing itself in the proper directories, there is no UAC interaction at all. None. I've installed a number of programs like this. If a piece of software insists on installing itself in protected directories, or insists on running with administrative privileges, you may want to think twice about running it. Those are the kinds of software that open gaping holes in your PC's security.
I'd wager the GP's software was attempting to do something it really had no business doing, and every time the installer did something unsafe, UAC double checked with the user first. It's annoying, yes, but only when you install shitty software, and it's really exactly the type of behavior you should want out of your security system.
If the software really did need all that access to do something legitimate, and if they publisher had bothered to test it with Windows 7 and discovered the problem, Microsoft would have added an exception specifically for their software to group all the UAC requests into a single request to streamline the process. They do that kind of backwards compatability stuff all the time.*
*They actually tried not to do this with Vista even though they did it for every previous version of Windows. That was part of the reason there were so many incompatibilities between XP and Vista, and it bit them in the ass. They reverted back to their old policy for Windows 7, and even put a seemless XP VM in the business and ultimate editions.
That's all fine and dandy, but the GP, or GGP, or whoever, wasn't talking about SELinux, they were talking about sudo specifically and UAC specifically, and between the two frameworks each of these items resides in the Windows framework is far more granular and robust.
Windows 7 isn't billed as a hardened OS, just a secure OS, and it indeed fits that description very well.
Whew! Good thing the US isn't a democracy! (It's a republic, a very different thing)
What's really twisted is that every cushy cushy feel good bill that comes down that looks like it spreads the wealth a little bit ultimately just shifts more money into the hands of the rich, because they were the ones who wrote the thing in the first place.
Public schooling, free health care, social security, you name it - it's all designed to keep the poor poor by tricking them into thinking they are actually getting wealthier. Meanwhile the rich control the systems that govern each of these programs and use them to further line their own pockets.
Its the kind of shit that makes you want to fly planes into buildings... but then they label you as "crazy" rather than try to understand why you were crazy... even when you write a perfectly sound explanation as to why.
Actually the only way you could call what that guy wrote as sound is by ignoring at least half of it. It is completely self contradictory, for virtually every point he made he later made a separate, contradicting point. Take one set of arguments or the other and you have reasonable explanations based on differing philosophies. The two philosophies he combined were like oil and water, though, they can't mix. The man was off his rocker, he had lost it, and didn't really know what he believed - as evidenced by his manifesto. All I can figure out that he really knew for sure was that he hated the tax man so much he was willing to kill himself trying to hurt them.
unless you want to move to a different server OS, or a different client OS, or a even a newer version of the *same* client OS.
They do not want to move to a different server OS, or client OS, or a newer version of the same client OS. That's the whole point.
You should really try working for a business that needs to actually, you know, turn a profit instead of upgrading to every shiny new system as they come out.
What an IT manager wants and what is practical is often not the same thing, and a good IT manager will develop the trust needed to steer the company toward the products and upgrades they truly need. Unfortunately, a lot of companies don't bother to hire good IT managers, often outsourcing it to people who could care less, and you get stuck in situations where a company spent $10 million on a web app that only works in IE6 a year before IE7 was released. You can bet your ass that company is going to want to get more than a few years out of their $10 million investment. Ergo, no upgrade.
"Here we go again" says Bruce Campbell.
More correctly, Evolution="achieve over time".
Think about it.
If you still have trouble, find a dictionary.
Uh, that's not evolution. That's... change over time.
The actual definition of the word "evolve" is "to achieve over time". It is more than just change, it implies improvement. It is a synonym of "develop". I would definitely consider our current universe a vast improvement over the mass of hot gas that existed shortly after the Big Bang. Evolution is definitely the right word, and you don't have to stretch the definition at all.
What you are thinking of as "Evolution" is simply biological evolution, or as another poster more descriptively put it "evolution by selection". Natural selection is the fitness function you mentioned, replication and random mutation are actually selectees of the fitness function. An organism that never replicated could never be selected (it is automatically rejected), and an organism that never mutated would have no variance to select from (it simply stagnates, does not evolve). Breeding, on the other hand, is artificial selection, and produces results much more quickly than natural selection. It is a more guided evolution akin to the evolution of the airplane. Biological rules must still be followed, but the selection is far more deliberate.
In the case of TFA, we are talking about artificial selection attempting to achieve the same process as natural selection would have. No matter how you slice it though, it's all still evolution.