The price is going to be insanely high... as compared to just getting a better graphics card in the first place (if you're trying to do this with "cheaper" cards, as you'll have to buy the system and the dual graphics cards). Of course, if you're buying top end cards, then it becomes a different story, but still very high. Do you want to spend $1200+ just for your graphics subsystem? (Taking 2 $500 cards and a $200 MB - a pure guestimate, as I imagine it'll be more)
Finally, the article is pure vapor, as it mentions absolutely nothing factual other than hey, you can plug in any two graphics cards and, what? It makes marketing statements without substance. Which was my true point about the article and the post.
In response to your timing, MS (the favorite whipping boy of vapor stuff) announced Cairo when OS/2 2.1 came out as coming out in 6 months, then 12 months, then 2 years... and gee, we're still waiting, but it's now been renamed Longhorn, and it'll be out in... 2 years... yippee. And you'll only need hardware that won't be out for 4 years to run it.(ok, ok, maybe the hardware might be out in 2006, but it won't be any sub $1K system)
Yep, required specialized hardware (the voodoo cards themselves) and a cable between them to allow them to work as one. Certainly not a generic plug any 2 cards into two slots and have them magically work together. That's what this PR implies.
Using two cards for dual or quad displays (i.e., showing an expanded scene across 2 or 4 monitors for games and such)
Or, using two random graphics cards to process signals for a single monitor. While voodoo did this, it required specialized hardware/software with the voodoo cards to synch everything up for the single monitor.
From the article: "The answers may have to wait until Q3/Q4". There are no performance numbers, no real statements of how it works, nothing much at all. Just wow, gee whiz, dual graphics cards in parallel. What exactly does "in parallel" mean? That's not even addressed.
Some things I thought of immediately reading this, great - two displays each driven by a separate card, or, better yet, quad displays driven by two cards. Nope, not a word about either possibility. The implication of the PR/article is that 3D graphics will be processed faster. How? Do they have some nifty way of combining two standard off the shelf graphics card signals into a single monitor? (Hint, it's hard enough getting the monitor to properly synch up with a single high performance graphics card!)
Since when does ArsTechnica merely regurgitate PRs? This was 99.999% vacuum.
In wet weather, it's debatable, in snow, you're correct. Softer tires increase the footprint, thus increasing the traction. It should be noted that at the lower pressure required to get this effect, you should be driving slower, as the tires will get warm faster. Also, if you drive on dry pavement during the summer at these pressures, your tires tend to blow out, and they will wear much faster.
In wet weather, the type of tire, tread pattern, and rubber composition make more difference than pressure, unless you are seriously overpressurizing your tires.
The best way to truly tell if your tire pressure is correct is to examine the wear across your tires.
More wear on the outside edges = too soft.
More wear on the center treads, too hard.
Rides rougher than you like, probably too hard (can be car design issue as well)
Mushy feeling response, likely too soft (can be car design issue as well)
Easy way: increase tire pressure to 95% or more of max tire pressure. This will reduce tire resistance, as the tires are harder. This will equate into as much as 4-6 mpg improvement.
I had an 88 Toyota Alltrac (rated 20/25 mpg) and managed to squeeze about 34 mpg hwy going an average of 90 mph. Speed had something to do with it, but that was in mountainous terrain during colder months (also had something to do with increased mpg as cold weather increases the efficiency of a turbo, and at those speeds in mountainous terrain, the turbo definitely is used)
You start with a simple model, which they did years ago when the internet was a much much smaller and simpler thing, then work years and years to perfect your model, and voila, simple, no?
I left a couple of things unsaid, thinking it'd be obvious. This type of stuff is included in TCOs, maybe not for the vendor's own items, but certainly for others. I know AV software and constant instabilities caused by patching MS software was listed in various Unix vendors' TCO comparisons with windows. The masses may not have seen those, but they certainly used those arguments with major vendors, and quite successfully. It's not for no reason that Unix still runs the bigger systems out there. Ever wonder Why IBM is still as big as it is?
However, with that all said, I agree with your point that the PHBs will see this, and so will many others, and perhaps re-evaluate whether Windows is all it's cracked up to be, as per MS propaganda. That and more dissemination of Longhorn's "average" requirements may completely sink the "upgrade bandwagon" MS (and probably Intel) are hoping for in 1-2 years. (Provided of course, that MS and Intel can even come close to delivering systems in those specs for anything approaching a normal under $2K price. Heck, graphics adapters from 2 years ago are still running $200+, which puts them out of reach for the "average" consumer. I'd hate to see the price tag for something "3x faster"!
How can any virus be nastier than one that allows any code desired to be run? Seriously, that's what these are.
If you're talking about the old "nasty" virus wiping your hard drive, or the like, maybe today's virus writers have much nastier things in mind, like stealing your personal data (keyboard mappers) creating spam sources (all that spam email needs to be sent from somewhere) a DDOS source, heck, I better stop giving them ideas!!!!
This is news? This wasn't included in TCO estimates before? (Actually, that would be news, but not the kind I'd want blasted out to the world about me!). Seriously, how can "common maintenance" NOT be included in a TCO estimate? Isn't that the major ongoing part of TCO? Geez....
Code folding would be extremely nice for comments, imports, and the case where you inheret someone else's really really bad code (read as 100s of lines in a single method).
Otherwise, truly well written OO code would rarely even lend itself to code folding.
The only halfway notable incident in this story is that Mitnick did some "good". That's it, and only for passing on some basic info on how to trace a phone number. Silly really.
Expensive? No. Not really. Unless you want 75GB or larger low profile drives. I bought 5 new HH 36GB 7200 rpm drives for $100. Match that with a Mylex ExtremeRaid 1164P 3 channel controller I got for $50 (yep, egay on that one;), and that makes a really nice fast RAID5 ~140GB array. And it's expandable. (just think, (5) 8 drive arrays striped ~1.2TB for $550 with virtually no CPU overhead!)
The downside? Noise and heat. 5 scsi drives generate a lot more heat and noise than one drive. The data transfer and latency can't be beat for running a DB or doing movie editing. The maximum throughput from the controller's 3 channels is only 240MB/s, but there's also the 64MB cache on the controller.
Last time I checked, IDE (ATA, SATA, whatever) couldn't even come close to this. Granted, I have not checked out the newer SATA raid controllers, but they cost far more than an equivalent SCSI3 setup, so why bother at this time (if cost is an issue, this is not always the case).
I wonder if he really has taken a step backwards. The Delta IV has a single engine first stage, complemented by 2 solid fuel boosters. Not much engine out capability there.
After all, how much did that single engine cost compared to the 5 "off the shelf" engines he's using? Not to mention the fact that liquid hydrogen adds to the expense of operations as compared to kerosene. I tend to agree with you that he's engaging in market hype, however, as the engine out capability is a fortuitous (from a marketing perspective) result of using off the shelf components.
I would think that al la carte could still be bundled packages, just not today's packages. Say that Cable offers a sports package of 10 channels, plus another 10 you select? Or anything similar, a 10-pack or a 20-pack. Get your basic 50 channel package, plus a 20-pack add-on. Or better yet, get your local channels, plus a 20-pack add-on.
hmmm. 3 years old. 2 hours of TV a day? (granted, you say recommended, and she doesn't do that). Usually watches PBS (hey, no commercials, the crux of one of your original major complaints!).
So what was your major issue with regards to TV and commercials again? (Hint: your paragraphs above indicate that your child isn't exposed to those very commercials you railed against in your initial post.)
The second argument, which is orthogonal to the first, didn't deviate from my point. It's your choice. You can choose how much cash to have, where to have it, when to have it, and whether you want to go all cash. Or not. Your choice. If you choose not to go all cash, then you choose to use another payment method, which, btw, has always been traceable. It's just easier now.
Ahh, but this is not tampering. I haven't done anything to the RFIDs, or anything else. I've merely placed them in a container, then removed them again.;)
Just because there's a recommended maximum amount of TV for a day, doesn't mean that the child should watch that much (or a little less) every day. Heck, I'd make the arguement that a kid shouldn't watch any TV, most of the time, and that's not restricted to most of the time in a day day, but more like most of the week. There's tons of other things to do, like ride bikes, play in the yard, swim, participate in organized sports, play games with friends, school, homework, read. Heck, where's the time to watch TV?
As for the "drastically changing your life", it wouldn't be that much, you'd just have to carry more cash than you do now. The extent you wish to follow the rest is your "individual choices and rights". You don't have to give up anything you don't want to, which was my basic point. Heck, you could even hire someone to buy things for you.
I agree that the parent poster stated it badly when he said "They went to Iraq because they believed your word about the WMDs, Mr. President.". The thought behind the statement however, I agree with. My perception of his point is that Bush shouldn't be joking about the situation that he caused. This is pretty much akin to someone going out, firing a gun into the air for New Year's (or whatever), killing a couple of people, and then joking about the firing of the gun.
Now, while I personally find Bush's "jokes" absolutely assinine and revolting, I do not have the same opinion about anyone not related to the decision to go to war making jokes about Bush in the same vein. The reason? They are ridiculing him. I believe Bush is attempting to defuse their ridicule by "joking" about it, hence removing the power of ridicule for others. To me, this appears to be an attempt to prevent a large loss of face, as compared to a little loss of face. I find it abhorrent to joke about sending a bunch of people to their deaths and maiming (let's not forget, the casaulties are far more than the deaths alone).
Just think of all the ways you can screw with "data trackers". I can see it now - big batches of random RFID tags auctioned off on ebay. People walking around with little foil bags of RFIDs, periodically pulling a few new ones out, and putting others back in.
Look, here, someone's just walked past with an 8000# stuffed hippo. Wait, here he is with a Ford F150. Wait, there he goes with a Harrier Attack Jet. Think of all the fun you could have. Especially with stores and security guards. You have RFIDs that code to their products, they hual you in for "shoplifting". Whoops. You sue - big bucks.:D
Why are you the "bad guy" when you say "no"? If you've raised your child(ren) with a consistent set of directions, they know that something like McDonalds is a "special treat". Or, are you the type of parent that thinks TV is a good babysitter? After all, why are you concerned about advertising? Your child(ren), whom you imply are quite young, shouldn't be watching that much TV that their thoughts are being formed/affected by advertising (while this can be considered my personal value judgement, exposure to one or two commercials isn't going to make a child a marketer's zombie).
Btw, there's still a way to make sure marketers know nothing about you - use cash. No checks, no "rewards" cards, no credit cards. Every single one of those provides means of tracking you, whether they've implemented them or not. Also, don't shop in the same store all the time, or, if you're really paranoid, buy a select set of items from separate stores. (Different companies are loath to share data, however, they might sell it to third parties, so how big's your tin foil hat?)
I agree that high school was quite lax. Bush's "No child left behind" plan is moronic though, because to leave no child behind fails to challenge, say 50%, of the students in class. Are they lazy? I don't think so, they're just not challenged. And by not challenged, I don't mean loads of homework. 40 hours a week of doing 1+1=x doesn't help you learn anything.
As for engineering, I graduated with an MS in mechanical engineering. I happened to have concentrated on a particular field that appeared quite promising at the time. The field has since essentially collapsed. Before the collapse, the hand writing was already on the wall, as engineering depts everywhere were downsizing, and thanks to that, upward mobility (ie promotions) were basically frozen for ever. So, being the second to last engineer hired in a group of 200 makes you the "junior" engineer even after 7 years. (I stayed that long for other reasons as there was an enticement, but I was already planning an exit after 3 years) When I switched careers, as an example of what was happening in my dept, 2 of the upper management retired. Their organizations were merged with other tiers within the dept, and no one was promoted. The oldest manager left at that time was then barely 55, with the next closest under 50. This is true in other companies as well, from what I gathered from friends.
So, basically the situation was - you get to do "junior" level work for 10-15 years, you might get a promotion in 20-25. That's not very appealing, unless you're happy doing the work no one else wants to do in your field. It used to be junior level work was given to new entry level engineers under the guidance of a mentor to improve them so they could move up the ladder. It's now years later, and the huge reduction in available engineers may have changed the situation, I no longer follow it.
To summarize my feelings, American universities haven't failed to produce engineers, but employers that want engineers have screwed them over so badly only a few would go that route now, and the ones that do need more than 30-40K a year so they can pay off their loans. After all, why slave away for 4+ years and go into debt to earn a degree to wind up working at the same or lower salary and task levels than some maybe high school graduate?
IMO, Some of the facets of Extreme Programming are great, but only as applied to organized process oriented programming. I strongly support working towards acceptance tests, however, I also strongly support up front design, so you know what you're supposed to code to. (The acceptance tests test the results, the design is the target). As for two people working together, only if one is a mentor, otherwise it's usually a major waste of resources.
Rambling? I beg to differ, as you obviously didn't look at the third link. Known Passport bug in production for at least 7 months pretty much debunks the "well, those products "hit in the last 6 months" were all patched prior to the outbreak Look it up, if you want to be informed." I'd make the same statement.
Basically, MS is flawed (that's not an opinion) and there are flaws with exploits without patches available.
PS: ok, maybe it's last 8 months, or 12 months for the references above, but it's part of a common pattern and I don't have the time nor inclination to go research for a specific reference to 100% exactly support my statement.
Slashdot Mirror
The price is going to be insanely high... as compared to just getting a better graphics card in the first place (if you're trying to do this with "cheaper" cards, as you'll have to buy the system and the dual graphics cards). Of course, if you're buying top end cards, then it becomes a different story, but still very high. Do you want to spend $1200+ just for your graphics subsystem? (Taking 2 $500 cards and a $200 MB - a pure guestimate, as I imagine it'll be more)
Finally, the article is pure vapor, as it mentions absolutely nothing factual other than hey, you can plug in any two graphics cards and, what? It makes marketing statements without substance. Which was my true point about the article and the post.
In response to your timing, MS (the favorite whipping boy of vapor stuff) announced Cairo when OS/2 2.1 came out as coming out in 6 months, then 12 months, then 2 years... and gee, we're still waiting, but it's now been renamed Longhorn, and it'll be out in... 2 years... yippee. And you'll only need hardware that won't be out for 4 years to run it.(ok, ok, maybe the hardware might be out in 2006, but it won't be any sub $1K system)
Yep, required specialized hardware (the voodoo cards themselves) and a cable between them to allow them to work as one. Certainly not a generic plug any 2 cards into two slots and have them magically work together. That's what this PR implies.
Using two cards for dual or quad displays (i.e., showing an expanded scene across 2 or 4 monitors for games and such)
Or, using two random graphics cards to process signals for a single monitor. While voodoo did this, it required specialized hardware/software with the voodoo cards to synch everything up for the single monitor.
From the article: "The answers may have to wait until Q3/Q4". There are no performance numbers, no real statements of how it works, nothing much at all. Just wow, gee whiz, dual graphics cards in parallel. What exactly does "in parallel" mean? That's not even addressed.
Some things I thought of immediately reading this, great - two displays each driven by a separate card, or, better yet, quad displays driven by two cards. Nope, not a word about either possibility. The implication of the PR/article is that 3D graphics will be processed faster. How? Do they have some nifty way of combining two standard off the shelf graphics card signals into a single monitor? (Hint, it's hard enough getting the monitor to properly synch up with a single high performance graphics card!)
Since when does ArsTechnica merely regurgitate PRs? This was 99.999% vacuum.
In wet weather, it's debatable, in snow, you're correct. Softer tires increase the footprint, thus increasing the traction. It should be noted that at the lower pressure required to get this effect, you should be driving slower, as the tires will get warm faster. Also, if you drive on dry pavement during the summer at these pressures, your tires tend to blow out, and they will wear much faster.
In wet weather, the type of tire, tread pattern, and rubber composition make more difference than pressure, unless you are seriously overpressurizing your tires.
The best way to truly tell if your tire pressure is correct is to examine the wear across your tires.
- More wear on the outside edges = too soft.
- More wear on the center treads, too hard.
- Rides rougher than you like, probably too hard (can be car design issue as well)
- Mushy feeling response, likely too soft (can be car design issue as well)
Hopefully that'll help a little.Easy way: increase tire pressure to 95% or more of max tire pressure. This will reduce tire resistance, as the tires are harder. This will equate into as much as 4-6 mpg improvement.
I had an 88 Toyota Alltrac (rated 20/25 mpg) and managed to squeeze about 34 mpg hwy going an average of 90 mph. Speed had something to do with it, but that was in mountainous terrain during colder months (also had something to do with increased mpg as cold weather increases the efficiency of a turbo, and at those speeds in mountainous terrain, the turbo definitely is used)
You start with a simple model, which they did years ago when the internet was a much much smaller and simpler thing, then work years and years to perfect your model, and voila, simple, no?
I left a couple of things unsaid, thinking it'd be obvious. This type of stuff is included in TCOs, maybe not for the vendor's own items, but certainly for others. I know AV software and constant instabilities caused by patching MS software was listed in various Unix vendors' TCO comparisons with windows. The masses may not have seen those, but they certainly used those arguments with major vendors, and quite successfully. It's not for no reason that Unix still runs the bigger systems out there. Ever wonder Why IBM is still as big as it is?
However, with that all said, I agree with your point that the PHBs will see this, and so will many others, and perhaps re-evaluate whether Windows is all it's cracked up to be, as per MS propaganda. That and more dissemination of Longhorn's "average" requirements may completely sink the "upgrade bandwagon" MS (and probably Intel) are hoping for in 1-2 years. (Provided of course, that MS and Intel can even come close to delivering systems in those specs for anything approaching a normal under $2K price. Heck, graphics adapters from 2 years ago are still running $200+, which puts them out of reach for the "average" consumer. I'd hate to see the price tag for something "3x faster"!
How can any virus be nastier than one that allows any code desired to be run? Seriously, that's what these are.
If you're talking about the old "nasty" virus wiping your hard drive, or the like, maybe today's virus writers have much nastier things in mind, like stealing your personal data (keyboard mappers) creating spam sources (all that spam email needs to be sent from somewhere) a DDOS source, heck, I better stop giving them ideas!!!!
This is news? This wasn't included in TCO estimates before? (Actually, that would be news, but not the kind I'd want blasted out to the world about me!). Seriously, how can "common maintenance" NOT be included in a TCO estimate? Isn't that the major ongoing part of TCO? Geez....
Otherwise, truly well written OO code would rarely even lend itself to code folding.
The only halfway notable incident in this story is that Mitnick did some "good". That's it, and only for passing on some basic info on how to trace a phone number. Silly really.
Expensive? No. Not really. Unless you want 75GB or larger low profile drives. I bought 5 new HH 36GB 7200 rpm drives for $100. Match that with a Mylex ExtremeRaid 1164P 3 channel controller I got for $50 (yep, egay on that one;), and that makes a really nice fast RAID5 ~140GB array. And it's expandable. (just think, (5) 8 drive arrays striped ~1.2TB for $550 with virtually no CPU overhead!)
The downside? Noise and heat. 5 scsi drives generate a lot more heat and noise than one drive. The data transfer and latency can't be beat for running a DB or doing movie editing. The maximum throughput from the controller's 3 channels is only 240MB/s, but there's also the 64MB cache on the controller.
Last time I checked, IDE (ATA, SATA, whatever) couldn't even come close to this. Granted, I have not checked out the newer SATA raid controllers, but they cost far more than an equivalent SCSI3 setup, so why bother at this time (if cost is an issue, this is not always the case).
I wonder if he really has taken a step backwards. The Delta IV has a single engine first stage, complemented by 2 solid fuel boosters. Not much engine out capability there.
After all, how much did that single engine cost compared to the 5 "off the shelf" engines he's using? Not to mention the fact that liquid hydrogen adds to the expense of operations as compared to kerosene. I tend to agree with you that he's engaging in market hype, however, as the engine out capability is a fortuitous (from a marketing perspective) result of using off the shelf components.
I would think that al la carte could still be bundled packages, just not today's packages. Say that Cable offers a sports package of 10 channels, plus another 10 you select? Or anything similar, a 10-pack or a 20-pack. Get your basic 50 channel package, plus a 20-pack add-on. Or better yet, get your local channels, plus a 20-pack add-on.
hmmm. 3 years old. 2 hours of TV a day? (granted, you say recommended, and she doesn't do that). Usually watches PBS (hey, no commercials, the crux of one of your original major complaints!).
So what was your major issue with regards to TV and commercials again? (Hint: your paragraphs above indicate that your child isn't exposed to those very commercials you railed against in your initial post.)
The second argument, which is orthogonal to the first, didn't deviate from my point. It's your choice. You can choose how much cash to have, where to have it, when to have it, and whether you want to go all cash. Or not. Your choice. If you choose not to go all cash, then you choose to use another payment method, which, btw, has always been traceable. It's just easier now.
Ahh, but this is not tampering. I haven't done anything to the RFIDs, or anything else. I've merely placed them in a container, then removed them again. ;)
Just because there's a recommended maximum amount of TV for a day, doesn't mean that the child should watch that much (or a little less) every day. Heck, I'd make the arguement that a kid shouldn't watch any TV, most of the time, and that's not restricted to most of the time in a day day, but more like most of the week. There's tons of other things to do, like ride bikes, play in the yard, swim, participate in organized sports, play games with friends, school, homework, read. Heck, where's the time to watch TV?
As for the "drastically changing your life", it wouldn't be that much, you'd just have to carry more cash than you do now. The extent you wish to follow the rest is your "individual choices and rights". You don't have to give up anything you don't want to, which was my basic point. Heck, you could even hire someone to buy things for you.
I agree that the parent poster stated it badly when he said "They went to Iraq because they believed your word about the WMDs, Mr. President.". The thought behind the statement however, I agree with. My perception of his point is that Bush shouldn't be joking about the situation that he caused. This is pretty much akin to someone going out, firing a gun into the air for New Year's (or whatever), killing a couple of people, and then joking about the firing of the gun.
Now, while I personally find Bush's "jokes" absolutely assinine and revolting, I do not have the same opinion about anyone not related to the decision to go to war making jokes about Bush in the same vein. The reason? They are ridiculing him. I believe Bush is attempting to defuse their ridicule by "joking" about it, hence removing the power of ridicule for others. To me, this appears to be an attempt to prevent a large loss of face, as compared to a little loss of face. I find it abhorrent to joke about sending a bunch of people to their deaths and maiming (let's not forget, the casaulties are far more than the deaths alone).
Just think of all the ways you can screw with "data trackers". I can see it now - big batches of random RFID tags auctioned off on ebay. People walking around with little foil bags of RFIDs, periodically pulling a few new ones out, and putting others back in.
Look, here, someone's just walked past with an 8000# stuffed hippo. Wait, here he is with a Ford F150. Wait, there he goes with a Harrier Attack Jet. Think of all the fun you could have. Especially with stores and security guards. You have RFIDs that code to their products, they hual you in for "shoplifting". Whoops. You sue - big bucks. :D
Why are you the "bad guy" when you say "no"? If you've raised your child(ren) with a consistent set of directions, they know that something like McDonalds is a "special treat". Or, are you the type of parent that thinks TV is a good babysitter? After all, why are you concerned about advertising? Your child(ren), whom you imply are quite young, shouldn't be watching that much TV that their thoughts are being formed/affected by advertising (while this can be considered my personal value judgement, exposure to one or two commercials isn't going to make a child a marketer's zombie).
Btw, there's still a way to make sure marketers know nothing about you - use cash. No checks, no "rewards" cards, no credit cards. Every single one of those provides means of tracking you, whether they've implemented them or not. Also, don't shop in the same store all the time, or, if you're really paranoid, buy a select set of items from separate stores. (Different companies are loath to share data, however, they might sell it to third parties, so how big's your tin foil hat?)
I agree that high school was quite lax. Bush's "No child left behind" plan is moronic though, because to leave no child behind fails to challenge, say 50%, of the students in class. Are they lazy? I don't think so, they're just not challenged. And by not challenged, I don't mean loads of homework. 40 hours a week of doing 1+1=x doesn't help you learn anything.
As for engineering, I graduated with an MS in mechanical engineering. I happened to have concentrated on a particular field that appeared quite promising at the time. The field has since essentially collapsed. Before the collapse, the hand writing was already on the wall, as engineering depts everywhere were downsizing, and thanks to that, upward mobility (ie promotions) were basically frozen for ever. So, being the second to last engineer hired in a group of 200 makes you the "junior" engineer even after 7 years. (I stayed that long for other reasons as there was an enticement, but I was already planning an exit after 3 years) When I switched careers, as an example of what was happening in my dept, 2 of the upper management retired. Their organizations were merged with other tiers within the dept, and no one was promoted. The oldest manager left at that time was then barely 55, with the next closest under 50. This is true in other companies as well, from what I gathered from friends.
So, basically the situation was - you get to do "junior" level work for 10-15 years, you might get a promotion in 20-25. That's not very appealing, unless you're happy doing the work no one else wants to do in your field. It used to be junior level work was given to new entry level engineers under the guidance of a mentor to improve them so they could move up the ladder. It's now years later, and the huge reduction in available engineers may have changed the situation, I no longer follow it.
To summarize my feelings, American universities haven't failed to produce engineers, but employers that want engineers have screwed them over so badly only a few would go that route now, and the ones that do need more than 30-40K a year so they can pay off their loans. After all, why slave away for 4+ years and go into debt to earn a degree to wind up working at the same or lower salary and task levels than some maybe high school graduate?
Wow was that ever long-winded.
IMO, Some of the facets of Extreme Programming are great, but only as applied to organized process oriented programming. I strongly support working towards acceptance tests, however, I also strongly support up front design, so you know what you're supposed to code to. (The acceptance tests test the results, the design is the target). As for two people working together, only if one is a mentor, otherwise it's usually a major waste of resources.
Rambling? I beg to differ, as you obviously didn't look at the third link. Known Passport bug in production for at least 7 months pretty much debunks the "well, those products "hit in the last 6 months" were all patched prior to the outbreak Look it up, if you want to be informed." I'd make the same statement.
Basically, MS is flawed (that's not an opinion) and there are flaws with exploits without patches available.
PS: ok, maybe it's last 8 months, or 12 months for the references above, but it's part of a common pattern and I don't have the time nor inclination to go research for a specific reference to 100% exactly support my statement.