I'm not a terrorist. I have no interest in harming anyone. I have no interest in destroying other people's property. I have no interest in causing fear in another person. My only interest in changing the government or policies of the United States is legally, through my votes, my dollars, and my actions.
However, the US government considers me and every person involved in my main hobby outside of computers - Amateur Rocketry - to be a potential terrorist. The motors I could once purchase without fear are now a potential reason to search my house, detain me or my family without warning or due process, etc.
This is freedom?
First, take a deep breath, and lower your blood pressure. Michael is a prick, and a fool, and quite possibly has a room-temperature IQ. Or, he's a really big troll the/. editors thought would make a good joke. You know this. I know this. Most people know this. So stop letting him get to you - he's just not worth it.
Second, to avoid the problem in the future, let me direct you to AlterSlash. I saw your comment there because of the moderation. I saw the story there. I didn't see Michael's idiocy.
No, it isn't.
Everyone loves the story of the space pen vs. the pencil, and how the Russians were perfectly happy with their pencils... when that's simply not true. The Russians were very *unhappy* with pencils. See, what happens as you write with a pencil? The point breaks off. Now you have a chunk of conductive material (graphite) floating around in free fall with lots of electrical switches. Not to mention interesting airways known as "nostrils".
And, of course, when the tip breaks off you have to create a new tip by sharpening the pencil - creating graphite dust and sawdust or wood shavings that are impossible to contain.
As for Zubrin, he's write but he's also wrong; he's been stuck on the "back to expendable hardware" kick for years. The problem is not the Shuttle paradigm, the problem is lack of will. Carried to its logical conclusion, the shuttle paradigm *is* better because it allows you to reuse hardware, gives greater flexibility, and allows you to conduct missions without spending years of effort designing and testing systems you'll never use again. It simply requires a greater outlay of capital in the initial stages.
Besides, suppose we do go back to expendable models. OK, we get to Mars... then what? Go back to the government, replaced every four years and always on the lookout for more bread and circuses to say "OK, there's that multi-billion dollar project completed - let's do another one!" Yeah, that'll fly.
Joe User doesn't complain about the frequency of patches.
Uh, actually, Joe User does complain about patches. See that whole thing in my comment about "my clients", "dial-up connections", etc. What in that gave you the impression my clients were IT Pros? I specialize in working with small businesses, mostly non-technical small businesses at that. And they frequently complain about the number and the size of the patches from Microsoft.
I think it's pretty obvious. People are complaining about the number of security patches that they have to download to keep their system secure, especially over dial-up Internet connections. I hear this from my clients all the time, in fact - their system is unpatched and insecure, they got the latest virus, whatever, because it takes too long to download the patches.
They're not complaining that Microsoft is patching too frequently - they're complaining about the need for having so many patches. Even the clients that know next to nothing about their computers are saying this, and in just about that fashion, too. Many have gone so far as to complain about the quality of the software, directly. But you can't expect Microsoft to say that in their security bulletin, so instead they just say people are complaining about the patching frequency, which is technically true.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, any time you find yourself saying "It seems to me the money would be better spent", chances are you're wrong.
Are you sure?
I'm not a terrorist. I have no interest in harming anyone. I have no interest in destroying other people's property. I have no interest in causing fear in another person. My only interest in changing the government or policies of the United States is legally, through my votes, my dollars, and my actions. However, the US government considers me and every person involved in my main hobby outside of computers - Amateur Rocketry - to be a potential terrorist. The motors I could once purchase without fear are now a potential reason to search my house, detain me or my family without warning or due process, etc. This is freedom?
Second, to avoid the problem in the future, let me direct you to AlterSlash. I saw your comment there because of the moderation. I saw the story there. I didn't see Michael's idiocy.
Dude, does your comma key look worn and about half the size of the rest of the keyboard?
No, it isn't. Everyone loves the story of the space pen vs. the pencil, and how the Russians were perfectly happy with their pencils... when that's simply not true. The Russians were very *unhappy* with pencils. See, what happens as you write with a pencil? The point breaks off. Now you have a chunk of conductive material (graphite) floating around in free fall with lots of electrical switches. Not to mention interesting airways known as "nostrils". And, of course, when the tip breaks off you have to create a new tip by sharpening the pencil - creating graphite dust and sawdust or wood shavings that are impossible to contain. As for Zubrin, he's write but he's also wrong; he's been stuck on the "back to expendable hardware" kick for years. The problem is not the Shuttle paradigm, the problem is lack of will. Carried to its logical conclusion, the shuttle paradigm *is* better because it allows you to reuse hardware, gives greater flexibility, and allows you to conduct missions without spending years of effort designing and testing systems you'll never use again. It simply requires a greater outlay of capital in the initial stages. Besides, suppose we do go back to expendable models. OK, we get to Mars... then what? Go back to the government, replaced every four years and always on the lookout for more bread and circuses to say "OK, there's that multi-billion dollar project completed - let's do another one!" Yeah, that'll fly.
Uh, actually, Joe User does complain about patches. See that whole thing in my comment about "my clients", "dial-up connections", etc. What in that gave you the impression my clients were IT Pros? I specialize in working with small businesses, mostly non-technical small businesses at that. And they frequently complain about the number and the size of the patches from Microsoft.
I think it's pretty obvious. People are complaining about the number of security patches that they have to download to keep their system secure, especially over dial-up Internet connections. I hear this from my clients all the time, in fact - their system is unpatched and insecure, they got the latest virus, whatever, because it takes too long to download the patches.
They're not complaining that Microsoft is patching too frequently - they're complaining about the need for having so many patches. Even the clients that know next to nothing about their computers are saying this, and in just about that fashion, too. Many have gone so far as to complain about the quality of the software, directly. But you can't expect Microsoft to say that in their security bulletin, so instead they just say people are complaining about the patching frequency, which is technically true.