We've done everything we can in our Active Directory network to overcome roaming profile issues. Even with folder redirection, you have a huge fat ntuser.dat for prone to corruption. Users' home folders on a server, with discrete text-based configuration files would be a dream.
Did you know that in 2014 you still can't safely put risking profiles on a DFS share?
Metro is dying before our very eyes. It has been deemphasized in Windows 8.1 and by Windows 9 will be little more than a fancy start menu.
For chrissakes, most suppliers if enterprise systems I deal with still happily ship you Windows 7 Pro machines, or at least heavily advertised downgrade rights. "Business class" systems still ship with Windows 7 preinstalled. The enterprise customers never bloody wanted Metro to begin with, and so act as if Windows 8/8.1 didn't exist.
It's my firm belief that one cannot write any software of any moderate to large size without inevitably running afoul of some software patent. There are only two things that protect any developer:
1. Distribution of their software is sufficiently small that it escapes the notice of patent trolls. 2. Being a large company with a legal department capable of dealing with patent threats, and a bank account big enough to buy them off.
I build these critters all the time. Our entire multioffice infrastructure is based on Debian-based routers with OpenVPN. OpenVPN is pretty simple to get running, and I use Webmin to build my iptables rules.
Canada, save Quebec, is common law. (As I recall, New Orleans also has a Continental-based civil code like Quebec, both being former colonies of France).
In ancient times... Hundreds of years before the dawn of history Lived a strange race of people... the Druids
No one knows who they were or what they were doing But their legacy remains Hewn into the living rock... Of Stonehenge
Stonehenge! Where the demons dwell Where the banshees live and they do live well Stonehenge! Where a man's a man And the children dance to the Pipes of Pan
Hey!
Stonehenge! 'Tis a magic place Where the moon doth rise with a dragon's face Stonehenge! Where the virgins lie And the prayers of devils fill the midnight sky
And you my love, won't you take my hand?
We'll go back in time to that mystic land Where the dew drops cry and the cats meow I will take you there, I will show you how
Oh!
And oh how they danced The little children of Stonehenge Beneath the haunted moon For fear that daybreak might come too soon
And where are they now? The little children of Stonehenge And what would they say to us? If they were here... tonight
A lot of basic research does not produce profits in anything like a marketable timeline, and yet, without basic research, marketable discoveries won't happen at all. You can't feed yourself on developments that might take years to produce results.
There is a strong correlation between increased CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution and atmospheric CO2. This has been confirmed in enough different ways that I don't think it's useful to continue trying to claim otherwise (so can we all stop pretending that Mann's hockey stick graph is the only correlation point we have).
Since that correlation exists, and it's clear to just about everyone in the research community that higher CO2 emissions leads to higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2, then cutting emissions should make some difference to continued growth of said concentrations. Whether it is too late or not is a matter of some debate, though most of the reports I read suggest we still could expect some moderation of global temperatures by emissions reductions, though there will be a point in the not-so-distant future where the more severe effects will happen.
I think the modern-Neanderthal interbreeding question was never a strong consensus opinion. There were plenty of researchers on both sides of the debate, and the molecular researchers said all along that mtDNA alone would not be sufficient to falsify interbreeding.
My experience with scientists suggests that even they are often uncomfortable with consensus. I used to correspond with a taxonomist many years ago, and in many cases even the consensus view on specific categorizations could only be called a consensus by plurality.
The notion of consensus as a science-killer is heavily overplayed by those critical of science. People like Crichton really never seemed to know much about scientists at all, but were happy to paint with the broadest of strokes.
In climatology, there is a helluva lot of debate on just about every aspect of AGW, but not that AGW isn't real (the number of climatologists who outright reject AGW is so small as to be statistically irrelevant, and even among the denier climatologists, you find virtually no published papers to back up their denial). The same applies to evolution, geology, cosmology and a host of other scientists that a large fraction of certain political and religious groups reject because they run counter to belief.
There is no hiatus. It is cherry picking of data, literally cutting of centuries of statistical analysis at 20 years for the purposes of making some sort of rhetorical point. Among the last 20 years are years that are among the hottest on record.
Do you understand anything about statistics? Or are you so cowardly and infantile that you just latch on to any Koch-inspired meme that makes you feel better?
Climatologists spend lots of time assessing data. The problem with AGW is that while the overwhelming majority of researchers are in general accord, the results of their science would cost a lot of money, therefore the public debate ceases to be about data or theory, and simply about emotional appeals and pseudo-scientific trickery.
I spent over a decade debating Creationists on Usenet. As much as I could ever get into a science-denier's head, I have to say that they just simply are emotionally incapable of accepting certain branches of science. Whether they've been poisoned by ideology or religion, they have made science denial a core part of the intellectual and emotional makeup. They are largely infantile, emotionally insecure and have compartmentalized their cognitive processes to such an extent that the overwhelming majority of them will never ever accept the science.
What can we do? Well, if Creationism is any guide, you just have to hope you can wait them out.
Slashdot Mirror
We've done everything we can in our Active Directory network to overcome roaming profile issues. Even with folder redirection, you have a huge fat ntuser.dat for prone to corruption. Users' home folders on a server, with discrete text-based configuration files would be a dream.
Did you know that in 2014 you still can't safely put risking profiles on a DFS share?
Metro is dying before our very eyes. It has been deemphasized in Windows 8.1 and by Windows 9 will be little more than a fancy start menu.
For chrissakes, most suppliers if enterprise systems I deal with still happily ship you Windows 7 Pro machines, or at least heavily advertised downgrade rights. "Business class" systems still ship with Windows 7 preinstalled. The enterprise customers never bloody wanted Metro to begin with, and so act as if Windows 8/8.1 didn't exist.
OpenLDAP, NFS and home folders on a file server.
Jesus Christ, Microsoft junkies well and truly believe there's no alternatives.
It's my firm belief that one cannot write any software of any moderate to large size without inevitably running afoul of some software patent. There are only two things that protect any developer:
1. Distribution of their software is sufficiently small that it escapes the notice of patent trolls.
2. Being a large company with a legal department capable of dealing with patent threats, and a bank account big enough to buy them off.
The client isn't great, but it does work. We have a few Android and iOS devices that use the apps, and it works once you get it configured.
I build these critters all the time. Our entire multioffice infrastructure is based on Debian-based routers with OpenVPN. OpenVPN is pretty simple to get running, and I use Webmin to build my iptables rules.
That's because Apple still has meaningful market share.
This whole notion of ratios has you a bit confused I see.
Yes, like the vast majority of smart phone users.
Canada, save Quebec, is common law. (As I recall, New Orleans also has a Continental-based civil code like Quebec, both being former colonies of France).
In ancient times...
Hundreds of years before the dawn of history
Lived a strange race of people... the Druids
No one knows who they were or what they were doing
But their legacy remains
Hewn into the living rock... Of Stonehenge
Stonehenge! Where the demons dwell
Where the banshees live and they do live well
Stonehenge! Where a man's a man
And the children dance to the Pipes of Pan
Hey!
Stonehenge! 'Tis a magic place
Where the moon doth rise with a dragon's face
Stonehenge! Where the virgins lie
And the prayers of devils fill the midnight sky
And you my love, won't you take my hand?
We'll go back in time to that mystic land
Where the dew drops cry and the cats meow
I will take you there, I will show you how
Oh!
And oh how they danced
The little children of Stonehenge
Beneath the haunted moon
For fear that daybreak might come too soon
And where are they now?
The little children of Stonehenge
And what would they say to us?
If they were here... tonight
The voice of navel-gazing stupidity has spoken!
I doubt one could even begin to count the ways that government helped Bell along.
A lot of basic research does not produce profits in anything like a marketable timeline, and yet, without basic research, marketable discoveries won't happen at all. You can't feed yourself on developments that might take years to produce results.
Possibly because the disappearance of the Franklin expedition lead to one of the largest maritime searches in history.
Except Excel is less prone to errors and data loss.
There is a strong correlation between increased CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution and atmospheric CO2. This has been confirmed in enough different ways that I don't think it's useful to continue trying to claim otherwise (so can we all stop pretending that Mann's hockey stick graph is the only correlation point we have).
Since that correlation exists, and it's clear to just about everyone in the research community that higher CO2 emissions leads to higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2, then cutting emissions should make some difference to continued growth of said concentrations. Whether it is too late or not is a matter of some debate, though most of the reports I read suggest we still could expect some moderation of global temperatures by emissions reductions, though there will be a point in the not-so-distant future where the more severe effects will happen.
Translation: I don't know the difference between localized and global temperatures, and just post hoc cherry picking to deny global observations.
I think the modern-Neanderthal interbreeding question was never a strong consensus opinion. There were plenty of researchers on both sides of the debate, and the molecular researchers said all along that mtDNA alone would not be sufficient to falsify interbreeding.
My experience with scientists suggests that even they are often uncomfortable with consensus. I used to correspond with a taxonomist many years ago, and in many cases even the consensus view on specific categorizations could only be called a consensus by plurality.
The notion of consensus as a science-killer is heavily overplayed by those critical of science. People like Crichton really never seemed to know much about scientists at all, but were happy to paint with the broadest of strokes.
In climatology, there is a helluva lot of debate on just about every aspect of AGW, but not that AGW isn't real (the number of climatologists who outright reject AGW is so small as to be statistically irrelevant, and even among the denier climatologists, you find virtually no published papers to back up their denial). The same applies to evolution, geology, cosmology and a host of other scientists that a large fraction of certain political and religious groups reject because they run counter to belief.
There is no hiatus. It is cherry picking of data, literally cutting of centuries of statistical analysis at 20 years for the purposes of making some sort of rhetorical point. Among the last 20 years are years that are among the hottest on record.
Do you understand anything about statistics? Or are you so cowardly and infantile that you just latch on to any Koch-inspired meme that makes you feel better?
CO2 emissions are probably the easiest part of AGW modeling.
Climatologists spend lots of time assessing data. The problem with AGW is that while the overwhelming majority of researchers are in general accord, the results of their science would cost a lot of money, therefore the public debate ceases to be about data or theory, and simply about emotional appeals and pseudo-scientific trickery.
Humans need water. If I plunge your head into a tank of water and hold it there for fifteen minutes, you ought to be super healthy, right?
I spent over a decade debating Creationists on Usenet. As much as I could ever get into a science-denier's head, I have to say that they just simply are emotionally incapable of accepting certain branches of science. Whether they've been poisoned by ideology or religion, they have made science denial a core part of the intellectual and emotional makeup. They are largely infantile, emotionally insecure and have compartmentalized their cognitive processes to such an extent that the overwhelming majority of them will never ever accept the science.
What can we do? Well, if Creationism is any guide, you just have to hope you can wait them out.
The hiatus is just cherry picking by the Koch Brothers' trained seals.
The "hiatus" is nothing more than cherry picking of data.