If I was hiring programmers, I would be very inclined to hire real engineers (of any stripe) than degreed "computer scientists"
When I started college, only a few Universities in the country even offered CS degrees. Most of my education was in engineering.
Having said that, I am employed as a software engineer, not as EE or Computer Engineer, as I had originally planned. Even so, I don't think many engineers would automatically make good programmers. Even today, despite claims to the contrary, much of programming is still as much art as science.
"Flipping the order of a linked list" might show that someone has rudimentary skill, but it doesn't demonstrate any degree of mastery.
I'm not saying the rule will work but having this rule at least may help in court if they get sued. At worst, it may only get them out of negligence even if they get stuck with some guilt in a court case. That's where the big money starts rolling in so it does help.
That's not the point. If they enforce the rules as written, it is as likely to GET them sued, as it is to save them from suits.
It is literally, and legally, not about "consent". It's about who has the rights to the pictures. If I owned the rights to the pictures, the model has no legal say in what I do with them. If he or she tried to interfere with my legal right to distribute, that would be grounds for a suit. Breach of contract, among other things.
No, Jane's not a lesbian. Jane fantasizes about fucking hot guys, so Jane wouldn't have an ex-girlfriend.
Easy to say anonymously via the internet. If we were face-to-face, I very much doubt you would have the guts to say these things. At least after you said them the first time.
What experience do you have with commercial nude photography? Were you working for Playgirl, or just taking pictures of topless women posing with a CGI hobbit?
It isn't just nude photography, it's ANY photography involving live models. Those are industry-standard contractual terms. I did do commercial photography for a time.
There are already Bluetooth tags small enough to put in your wallet which do the same thing, and they cost $10-$25, not the $80 being asked for one of these wallets pre-order.
Not something I'd invest in. It's already being done just as well, cheaper. In fact it's probably not even patentable, because it's not transformative at all. It's just two existing products put together.
As I've stated here many times before, the FAA was not given authority by Congress to rule all the air, everywhere. According to both the Air Commerce Act and the Constitution, they have authority over "Navigable" interstate airways, which in practice is designated altitudes and lanes, and areas around airports.
A Federal judge has already ruled that low-altitude drones which stay out of "Navigable" airspace are not under the jurisdiction of the FAA, regardless of whether they are commercial. The FAA has appealed the ruling, but given the facts as stated in the ruling, and the actual text of the Air Commerce Act and the clear intent of Congress when it was written, the FAA probably has not the slightest chance in hell of winning the appeal.
In the meantime, of course, they are trying to regulate everything in sight, to make it a "done deal" by the time the appeal gets to court. It won't matter.
Problem is..... short term thinking. The mindset of our era is corporate heads wanting quick turn around for profit. This is what Harper did to canada, he re-oriented the science division towards the oil sands "supporting industry" any serious research that requires any length or depth gets cut.
I agree that is "a" problem, but not THE problem. OP pretty much states it, even though stated more in the form of speculation or a question. The problem is a combination of "corporate capture", and corporate short-term thinking.
Slate TFA states it pretty much up-front in their conclusion: the FDA has been commercial-captured. This has been evident for decades but Congress has been unwilling to do anything about it. Because, let's face it: much of Congress has been commercial-captured, too. Not all of it, but some of it for sure.
I think the figures are suspect anyway. We'll hear claims about it for a while, then somebody will come up with more realistic figures putting the lie to it, but that will be ignored by the alarmists.
That has been the way it has usually worked in recent years.
I expect even before the numbers are refuted, they will start trying to take credit for cooler temperatures.
1) The victim needs to complain, and most will never even notice, and
2) It takes 15 seconds to make a throwaway account, and hours or even days for someone to notice, complain, and get a response; then, 15 seconds later...
Not only that, if Twitter enforces its rules the way they are stated, i.e.:
may not post intimate photos or videos that were taken or distributed without the subject's consent [emphasis added]
That "or" is crucial. Amost always, commercial nude photography pays the model (and of course it's consensual), but in exchange for pay, the photographer or company paying for the pictures retains all copy and distribution rights.
What that means, is that the photographer or company -- i.e. the copyright holder -- can distribute those photos without consent of the model, yet perfectly legally. Not only is it legal, it's the way it's usually done.
I warned when Reddit tried to do this that they were going to get themselves in hot water if they tried to enforce their rules as written. I now have to say the same about Twitter.
more freedom in what it can be allowed to label as a botnet.
Knowing government, their definition would turn out to include things like SETI at Home and Folding at Home. Then they'd ignore the ones they don't care about, and only prosecute the ones they felt were "bad" for some reason. But if the law covers them all, who knows what that reason might be on any given day?
That's the way they've done a lot of crap in the past! What we need is less government, not more.
The former argument doesn't lead to the latter. People have been using Alcohol in its various forms for at least several hundred years. It simply isn't true that we don't know what to do with it. The information is everywhere.
Somebody here is really good at making attractive straw-man arguments. I wonder who it could be?
No, we haven't had powdered alcohol for hundreds of years. We have, cannibis. My comment was specifically about why a comparison with Cannibis was not terribly appropriate.
Yes, through Franchise agreements with local municipalities.
That's a ludicrously simplistic view of a much larger picture. No, it isn't just through franchise agreements. One other way the oligopoly maintained its grip is through a virtual lock on access to the fiber "backbones" of the Internet.
Regardless of whether municipalities have agreements, they can't ACCESS the internet backbones except through those few providers. And without Title II and other regulation, there is nothing that says sharing access to the communications backbone is required.
The ONLY new player in broadband to come onto the scene in recent years has been Google. Ask yourself why. And I can tell you: only Google had the economic clout to elbow aside the other providers standing in its way.
That's very telling. It is solid evidence that the backbone is locked up and only huge, rich players are allowed in the game today. That's an effective oligopoly. Taking away local franchises would have zero effect on that. Therefore the only answer is regulation.
I'm really tired of hearing this bogus theory that the only problem is municipal franchise agreements. Sure, that has been A problem. But very far from the only one.
For the record, I'm not suggesting you be taken out and shot. I did not see your face when you wrote that.
But as the other poster said: accepting that it was the same bill would render the requirement that taxes originate in the House completely meaningless.
Since the Constitution definitely is NOT meaningless, and there were very good reasons for specifying taxes must originate in the House, attempts to do otherwise, no matter how convoluted and clever, are attempts to skirt the Constitution. That must not be allowed, also for very good reasons.
Um, the bill actually *did* originate in the house, at least technically it did. They took a totally unrelated hose bill, stripped everything out and then put the content of the senate bill in.
First, I would reverse this claim. Obamacare ostensibly originated in the House. It actually originated in the Senate.
As you say, the House bill passed to the Senate, the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009", was completely unrelated to health care in any way.
The Senate then attached its 3000-page amendment to the original bill, and gutted the original bill.
Anybody with two functioning synapses would have to admit that logically, everything about Obamacare originated in the Senate. The tax that originated in the House had absolutely nothing to do with health care at all, and wasn't what was passed. It was NOT "the same bill" in either name or content.
Calling it "the same bill" takes mental gymnastics of the highest order. Anybody who can really do that with a straight face should be taken out and shot, for the good of society.
FWIW, all sorts of crazy stuff is already happening with cannabis edibles in Colorado. Here's the fear and loathing article that made the rounds...
Maybe there's a good reason to pause given the public doesn't really know how to handle this stuff yet...
The former argument doesn't lead to the latter. People have been using Cannibis in its various forms for at least several hundred years. It simply isn't true that we don't know what to do with it. The information is everywhere.
Morons will be morons, no matter what tools they use to demonstrate it. That should NOT be a restriction on the rest of us.
Actually, yes, some would. There has been lots of talk by the Obama administration and the crony press about "official approval" of journalists, and also about suppressing speech, particularly in the area of "climate change".
Yep. Another false dichotomy. And an overgeneralization to boot.
It wasn't a "false dichotomy". You read far more into my comment than I actually wrote. It wasn't a "dichotomy" or choice of any kind.
I simply observed that it is almost exclusively liberals who want to impose further so-called "gun control" measures in the United States.
Almost no one wants to actually "take them away".
This is demonstrably false. In Washington State for example, liberals just passed a "universal background check" bill, which in effect makes it impractical for people to sell used guns to each other. The requirement is onerous, almost nobody will do it (as the people who fought for the bill well knew), and it is now illegal to sell or in some cases even loan a gun for a hunting trip to someone else unless you do.
If that isn't an attempt at "taking them away", I don't know what is. Strict regulation and banning only differ in terminology and time. The terminology lets them pretend it isn't an effective ban.
Under pressure from the Obama administration, the BATF attempted to ban the most widely-used ammunition for the most popular rifle in the United States. If that isn't an attempt to effectively take away, I don't know what is. Once again, they can put up a pretend front and say they didn't "ban" any guns... they just wanted to make them useless. And once again, in practice it's only a matter of semantics.
Are you trying to pretend that the people in Washington who did this were not overwhelmingly liberals? You would be wrong. Are you trying to pretend that the Obama administration is not "liberal"? Or more accurately, sees itself as "Progressive"? You would be wrong.
People can talk all they want about Reagan and other past events. But this is now. And NOW, today, it is overwhelmingly liberals who want to restrict guns. It's a simple fact. You can't talk your way out of it.
So you are attempting to excuse a massive generalisation based on nothing but some base hatred or distrust? Brilliant.
Absolutely not. I made the "massive" generalisation based on many years of experience with this issue. Granted, as someone else pointed out, that's only "anecdotal evidence". But it was not based on "hatred or distrust", just good old observation.
Where did you get "hatred or distrust" from what I wrote? Methinks thou dost protest too much.
It's far beyond that. You DON'T want to get the BATF annoyed with you.
The BATF processes paperwork like this, and for FFLs, all the time. There is no reason to assume that merely filing honest paperwork would get them "annoyed" at you.
There are lots of cases of BATF getting annoyed at faulty or otherwise improper paperwork. But the vast majority of those are dealers and sales outlets.
Making your own AR-15 and trying find a way to sell, give, or trade it is an effective way to find yourself "living in interesting times and coming to the attention of people in high places".
Sorry, but that's just WRONG. People do it all the time, and BATF made a very clear statement about that just recently in response to an inquiry from the press, publicly declaring it "perfectly legal" and something they do simply not bother with. Because, in fact, it is perfectly legal and always has been.
Yes I did. If you have temperature and light controlled conditions -- possibly even nitrogen gas -- where's the problem?
The only moving parts are switches and hard drives. Switches don't have problems lasting 100 years. And I have no reason to believe hard drives would, either.
But even if they DID, you have SSDs.
I fully expect that one of the two media would last 100 years.
And tell me how hurt are the phone companies from having to deal with their title 2 status? How about FedEx or UPS and their motor common carrier status under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935? You see all regulation as bad? Then you really should study our history and see why these regulations were absolutely necessary.
Thank you. I've made this argument several times before. Although I am pretty solidly Libertarian and I don't believe in UNnecessary regulation, Title II regulation for phone companies was necessary and it worked just fine for 60 years or more. And there is very good argument that it should have applied to the Internet from Day 1.
Big ISPs have a virtual monopoly on Broadband over more than 80% of the U.S. It's a de facto oligopoly, which free market -- as much as I believe in the concept -- won't fix. There IS a time for government regulation, and this is one of them.
Is this one of those things that both is and is not a tax depending on what you need for it to be Constitutional?
What, you mean like Obamacare?
The penalty fee was ruled by SCOTUS to be legal only if it's a tax. The big problem with that is: tax bills all have to originate in the House, but the Obamacare bill originated in the Senate.
The current suit against Obamacare that SCOTUS heard the other day is not the last one. There are others still waiting in the wings. But there's no point in hearing one suit until the other is settled, since all of them are challenging the law.
These things are still made with a certain amount of built in obsolescence in mind. Make them too durable, and you quickly saturate the market, resulting in a big price collapse. That's a big no-no.
There's nothing wrong with "price collapse" in tech markets. If it didn't happen to some degree all the time, it would still cost $2000 for a PC with 2MB RAM and a 10MB hard drive.
The only time "price collapse" is a problem is when it leads to monopoly. Which does not usually happen, since tech companies are not generally reliant on a single product.
"Price collapse" is one of those many largely-failed Keynesian concepts.
set up spreadsheets for each issue and use the cells to track progress
I endorse this idea, especially since OP expects to get a good software solution from a bunch of people he just insulted by implying they're religious nuts.
Slashdot Mirror
If I was hiring programmers, I would be very inclined to hire real engineers (of any stripe) than degreed "computer scientists"
When I started college, only a few Universities in the country even offered CS degrees. Most of my education was in engineering.
Having said that, I am employed as a software engineer, not as EE or Computer Engineer, as I had originally planned. Even so, I don't think many engineers would automatically make good programmers. Even today, despite claims to the contrary, much of programming is still as much art as science.
"Flipping the order of a linked list" might show that someone has rudimentary skill, but it doesn't demonstrate any degree of mastery.
I'm not saying the rule will work but having this rule at least may help in court if they get sued. At worst, it may only get them out of negligence even if they get stuck with some guilt in a court case. That's where the big money starts rolling in so it does help.
That's not the point. If they enforce the rules as written, it is as likely to GET them sued, as it is to save them from suits.
It is literally, and legally, not about "consent". It's about who has the rights to the pictures. If I owned the rights to the pictures, the model has no legal say in what I do with them. If he or she tried to interfere with my legal right to distribute, that would be grounds for a suit. Breach of contract, among other things.
No, Jane's not a lesbian. Jane fantasizes about fucking hot guys, so Jane wouldn't have an ex-girlfriend.
Easy to say anonymously via the internet. If we were face-to-face, I very much doubt you would have the guts to say these things. At least after you said them the first time.
What experience do you have with commercial nude photography? Were you working for Playgirl, or just taking pictures of topless women posing with a CGI hobbit?
It isn't just nude photography, it's ANY photography involving live models. Those are industry-standard contractual terms. I did do commercial photography for a time.
There are already Bluetooth tags small enough to put in your wallet which do the same thing, and they cost $10-$25, not the $80 being asked for one of these wallets pre-order.
Not something I'd invest in. It's already being done just as well, cheaper. In fact it's probably not even patentable, because it's not transformative at all. It's just two existing products put together.
I think you want to refer to the Commerce Clause.
As I've stated here many times before, the FAA was not given authority by Congress to rule all the air, everywhere. According to both the Air Commerce Act and the Constitution, they have authority over "Navigable" interstate airways, which in practice is designated altitudes and lanes, and areas around airports.
A Federal judge has already ruled that low-altitude drones which stay out of "Navigable" airspace are not under the jurisdiction of the FAA, regardless of whether they are commercial. The FAA has appealed the ruling, but given the facts as stated in the ruling, and the actual text of the Air Commerce Act and the clear intent of Congress when it was written, the FAA probably has not the slightest chance in hell of winning the appeal.
In the meantime, of course, they are trying to regulate everything in sight, to make it a "done deal" by the time the appeal gets to court. It won't matter.
Problem is... .. short term thinking. The mindset of our era is corporate heads wanting quick turn around for profit. This is what Harper did to canada, he re-oriented the science division towards the oil sands "supporting industry" any serious research that requires any length or depth gets cut.
I agree that is "a" problem, but not THE problem. OP pretty much states it, even though stated more in the form of speculation or a question. The problem is a combination of "corporate capture", and corporate short-term thinking.
Slate TFA states it pretty much up-front in their conclusion: the FDA has been commercial-captured. This has been evident for decades but Congress has been unwilling to do anything about it. Because, let's face it: much of Congress has been commercial-captured, too. Not all of it, but some of it for sure.
I think the figures are suspect anyway. We'll hear claims about it for a while, then somebody will come up with more realistic figures putting the lie to it, but that will be ignored by the alarmists.
That has been the way it has usually worked in recent years.
I expect even before the numbers are refuted, they will start trying to take credit for cooler temperatures.
1) The victim needs to complain, and most will never even notice, and 2) It takes 15 seconds to make a throwaway account, and hours or even days for someone to notice, complain, and get a response; then, 15 seconds later...
Not only that, if Twitter enforces its rules the way they are stated, i.e.:
may not post intimate photos or videos that were taken or distributed without the subject's consent [emphasis added]
That "or" is crucial. Amost always, commercial nude photography pays the model (and of course it's consensual), but in exchange for pay, the photographer or company paying for the pictures retains all copy and distribution rights.
What that means, is that the photographer or company -- i.e. the copyright holder -- can distribute those photos without consent of the model, yet perfectly legally. Not only is it legal, it's the way it's usually done.
I warned when Reddit tried to do this that they were going to get themselves in hot water if they tried to enforce their rules as written. I now have to say the same about Twitter.
more freedom in what it can be allowed to label as a botnet.
Knowing government, their definition would turn out to include things like SETI at Home and Folding at Home. Then they'd ignore the ones they don't care about, and only prosecute the ones they felt were "bad" for some reason. But if the law covers them all, who knows what that reason might be on any given day?
That's the way they've done a lot of crap in the past! What we need is less government, not more.
The former argument doesn't lead to the latter. People have been using Alcohol in its various forms for at least several hundred years. It simply isn't true that we don't know what to do with it. The information is everywhere.
Somebody here is really good at making attractive straw-man arguments. I wonder who it could be?
No, we haven't had powdered alcohol for hundreds of years. We have, cannibis. My comment was specifically about why a comparison with Cannibis was not terribly appropriate.
Yes, through Franchise agreements with local municipalities.
That's a ludicrously simplistic view of a much larger picture. No, it isn't just through franchise agreements. One other way the oligopoly maintained its grip is through a virtual lock on access to the fiber "backbones" of the Internet.
Regardless of whether municipalities have agreements, they can't ACCESS the internet backbones except through those few providers. And without Title II and other regulation, there is nothing that says sharing access to the communications backbone is required.
The ONLY new player in broadband to come onto the scene in recent years has been Google. Ask yourself why. And I can tell you: only Google had the economic clout to elbow aside the other providers standing in its way.
That's very telling. It is solid evidence that the backbone is locked up and only huge, rich players are allowed in the game today. That's an effective oligopoly. Taking away local franchises would have zero effect on that. Therefore the only answer is regulation.
I'm really tired of hearing this bogus theory that the only problem is municipal franchise agreements. Sure, that has been A problem. But very far from the only one.
For the record, I'm not suggesting you be taken out and shot. I did not see your face when you wrote that.
But as the other poster said: accepting that it was the same bill would render the requirement that taxes originate in the House completely meaningless.
Since the Constitution definitely is NOT meaningless, and there were very good reasons for specifying taxes must originate in the House, attempts to do otherwise, no matter how convoluted and clever, are attempts to skirt the Constitution. That must not be allowed, also for very good reasons.
Um, the bill actually *did* originate in the house, at least technically it did. They took a totally unrelated hose bill, stripped everything out and then put the content of the senate bill in.
First, I would reverse this claim. Obamacare ostensibly originated in the House. It actually originated in the Senate.
As you say, the House bill passed to the Senate, the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009", was completely unrelated to health care in any way.
The Senate then attached its 3000-page amendment to the original bill, and gutted the original bill.
Anybody with two functioning synapses would have to admit that logically, everything about Obamacare originated in the Senate. The tax that originated in the House had absolutely nothing to do with health care at all, and wasn't what was passed. It was NOT "the same bill" in either name or content.
Calling it "the same bill" takes mental gymnastics of the highest order. Anybody who can really do that with a straight face should be taken out and shot, for the good of society.
FWIW, all sorts of crazy stuff is already happening with cannabis edibles in Colorado. Here's the fear and loathing article that made the rounds...
Maybe there's a good reason to pause given the public doesn't really know how to handle this stuff yet...
The former argument doesn't lead to the latter. People have been using Cannibis in its various forms for at least several hundred years. It simply isn't true that we don't know what to do with it. The information is everywhere.
Morons will be morons, no matter what tools they use to demonstrate it. That should NOT be a restriction on the rest of us.
Would you license people to speak freely?
Actually, yes, some would. There has been lots of talk by the Obama administration and the crony press about "official approval" of journalists, and also about suppressing speech, particularly in the area of "climate change".
Yep. Another false dichotomy. And an overgeneralization to boot.
It wasn't a "false dichotomy". You read far more into my comment than I actually wrote. It wasn't a "dichotomy" or choice of any kind.
I simply observed that it is almost exclusively liberals who want to impose further so-called "gun control" measures in the United States.
Almost no one wants to actually "take them away".
This is demonstrably false. In Washington State for example, liberals just passed a "universal background check" bill, which in effect makes it impractical for people to sell used guns to each other. The requirement is onerous, almost nobody will do it (as the people who fought for the bill well knew), and it is now illegal to sell or in some cases even loan a gun for a hunting trip to someone else unless you do.
If that isn't an attempt at "taking them away", I don't know what is. Strict regulation and banning only differ in terminology and time. The terminology lets them pretend it isn't an effective ban.
Under pressure from the Obama administration, the BATF attempted to ban the most widely-used ammunition for the most popular rifle in the United States. If that isn't an attempt to effectively take away, I don't know what is. Once again, they can put up a pretend front and say they didn't "ban" any guns... they just wanted to make them useless. And once again, in practice it's only a matter of semantics.
Are you trying to pretend that the people in Washington who did this were not overwhelmingly liberals? You would be wrong. Are you trying to pretend that the Obama administration is not "liberal"? Or more accurately, sees itself as "Progressive"? You would be wrong.
People can talk all they want about Reagan and other past events. But this is now. And NOW, today, it is overwhelmingly liberals who want to restrict guns. It's a simple fact. You can't talk your way out of it.
So you are attempting to excuse a massive generalisation based on nothing but some base hatred or distrust? Brilliant.
Absolutely not. I made the "massive" generalisation based on many years of experience with this issue. Granted, as someone else pointed out, that's only "anecdotal evidence". But it was not based on "hatred or distrust", just good old observation.
Where did you get "hatred or distrust" from what I wrote? Methinks thou dost protest too much.
It's far beyond that. You DON'T want to get the BATF annoyed with you.
The BATF processes paperwork like this, and for FFLs, all the time. There is no reason to assume that merely filing honest paperwork would get them "annoyed" at you.
There are lots of cases of BATF getting annoyed at faulty or otherwise improper paperwork. But the vast majority of those are dealers and sales outlets.
Making your own AR-15 and trying find a way to sell, give, or trade it is an effective way to find yourself "living in interesting times and coming to the attention of people in high places".
Sorry, but that's just WRONG. People do it all the time, and BATF made a very clear statement about that just recently in response to an inquiry from the press, publicly declaring it "perfectly legal" and something they do simply not bother with. Because, in fact, it is perfectly legal and always has been.
Apparently neither did you:
Yes I did. If you have temperature and light controlled conditions -- possibly even nitrogen gas -- where's the problem?
The only moving parts are switches and hard drives. Switches don't have problems lasting 100 years. And I have no reason to believe hard drives would, either.
But even if they DID, you have SSDs.
I fully expect that one of the two media would last 100 years.
And tell me how hurt are the phone companies from having to deal with their title 2 status? How about FedEx or UPS and their motor common carrier status under the Motor Carrier Act of 1935? You see all regulation as bad? Then you really should study our history and see why these regulations were absolutely necessary.
Thank you. I've made this argument several times before. Although I am pretty solidly Libertarian and I don't believe in UNnecessary regulation, Title II regulation for phone companies was necessary and it worked just fine for 60 years or more. And there is very good argument that it should have applied to the Internet from Day 1.
Big ISPs have a virtual monopoly on Broadband over more than 80% of the U.S. It's a de facto oligopoly, which free market -- as much as I believe in the concept -- won't fix. There IS a time for government regulation, and this is one of them.
Is this one of those things that both is and is not a tax depending on what you need for it to be Constitutional?
What, you mean like Obamacare?
The penalty fee was ruled by SCOTUS to be legal only if it's a tax. The big problem with that is: tax bills all have to originate in the House, but the Obamacare bill originated in the Senate.
The current suit against Obamacare that SCOTUS heard the other day is not the last one. There are others still waiting in the wings. But there's no point in hearing one suit until the other is settled, since all of them are challenging the law.
These things are still made with a certain amount of built in obsolescence in mind. Make them too durable, and you quickly saturate the market, resulting in a big price collapse. That's a big no-no.
There's nothing wrong with "price collapse" in tech markets. If it didn't happen to some degree all the time, it would still cost $2000 for a PC with 2MB RAM and a 10MB hard drive.
The only time "price collapse" is a problem is when it leads to monopoly. Which does not usually happen, since tech companies are not generally reliant on a single product.
"Price collapse" is one of those many largely-failed Keynesian concepts.
Sectors are logical, not physical.
Which means, if GP were correct that the firmware is also store in main NAND... it's terribly bad design.
No doubt about it, firmware should be on its own physical chip.
set up spreadsheets for each issue and use the cells to track progress
I endorse this idea, especially since OP expects to get a good software solution from a bunch of people he just insulted by implying they're religious nuts.