It's definitely expensive. CVS, however, does not work better. In fact, CVS is much more limited in capabililty than Clearcase. CVS does work well, and is the right tool for many applications and development teams. However, if the project becomes large, distributed, or has many different builds and releases, Clearcase would work better in the long run.
I wanted to comment on this, since some *very* large projects do use CVS very successfully: NetBSD for one. I notice you say "work better in the long run" but didn't actually qualify that.
NetBSD has over 250,000 individual changesets just in the base source stretching back to the earliest import of the original NetBSD source tree, many GB of actual, hand-written code, and a huge number of distributed developers within core and without, release builds of -current as often as possible (sometimes nightly,) something like 70 platforms, at least 8 major releases and countless minors, a live CVS tree that thousands of people across the globe download from daily, and literally hundreds of branches: I find your statement about "large projects" in CVS to be slightly exaggerated. Or at least incorrectly implying that the size of the project is a limiting factor for CVS when it's obviously not.
Perhaps the branching functionality is superior, or perhaps the merging is better--fine, then say that. But don't try to imply that large projects can't thrive within CVS, because that's obviously factually incorrect just by counter-example.
Hopefully IBM will fix it: Incredibly expensive licenses, outlandishly complex tools, and requires extensive training to implement or even use.
Also, ClearCase isn't easily converted to another system if, for example, you decide one day that ClearCase licensing bites the big one, or that ClearCase is Just Too Damn Slow. They lock you in with a nasty proprietary format. Yuk.
Publish it through freenet, or anonymously through mixmasters to a list of subscribers.
Problem solved, and you're (mostly) protected. FreeNet is a superb example of peaceful civil disobedience, and quite frankly, if we have the power of superior technology (which we do) we need to employ that to Just Say No to the corporations that are screwing us all over.
The only thing that's needed now is a system by which collaborators on a project can do so completely anonymously. FreeNet CVS, anyone?
What are you talking about? It's not a positive step. What the hell does forging headers mean? What, we're all required to identify perfectly where the message came from? What about anonymizing proxies?
Keep this crap out of law and we're be the better for it. The moment you put it into law, you're screwed and it'll just be one more reason for me not to move from Canada.
It's internal, corporate email. You aren't a rep of the U.S. Postal Service, you're not an arbitrary third party entrusted with the delivery of a letter, and besides that, it was the guy who requested it who sent the letter to begin with! What difference does it make?
Anal system admins like you give us all a bad name.
You're talking about production costs. I'm not. You're looking at it in a completely different (and pointless) angle. Perhaps you should learn what the word rhetoric is so you can either avoid using it to try to snowball someone who can recognise it, or simply stop using it altogether.
Pay attention now: Do you have to pay a single cent *extra* in monetary fees to convert your machine to Linux? Do you have to follow *restrictive* licensing when installing, say, NetBSD? I'm talking about the direct cost to the end-user, and you're off in la-la land with your six degrees of Bacon.
It is free to use, free to modify, and free to redistribute to others. Once the cost of the initial software is born, the software becomes free and the potential return is unlimited.
But you're knocking down straw men anyway and seem to be ignoring the whole point: Just because software authors need to eat, doesn't mean that re-implementing the same algorithms over and over again should provide programmers with an endless living. That's just stupid.
I say it yet again, since you seem to enjoy rhetoric: Free software made the Internet possible. Linux is a free lunch. Your idea of "sustainable" software development is a needless waste of talent which could be better applied developing *new* solutions to other problems, and free software (which the FSF has kindly defined) is the most efficient way of maximizing the return on the initial cost of development that there is. With infinite potential return, the limit of the ratio of the cost to develop to the return on investment approaches zero as time approaches infinity. Free software thus has no cost to develop, and thus you are just plain wrong anyway.
As a bonus to me, I also hope that whichever free software author who duplicates your commercial offering puts you out of a job.
If the drives come down in price enough that RAID becomes just a tad cheaper, we have nothing to worry about, regardless of what the individual drives' MTBF are. A big mirrored array. Piece of cake. Plus you can often get much faster disk accesses too..!
Yay, a bad Heinlein quote that doesn't apply yet tricks moderators into liking you for your silly catch-phrases!
Go ahead, twist my "free software" definition into something it isn't. Let me explain, because you're obviously a few bricks short of a load:
Free Software means software that can be re-used, sold, re-distributed, modified, and so on, by the public, for any purpose.
And Linux is a free lunch. Check your facts. What, all these people giving away their work FOR FREE are an abomination? Then why are so many people doing it? Are you going to try to relegate them to genetic abnormality now?
So! Now that you're enlightened (you did ask "What's free," I say it again: The Internet would not be possible without free software.
Nice. You're talking as though there was no investment of time on the part of the cloner, as though they shouldn't have the ability to reverse the software they legitimately have access to (for the purposes of interoperability, for example,) and as though there have been no innovations in open-source--just pure mindless copying.
You, sir, are the worst kind of nay-sayer--the kind that ignores all the brilliance that's been donated to your own freedoms. Without that, we'd be locked into something far, far worse. You owe the Internet to free software: not in the sense of having to pay it back, but in the sense that the Internet wouldn't exist without free software.
So quiet, you, you're missing the point and the historical record.
In an AWD WRX, it's simple to throw the vehicle into an inertial drift. But when I want to use torque to all four wheels to pull out of the drift, you can bet that my control is going to be superior to yours. It's a question of how much friction I can apply to my driving. And if I can't, it's purely a result of whatever sneaky technology BMW has tossed into their vehicle, and not because of what's actually physically possible. A good AWD car *should* *always* beat a good RWD car unless you start trying to tell me that engine power has to be the same, or you're allowed to spend $20,000 more than me, or what-have-you.
Don't sit there and lie to the other readers that AWD cars can't oversteer, because they can and do. All the time. On dry asphalt or slippery gravel.
Your "dynamic balancing" is buzzword wannabe balogna. All you're saying is you can swing your ass-end out so you don't have to worry so much about flipping the car over, and so you can use the now-spinning rear wheels to push you in towards the radial centre of the curve you're sliding through. My WRX can do precisely the same thing, but with all four tires.
Your RWD just lets you be sloppier at it.
Now pay attention here, because I don't want to have to repeat myself:
You (and all the other M3 apologists) are trying to tell me that your RWD M3 can handle tighter corners, on steeper roads than a suitably equipped AWD vehicle can. Listen to yourself--you're missing an entire control variable because the best you can do with your front tires to control them is APPLY THE BRAKES, control shocks, etc. In an AWD, one can APPLY BRAKES, control shocks, AND APPLY TORQUE.
I don't know why you don't think that's a no-brainer. Oh wait, yes I do. Because there are no AWD M3's. The moment you get it, you'll be crowing it all over the place and saying to people like me "In your face!" And I'll be grudgingly telling you you have a great car. Until then? Stop wasting our time by continuing this charade.
And by Nurburgring, I was *NOT* comparing the WRX to your M3. The WRX has short gear ratios that are better suited for quick acceleration and twisted, rally-style roads. It's not a GT vehicle. I *WAS* comparing the M3 with the Nissan Skyline V33 GT-R or V34. The Skyline has longer gear ratios stock, a more powerful engine, and is built as a GT vehicle. It just happens to be AWD. And it would eat any BMW for breakfast. And it's cheaper to boot. And it's infinitely more reliable.
I never said WRX was better at absolutely everything. I just said the WRX is better at everything that *counts*, and for LESS money can be made into a vastly superior vehicle than your M3 *all around*. Sure, stock WRX can't touch you in some things. Big deal. Add in $15,000 of parts (still.. what? $30,000 less than your M3, give or take?) and any decent driver will kick your M3's ass up and down any road you'd care to race him on.
As a final, parting shot, in a high-traction road with deep curves in it, the WRX is superior. In a straight line, we can't beat your gear ratios without replacing our own. It's quite simple, really. I don't know why you're trying to tell our future readers something that defies simple physics.
Oh, and one more thing.. if you're actually trying to sit there and tell me that the rally-bred Evo VII, the rally-bred WRX, or the incredibly powerful Skyline series from Nissan won't be able to out-turn your pathetic RWD M3, you're smoking some really bad crack and should switch dealers.
OoooOOoo.. 30 mph on the side of a mountain without falling off? Ignoring the obvious fallacy of your logic (what's the radius of the curve, what're the road conditions, what are the angles of inclination, etc) that's just a stupid statement to make. RWD vehicle gets stuck with a pile of oversteer--that's why on those M3 videos you see the wheels are cranked and the car is sliding sideways around the track's curves. It's called "I can't use torque to the front wheels to help me steer around this curve."
So go ahead and think you can win your little autocross trophies--come visit me in the long-distance rallies, and bring your precious BMW.
(And Skylines eat BMWs for breakfast at Burburgring everytime they compete.)
And one more thing--if you're doing 120mph and someone crashes right in front of you, it's no longer a question of vehicle performance, it's a question of--were you too close to react or not? No car in the world makes you a better driver. Just some make your mistakes count less. And my AWD WRX with it's variable torque distribution is going to out-steer your M3 any day of the week.
That's great--but all of you BMW freaks are missing something: the M3 isn't AWD. It's RWD. That means in any rally, in any unstable conditions, and in any curves, the WRX limit of traction is superior to yours. There just isn't any arguing with that--an AWD vehicle has superior possible grip, superior possible handling, superior possible acceleration.. The amount of friction that an AWD can apply to forward motion is HIGHER. The fact that you're trying to argue that point just means you are just as clueless as I thought you were.
While you're stuck in an oversteer slide, I get to hug the road, squat down and introduce you to the sweet smell of my exhaust.
You aren't actually trying to tell me that you're going to be able to trash an AWD vehicle like the Skyline v33? Both on the straightaways and on any curve you can introduce me to, the Skyline will kick your ass up and down the road.
There's only so much that computer-controlled suspension, shocks, brakes, etc can get you if you can't direct actual horsepower to the front wheels.
Hey-- your rear-wheel drive hunk of junk BMW won't *ever* touch an AWD Japanese supercar like the v33 or v34 Skyline. No matter how much you tune it, no matter how much you mod it, it just won't happen.
I'd eat my own boxers if I ever saw an M3 chasing down (and beating) the ungodly Godzilla.
Even the WRX--tuned up (and using less money than the M3 costs)--will eat M3 for lunch. Stock, fine, doesn't touch it, but the car costs half as much--what do you expect? BMW releasing a vehicle that's 80K USD (or more) that can't even overtake a simple WRX? No, so they pump it up with horsepower and "gee whiz" SMG.
A WRX isn't a riceboy car--it's quite expensive and comes with kick-ass performance stock. Riceboy means making your vehicle "LOOK FAST"--not "look good" nor "fast". Engine performance mods don't qualify as riceboy.
Don't believe me? Go visit the Riceboy pages themselves:
BMW has one of the crappiest price:performance ratios there is. When you buy a BMW, you don't pay for the engine, the traction control, nor the handling.. They have worse stopping distances, worse 0-60's, worse quarter miles, and worse stability than comparably priced alternatives.
All you're paying for is the name, and the reason why people consider the BMW a yuppie car is because it is. Why else buy a vehicle that fares so poorly against the competition?
Heck, you can pick up a Mercedes that has superior handling, superior comfort, superior power, and superior control for only slightly more--plus you get all the creature comforts that come with a Mercedes (like that cool sound system that cancels out the noise from punks who pull up next to you with their 600-watt stereos on full blast, or the windshield wipers that regulate themselves.) Unfortunately you also have to deal with the Mercedes dealers, who are notoriously difficult--try picking up your first Mercedes in white (oh sorry, "Ivory") when you're under 30, no matter how much money you make.
No, if you want the best performance for your buck, pick up an APS-tuned RT-Spec WRX or a tricked out Nissan Skyline GTR (preferably the R33 v-spec.) You'll get a better ride, better road-handling, superior drivability, and if you're in Canada, you'll tear through snow and mountain passes better than any SUV on the highway, I promise.
I and my (adult) friends have destroyed every BMW we met on the empty highway who's stepped up to the plate, and we've done it with vehicles ranging from Subaru WRXen to Mazda RX7s to Toyota Supras. While you're speeding around with your sooper-dooper BMW M3 (with SMG! yay!) I'll be blowing your doors off with an APS-Tuned WRX that cost me half what yours cost you. While you're typing your video-game code to get you to launch off the mark, I'll be already down the highway, waving bye-bye with my tail lights.
So don't waste your time with BMW. Be a snob right back at them and show them that they can't impress you with their name alone.
Just a quick note: BMW drivers themselves are damn nice and very honourable and this isn't a dig against you. You guys have been gold every time I share the road with you--unlike those damn VW drivers who try to run me into speed traps and cut me off and tromp your brakes at every goddamn opportunity--geez, if you can't take that my vehicle is better than yours, why are you trying to kill me? Why not just back off like I do when we come up to traffic? Why cut them off as well? They didn't do anything! Every friggin VW driver I've ever trolled has gone completely insane and done things like cut in between two-lane traffic, or pulled in front of me with only inches to spare, or what-have-you. VW people, GET HELP.
Why waste your time with a Viper when you get get a Gozilla and smoke any M3, any Viper, and any WRX with a few simple engine mods?
Why waste your time with RWD when you can have 600-700 HP at all four wheels?
Cut your losses and read your original contract you had with them: does it say that you are entitled to any benefits or some kind of extra-long notice before being fired?
That's the important thing--if they are firing you before your original contract says they can (and making you leave before then) then you get whatever the contract says you get. usually it's in the form of pay that you would've made if you had worked there for the length of the notice.
Otherwise, it's just a simple matter of whatever the labour laws in the province you work say is the minimum notice they have to give you.
Don't sign the goddamn papers, and go find another job and quit whining here. Two weeks, dude. That's all anyone is required by law to give you in BC, for example.
"Draconian." Give me a break. It's not draconian if you don't sign it, right?
And if you want the severance--too bad. They're dangling a carrot in front of your nose. Bite it and you get to find out it's laced with something you knew was there to begin with. Boo hoo.
There's nothing wrong with a male protagonist, and your daughter's unwillingness to read books with male protagonists suggests a rejection of male role models.
Looks to me like you're just another one of those whipped geeks who's let your wife walk all over you since you got married and now your daughter's picking up on it--why would she want to be whipped just like you? Why would she be interested in math when geeks like you like math?
Slashdot Mirror
Without it, people could irc from multi-user systems with complete impunity.
I wanted to comment on this, since some *very* large projects do use CVS very successfully: NetBSD for one. I notice you say "work better in the long run" but didn't actually qualify that.
NetBSD has over 250,000 individual changesets just in the base source stretching back to the earliest import of the original NetBSD source tree, many GB of actual, hand-written code, and a huge number of distributed developers within core and without, release builds of -current as often as possible (sometimes nightly,) something like 70 platforms, at least 8 major releases and countless minors, a live CVS tree that thousands of people across the globe download from daily, and literally hundreds of branches: I find your statement about "large projects" in CVS to be slightly exaggerated. Or at least incorrectly implying that the size of the project is a limiting factor for CVS when it's obviously not.
Perhaps the branching functionality is superior, or perhaps the merging is better--fine, then say that. But don't try to imply that large projects can't thrive within CVS, because that's obviously factually incorrect just by counter-example.
Hopefully IBM will fix it: Incredibly expensive licenses, outlandishly complex tools, and requires extensive training to implement or even use.
Also, ClearCase isn't easily converted to another system if, for example, you decide one day that ClearCase licensing bites the big one, or that ClearCase is Just Too Damn Slow. They lock you in with a nasty proprietary format. Yuk.
This tutorial wasn't the end-all be-all of such a programming contest?
.. 45 is it?
And why is the shortest entry an incredibly huge 102 bytes when the above link does something similar in
It would've been more of a contest if the program was supposed to do something more than output a string like that.
..go back to your Microsoft cronies..!
Oh, there's no site quite like Slashdot but for Windows? Make one! We're busy being open-source zealots here. Bugger off!
Publish it through freenet, or anonymously through mixmasters to a list of subscribers.
Problem solved, and you're (mostly) protected. FreeNet is a superb example of peaceful civil disobedience, and quite frankly, if we have the power of superior technology (which we do) we need to employ that to Just Say No to the corporations that are screwing us all over.
The only thing that's needed now is a system by which collaborators on a project can do so completely anonymously. FreeNet CVS, anyone?
sheesh.
Gladly.. very, very gladly.
What are you talking about? It's not a positive step. What the hell does forging headers mean? What, we're all required to identify perfectly where the message came from? What about anonymizing proxies?
Keep this crap out of law and we're be the better for it. The moment you put it into law, you're screwed and it'll just be one more reason for me not to move from Canada.
...that a simple slashdotting took down this "monster" server?
It's internal, corporate email. You aren't a rep of the U.S. Postal Service, you're not an arbitrary third party entrusted with the delivery of a letter, and besides that, it was the guy who requested it who sent the letter to begin with! What difference does it make?
Anal system admins like you give us all a bad name.
You're talking about production costs. I'm not. You're looking at it in a completely different (and pointless) angle. Perhaps you should learn what the word rhetoric is so you can either avoid using it to try to snowball someone who can recognise it, or simply stop using it altogether.
Pay attention now: Do you have to pay a single cent *extra* in monetary fees to convert your machine to Linux? Do you have to follow *restrictive* licensing when installing, say, NetBSD? I'm talking about the direct cost to the end-user, and you're off in la-la land with your six degrees of Bacon.
It is free to use, free to modify, and free to redistribute to others. Once the cost of the initial software is born, the software becomes free and the potential return is unlimited.
But you're knocking down straw men anyway and seem to be ignoring the whole point: Just because software authors need to eat, doesn't mean that re-implementing the same algorithms over and over again should provide programmers with an endless living. That's just stupid.
I say it yet again, since you seem to enjoy rhetoric: Free software made the Internet possible. Linux is a free lunch. Your idea of "sustainable" software development is a needless waste of talent which could be better applied developing *new* solutions to other problems, and free software (which the FSF has kindly defined) is the most efficient way of maximizing the return on the initial cost of development that there is. With infinite potential return, the limit of the ratio of the cost to develop to the return on investment approaches zero as time approaches infinity. Free software thus has no cost to develop, and thus you are just plain wrong anyway.
As a bonus to me, I also hope that whichever free software author who duplicates your commercial offering puts you out of a job.
If the drives come down in price enough that RAID becomes just a tad cheaper, we have nothing to worry about, regardless of what the individual drives' MTBF are. A big mirrored array. Piece of cake. Plus you can often get much faster disk accesses too..!
Yay, a bad Heinlein quote that doesn't apply yet tricks moderators into liking you for your silly catch-phrases!
Go ahead, twist my "free software" definition into something it isn't. Let me explain, because you're obviously a few bricks short of a load:
Free Software means software that can be re-used, sold, re-distributed, modified, and so on, by the public, for any purpose.
And Linux is a free lunch. Check your facts. What, all these people giving away their work FOR FREE are an abomination? Then why are so many people doing it? Are you going to try to relegate them to genetic abnormality now?
So! Now that you're enlightened (you did ask "What's free," I say it again: The Internet would not be possible without free software.
Nice. You're talking as though there was no investment of time on the part of the cloner, as though they shouldn't have the ability to reverse the software they legitimately have access to (for the purposes of interoperability, for example,) and as though there have been no innovations in open-source--just pure mindless copying.
You, sir, are the worst kind of nay-sayer--the kind that ignores all the brilliance that's been donated to your own freedoms. Without that, we'd be locked into something far, far worse. You owe the Internet to free software: not in the sense of having to pay it back, but in the sense that the Internet wouldn't exist without free software.
So quiet, you, you're missing the point and the historical record.
Okay, let's get a few responses:
In an AWD WRX, it's simple to throw the vehicle into an inertial drift. But when I want to use torque to all four wheels to pull out of the drift, you can bet that my control is going to be superior to yours. It's a question of how much friction I can apply to my driving. And if I can't, it's purely a result of whatever sneaky technology BMW has tossed into their vehicle, and not because of what's actually physically possible. A good AWD car *should* *always* beat a good RWD car unless you start trying to tell me that engine power has to be the same, or you're allowed to spend $20,000 more than me, or what-have-you.
Don't sit there and lie to the other readers that AWD cars can't oversteer, because they can and do. All the time. On dry asphalt or slippery gravel.
Your "dynamic balancing" is buzzword wannabe balogna. All you're saying is you can swing your ass-end out so you don't have to worry so much about flipping the car over, and so you can use the now-spinning rear wheels to push you in towards the radial centre of the curve you're sliding through. My WRX can do precisely the same thing, but with all four tires.
Your RWD just lets you be sloppier at it.
Now pay attention here, because I don't want to have to repeat myself:
You (and all the other M3 apologists) are trying to tell me that your RWD M3 can handle tighter corners, on steeper roads than a suitably equipped AWD vehicle can. Listen to yourself--you're missing an entire control variable because the best you can do with your front tires to control them is APPLY THE BRAKES, control shocks, etc. In an AWD, one can APPLY BRAKES, control shocks, AND APPLY TORQUE.
I don't know why you don't think that's a no-brainer. Oh wait, yes I do. Because there are no AWD M3's. The moment you get it, you'll be crowing it all over the place and saying to people like me "In your face!" And I'll be grudgingly telling you you have a great car. Until then? Stop wasting our time by continuing this charade.
And by Nurburgring, I was *NOT* comparing the WRX to your M3. The WRX has short gear ratios that are better suited for quick acceleration and twisted, rally-style roads. It's not a GT vehicle. I *WAS* comparing the M3 with the Nissan Skyline V33 GT-R or V34. The Skyline has longer gear ratios stock, a more powerful engine, and is built as a GT vehicle. It just happens to be AWD. And it would eat any BMW for breakfast. And it's cheaper to boot. And it's infinitely more reliable.
I never said WRX was better at absolutely everything. I just said the WRX is better at everything that *counts*, and for LESS money can be made into a vastly superior vehicle than your M3 *all around*. Sure, stock WRX can't touch you in some things. Big deal. Add in $15,000 of parts (still.. what? $30,000 less than your M3, give or take?) and any decent driver will kick your M3's ass up and down any road you'd care to race him on.
As a final, parting shot, in a high-traction road with deep curves in it, the WRX is superior. In a straight line, we can't beat your gear ratios without replacing our own. It's quite simple, really. I don't know why you're trying to tell our future readers something that defies simple physics.
Oh, and one more thing.. if you're actually trying to sit there and tell me that the rally-bred Evo VII, the rally-bred WRX, or the incredibly powerful Skyline series from Nissan won't be able to out-turn your pathetic RWD M3, you're smoking some really bad crack and should switch dealers.
OoooOOoo.. 30 mph on the side of a mountain without falling off? Ignoring the obvious fallacy of your logic (what's the radius of the curve, what're the road conditions, what are the angles of inclination, etc) that's just a stupid statement to make. RWD vehicle gets stuck with a pile of oversteer--that's why on those M3 videos you see the wheels are cranked and the car is sliding sideways around the track's curves. It's called "I can't use torque to the front wheels to help me steer around this curve."
So go ahead and think you can win your little autocross trophies--come visit me in the long-distance rallies, and bring your precious BMW.
(And Skylines eat BMWs for breakfast at Burburgring everytime they compete.)
And one more thing--if you're doing 120mph and someone crashes right in front of you, it's no longer a question of vehicle performance, it's a question of--were you too close to react or not? No car in the world makes you a better driver. Just some make your mistakes count less. And my AWD WRX with it's variable torque distribution is going to out-steer your M3 any day of the week.
That's great--but all of you BMW freaks are missing something: the M3 isn't AWD. It's RWD. That means in any rally, in any unstable conditions, and in any curves, the WRX limit of traction is superior to yours. There just isn't any arguing with that--an AWD vehicle has superior possible grip, superior possible handling, superior possible acceleration.. The amount of friction that an AWD can apply to forward motion is HIGHER. The fact that you're trying to argue that point just means you are just as clueless as I thought you were.
While you're stuck in an oversteer slide, I get to hug the road, squat down and introduce you to the sweet smell of my exhaust.
You aren't actually trying to tell me that you're going to be able to trash an AWD vehicle like the Skyline v33? Both on the straightaways and on any curve you can introduce me to, the Skyline will kick your ass up and down the road.
There's only so much that computer-controlled suspension, shocks, brakes, etc can get you if you can't direct actual horsepower to the front wheels.
Duh..
Hey-- your rear-wheel drive hunk of junk BMW won't *ever* touch an AWD Japanese supercar like the v33 or v34 Skyline. No matter how much you tune it, no matter how much you mod it, it just won't happen.
I'd eat my own boxers if I ever saw an M3 chasing down (and beating) the ungodly Godzilla.
Even the WRX--tuned up (and using less money than the M3 costs)--will eat M3 for lunch. Stock, fine, doesn't touch it, but the car costs half as much--what do you expect? BMW releasing a vehicle that's 80K USD (or more) that can't even overtake a simple WRX? No, so they pump it up with horsepower and "gee whiz" SMG.
A WRX isn't a riceboy car--it's quite expensive and comes with kick-ass performance stock. Riceboy means making your vehicle "LOOK FAST"--not "look good" nor "fast". Engine performance mods don't qualify as riceboy.
Don't believe me? Go visit the Riceboy pages themselves:
www.riceboypage.com
BMW has one of the crappiest price:performance ratios there is. When you buy a BMW, you don't pay for the engine, the traction control, nor the handling.. They have worse stopping distances, worse 0-60's, worse quarter miles, and worse stability than comparably priced alternatives.
All you're paying for is the name, and the reason why people consider the BMW a yuppie car is because it is. Why else buy a vehicle that fares so poorly against the competition?
Heck, you can pick up a Mercedes that has superior handling, superior comfort, superior power, and superior control for only slightly more--plus you get all the creature comforts that come with a Mercedes (like that cool sound system that cancels out the noise from punks who pull up next to you with their 600-watt stereos on full blast, or the windshield wipers that regulate themselves.) Unfortunately you also have to deal with the Mercedes dealers, who are notoriously difficult--try picking up your first Mercedes in white (oh sorry, "Ivory") when you're under 30, no matter how much money you make.
No, if you want the best performance for your buck, pick up an APS-tuned RT-Spec WRX or a tricked out Nissan Skyline GTR (preferably the R33 v-spec.) You'll get a better ride, better road-handling, superior drivability, and if you're in Canada, you'll tear through snow and mountain passes better than any SUV on the highway, I promise.
I and my (adult) friends have destroyed every BMW we met on the empty highway who's stepped up to the plate, and we've done it with vehicles ranging from Subaru WRXen to Mazda RX7s to Toyota Supras. While you're speeding around with your sooper-dooper BMW M3 (with SMG! yay!) I'll be blowing your doors off with an APS-Tuned WRX that cost me half what yours cost you. While you're typing your video-game code to get you to launch off the mark, I'll be already down the highway, waving bye-bye with my tail lights.
So don't waste your time with BMW. Be a snob right back at them and show them that they can't impress you with their name alone.
Just a quick note: BMW drivers themselves are damn nice and very honourable and this isn't a dig against you. You guys have been gold every time I share the road with you--unlike those damn VW drivers who try to run me into speed traps and cut me off and tromp your brakes at every goddamn opportunity--geez, if you can't take that my vehicle is better than yours, why are you trying to kill me? Why not just back off like I do when we come up to traffic? Why cut them off as well? They didn't do anything! Every friggin VW driver I've ever trolled has gone completely insane and done things like cut in between two-lane traffic, or pulled in front of me with only inches to spare, or what-have-you. VW people, GET HELP.
Why waste your time with a Viper when you get get a Gozilla and smoke any M3, any Viper, and any WRX with a few simple engine mods? Why waste your time with RWD when you can have 600-700 HP at all four wheels?
Cut your losses and read your original contract you had with them: does it say that you are entitled to any benefits or some kind of extra-long notice before being fired?
That's the important thing--if they are firing you before your original contract says they can (and making you leave before then) then you get whatever the contract says you get. usually it's in the form of pay that you would've made if you had worked there for the length of the notice.
Otherwise, it's just a simple matter of whatever the labour laws in the province you work say is the minimum notice they have to give you.
Don't sign the goddamn papers, and go find another job and quit whining here. Two weeks, dude. That's all anyone is required by law to give you in BC, for example.
"Draconian." Give me a break. It's not draconian if you don't sign it, right?
And if you want the severance--too bad. They're dangling a carrot in front of your nose. Bite it and you get to find out it's laced with something you knew was there to begin with. Boo hoo.
What the hell are you talking about?
Kids can learn and thrive on, math as early as kindergarten. "Not metally ready." What kind of crack are you smoking?
You didn't even explain what you meant. What, will their heads explode if they learn math before grade 5?
(For a single case study, I knew how to divide and multiply before I entered grade 1.)
Don't listen to the parent of this message, the guy doesn't know what the hell he's bloody well talking about.
... not to be quite so much of a faminazi.
There's nothing wrong with a male protagonist, and your daughter's unwillingness to read books with male protagonists suggests a rejection of male role models.
Looks to me like you're just another one of those whipped geeks who's let your wife walk all over you since you got married and now your daughter's picking up on it--why would she want to be whipped just like you? Why would she be interested in math when geeks like you like math?
Whoah. I'm stuck in twilight zone land. Everyone here is supportive. Ouch.
What happened to the "software patents are evil" crowd? We don't even know what kind of idea this dork has!