It actually is a Star Trek reference, Scotty said it in Star Trek 6 (1991) with the full scottish accent. There is no similar Wing Commander quote, and Wing Commander ships didn't even have cloaking devices until the sequel, which came out in 1992. Star Trek had cloaking devices in the mid-80's, and it was almost certainly the inspiration for WC cloaked ships being unable to fire while cloaked.
They are supposed to be discounts, but they don't necessarily keep up with the pace of the standard ticket rates. At a different time of year he may have saved a couple hundred bucks with the bereavement rate.
Craigslist.com/obituaries would overtake newspaper obituaries in about 6 months. Why have they not done this yet? A nominal fee to prevent pranksters and they'll dominate the market in no time.
So why the need for the paper if it's such a community?
Why do you think they have to charge $450 for a death notice? I'll go ahead and tell you since you should have gotten it as soon as you asked your question: it's because they aren't making squat on subscriptions because hardly anybody reads the paper any more!
The latest New York Times commercial highlights the Style and Travel sections as primary selling points for their paper, they don't even mention any news. Nobody buys a paper for the news any more, because it's already a day late and a dollar short by then. At that point, a newspaper subscription just for the style section is a complete waste to most people, thus, readerships are way down across the board.
Newspapers have utterly failed to adapt with the changing times, and I will be very surprised if they are still around as a source of news in another ten years.
Damn, what kind of shit-hole school are you going to? I go to a small tech school, and yeah it's primarily Microsoft, but they do teach a little Linux (required for all CS courses) and the Linux classes are very good. They are more network engineering focused rather than programming, so there aren't many programming classes, it's mostly Windows, hardware, and an crap-load of Cisco.
Damn, that's good to know. Visual Studio + MSDN usually runs about $600 minimum. $600 is still a pretty good deal considering you get a half dozen pieces of software that cost around $5k each included. It's only for development purposes, of course *ahem*.
...the thing that I have found increasingly unattractive about FOSS in general is that it all too often becomes an exercise in cliquishness and faddishness to the exclusion of actually serving users...
(emphasis mine)
You've just hit the nail on the head - FOSS comes from a Unix culture, and Unix has never been concerned about the end user. In the Unix world, the System Administrator is the end user, so the entire thing is geared toward making things easier from an administrative point of view. This is why everything is command line based, everything is kept in plain-text config files, etc. Linux obviously inherited this from Unix, and FOSS has inherited this from Linux. Only the rare project like OO.org and others that are plainly and obviously intended for people who are not going to be willing or able to modify the software have any kind of focus on serving the user.
Case in point, look at GUIs in Linux. KDE gives you a billion options, GNOME gives you three. For heaven's sake, is there no middle ground? And neither one of them look as nice as OSX or Windows, though they do now seem to be competing with a version of Windows that is almost a decade old.
Seriously, this is why only nerds and masochists use Linux. For anybody who doesn't feel like spending all of their time tweaking the operating system, they just use Windows or OSX. There is nothing Linux can do that either of those can't, am I supposed to torture myself just to save 50 bucks on the price of a computer? Get real.
That turned into a bit of an anti-Linux rant, but it all comes down to the fact that people are going to develop for the systems they use. If more people want to use Windows, more people are going to develop for Windows. Add to that a barrier to entry of 4 million lines of code, and it's no wonder new developers are shunning the Linux kernel.
Indeed, my local paper did an article on a few 20-somethings in my city who were pulling in six figures easy after banging out a couple moderately successful iPhone apps. My city is not exactly a hotbed of software developement.
Why the hell would you tackle a massive, convoluted kernel project for not even so much as a little recognition, let alone any sort of monetary reward, when you could bang out a couple iPhone apps and pull in a hundred grand a year?
While that sets you apart from many of us, it also reveals Windows on your desktop. Why?
I don't use monitors on my Unix servers...
I don't know if you know this, but nobody puts monitors on Windows servers either. A dedicated monitor for a server of any kind is generally absurd. Usually the most you can expect is a KVM console in a server rack, for those cases where you're troubleshooting a network issue or something else has gone very wrong.
Yeah, I know it's hyperbole, but after your "putty" comment above, it's a fail.
I don't see why, putty is a pretty popular remote terminal app, I work with a few guys who use a windows port to remote into DCS machines from their windows boxes. Or are you saying it's a fail because he might be accessing a CLI from a GUI? That's pretty retarded, GUIs are wonderful things for certain things, CLI is just more efficient if you know the commands and their syntax.
Since we're playing the age game for some reason, I'm 26, and I don't play games any more.;) I gave up Linux because I didn't need it for work, and the GUI is still utter shit compared to a version of Windows that is a decade old, never mind trying to compare it to a modern version of Windows or OSX.
Linux dev tools are a pain in the ass to use compared to MS's Visual Studio line. You're either dealing with a glorified text editor or you've got an IDE that's so complicated and convoluted you won't master it even after using it every day for 5 years. No useful tool should be that complicated, because it's the code you should care about, not the tool itself. Contrast that with VS, where you can crank out good code fast without an absurd learning curve, and it's pretty easy to see why MS products are more popular, particularly among new programmers.
And if you really really want to go the text editor route, MS gives away all its compilers and runtime libraries for free. They only sell the IDE.
If some college kid can get better results than coders who have been working on the kernel for 20 years, then that's great.
Thing is, that is very rare at this stage of Linux maturity.
Hence fewer and fewer young new developers working on the Linux kernel each year. At this point, most of the new kernel developers who actually contribute are going to be experienced developers from other areas who have decided to work on the kernel, and young developers will need to work on smaller, less complicated projects to build experience.
Linus was able to start the Linux kernel because he was bright and nobody else was doing it. He got it to work, and work pretty well, but it was nowhere near as good as it could have been. Every year since then the experience needed to be able to work on the kernel has grown. This is not some arbitrary level they are setting; as the quality of the code improves, the quality needed in order to contribute to the project increases. Quality code generally comes from experience in dealing with the myriad of programming pitfalls one experiences throughout the years. Linus and the other early kernel developers have simply grown with the project; they are much better programmers than they were when they started out, so they move right along with it.
No, reputation does not stop bad companies from getting good people... Right now there is 10% unemployment in this country, should I get a job with evil company X or do I want to lose, my house and not eat tomorrow?
I know it's harsh to hear this, but most everyone currently unemployed cannot be counted as "good" relative to their field. They are there because they were the first ones to be cut (and sometimes second, third, or fourth). That doesn't speak well to their value in their particular industry. A lot of people think they are really good at what they do, but they generally aren't nearly as good as they think they are, or their field is so competitive that being simply "good" doesn't cut the mustard.
Most of the good employees still have jobs. Most of the great employees work at companies with a good reputation (that's how they attract and keep great employees).
If certification was a condition of employment - i.e. they needed a certified Cisco network engineer, then it is up to the employee to maintain it. If your certification expires and you do not get re-certified, you do not meet the conditions of employment any more and you are essentially committing a breach of contract. Reimbursing such re-certifications is generally considered the decent and is almost always the best way to handle the situation for an employer (for a number of reasons, namely morale and loyalty), but if it is a condition of employment it is ultimately up to the employee to meet their end of the bargain. Firing an employee for not maintaining his certifications is perfectly reasonable, if rather harsh.
On the flip side, if you, say, took a lower paying position on the condition that the employer will be paying for your certification training and testing, then you have every right to demand that training and testing. It's a condition of employment that the employer pay, and they'll be breaching the contract if they don't.
Last but not least, if certification was not a condition of employment on either side, then the employee does not have the right to demand reimbursement for certification, and the employer does not have the right to demand that the employee maintain certification. However, if the employer decides they want the employee to be certified, the employee has every right to expect reimbursement.
See how that works?
All this:
It's a matter of "reasonableness", "human rights", working hours laws and social justice
is bullshit. You don't have a right to impose things on the other party, period. If you demand reimbursement for certification when the employer did not promise any reimbursement, then you have the right to quit and the employer can fire you. Simple. If the employer demands certification but refuses to reimburse, you have to weigh your options - it may well be worth paying for the certification, or you might be better of just quitting. If your skills are in demand, then you'll find a new job. If they aren't, then you don't have leverage anyway, and you'll probably have to deal with it until change or your skills improve and are in more demand (certification often helps here).
It really pisses me off when people demand that others pay for everything. Why can't you pay your own way? Yeah, a lot of times there is enough mutual benefit that others would be willing to pay, but forcing them is bullshit. All you "social justice" ninnies are just little whiny bitches. Go put some effort into yourself and quit expecting everyone to pay your way in life. Dammit.
Ash is abrasive. Any idiot who has washed their hands with LAVA soap can attest to that.
LAVA soap isn't made of ash, dumbass, it's made of pumice. Pumice is a product of volcanoes, but not one that goes floating in the air (it does go hurtling through the air, but that's different). It is also thousands of times more coarse than ash - ash is finer than the finest sands you can find. The individual grains are extremely hard and jagged, and thus very abrasive, but they will also move largely with the air - i.e. as the jet engine creates a flow through it, most of the ash is going to pass right on by and only a very small amount will actually be abrading the engine parts.
That said, I'm no aeronautical engineer, so I wouldn't have a clue about how much these engines can handle. I'd be inclined to think they'll just have to replace various engine parts a lot sooner than they ordinarily would need to though, given that several flights have already been safely made. The commercial flights are also going to be flying through as little ash as possible, unlike the Finnish pilots who flew right through the heart of it. That most certainly will make a big difference in the amount of wear caused by the ash cloud.
I don't know if you know this, but prop planes are still powered by IC engines, that's why they have a giant prop instead of turbine blades. As such, they still take off from dusty areas just fine. The trouble is the quantity of fine ash - there is a shitload of it during an eruption, and this is a very long eruption.
The problem with ash is that it is extremely fine yet very hard. Air filters good enough to block it clog very quickly, after which point your IC engine seizes up. Also, those "relatively robust pistons of steal and iron" aren't nearly as robust as you seem to think they are. Have you ever heard of sabotaging an engine by pouring a little sand or iron filings in the oil? Just a few grains in the combustion chamber can grab the sides of the pistons and seize them in a heartbeat. Volcanic ash acts exactly the same way, it's fine grains of rock - it's very bad news for an IC engine if it gets inside. We get volcanic eruptions near where I live, and for this very reason you can't go driving around once the ash starts falling to the ground. You won't get more than a few miles at best before your engine stalls from lack of air - or if you had a really crappy filter, you may have hosed all your pistons (very not cool).
Jet engines should actually fair a lot better than an ICE, because the air is flowing through continuously. The ash isn't going to be pounding hard on the turbine blades, it's very fine and will move with the air, but it is extremely abrasive. The wear you'll see is in pitting of the turbine blades and exposed metal of areas like the burn chamber. There isn't anything that ash will cause to stop instantly like in an ICE, though you will see a hell of a lot more wear on metal parts (an ICE will seize long before there is significant wear on the system).
...a massive corporation intent on re-establishing its cashflow...
I don't know if you know this, but big corporations don't get to be big corporations by spending more money in repairs than they receive in receipts. In other words, if the big corporations are clamoring to get back in the skies in the middle of a volcano after verifying the safety of the passengers, you know damage to equipment is going to be less than the receipts they'll get from flights.
In other words, as long as the safety of the passengers is maintained, who the hell cares if they fly? If you're concerned about flying through an ash cloud and don't want to "risk it" (even though there is likely little or no actual risk to you), then don't buy the damn ticket and don't get on the damn plane.
You do realize that the oil industry [reuters.com] has quite a few tax subsidies [rff.org] also, don't you? They've been getting them for years.
Sorry, but $2-36 billion in subsidies for the entire oil industry (from both links, the first I'm pretty sure is extremely inflated given the fact that even Greenpeace gives $35 billion as their highest estimate) doesn't seem that significant, considering Exxon alone paid $30 billion in taxes in 2007. Also, the oil industry pays a 4-5% higher tax rate than the rest of the market, so a 1-2% break doesn't seem all that bad, considering they already pay more than everybody else.
Add to that state and local taxes and you're looking at half of all revenues from the oil industry going to either a state or federal government.
If you bring the taxes more in line with the rest of the market and drop the subsidies, the oil industry is definitely economically viable. Do the same with nuclear, solar, or wind and the same is not true.
Anyway, back on topic, I'm all for putting public records online. Public records should be public, and since we have the technology to make public records easily accessible, we should do so.
If making a particular type of public record easily accessible causes significant harm, then we should be debating whether or not such records should be public in the first place, not whether or not they should be easily accessible.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, Wonder Woman wouldn't have cared and Super Man didn't know, but man would that have sucked to be the Invisible Man.
They've built this stuff, it's just they've only built them ultra tiny so far.
"Look! I flip the switch and now you can't even see it!"
"But I couldn't see it before you flipped the switch either!"
It actually is a Star Trek reference, Scotty said it in Star Trek 6 (1991) with the full scottish accent. There is no similar Wing Commander quote, and Wing Commander ships didn't even have cloaking devices until the sequel, which came out in 1992. Star Trek had cloaking devices in the mid-80's, and it was almost certainly the inspiration for WC cloaked ships being unable to fire while cloaked.
Yeah, but have you seen Jobs's lunch kit? OMG I want one! ;)
They are supposed to be discounts, but they don't necessarily keep up with the pace of the standard ticket rates. At a different time of year he may have saved a couple hundred bucks with the bereavement rate.
Nah, they're just really, really big. ;)
Craigslist.com/obituaries would overtake newspaper obituaries in about 6 months. Why have they not done this yet? A nominal fee to prevent pranksters and they'll dominate the market in no time.
So why the need for the paper if it's such a community?
Why do you think they have to charge $450 for a death notice? I'll go ahead and tell you since you should have gotten it as soon as you asked your question: it's because they aren't making squat on subscriptions because hardly anybody reads the paper any more!
The latest New York Times commercial highlights the Style and Travel sections as primary selling points for their paper, they don't even mention any news. Nobody buys a paper for the news any more, because it's already a day late and a dollar short by then. At that point, a newspaper subscription just for the style section is a complete waste to most people, thus, readerships are way down across the board.
Newspapers have utterly failed to adapt with the changing times, and I will be very surprised if they are still around as a source of news in another ten years.
Damn, what kind of shit-hole school are you going to? I go to a small tech school, and yeah it's primarily Microsoft, but they do teach a little Linux (required for all CS courses) and the Linux classes are very good. They are more network engineering focused rather than programming, so there aren't many programming classes, it's mostly Windows, hardware, and an crap-load of Cisco.
Damn, that's good to know. Visual Studio + MSDN usually runs about $600 minimum. $600 is still a pretty good deal considering you get a half dozen pieces of software that cost around $5k each included. It's only for development purposes, of course *ahem*.
...the thing that I have found increasingly unattractive about FOSS in general is that it all too often becomes an exercise in cliquishness and faddishness to the exclusion of actually serving users...
(emphasis mine)
You've just hit the nail on the head - FOSS comes from a Unix culture, and Unix has never been concerned about the end user. In the Unix world, the System Administrator is the end user, so the entire thing is geared toward making things easier from an administrative point of view. This is why everything is command line based, everything is kept in plain-text config files, etc. Linux obviously inherited this from Unix, and FOSS has inherited this from Linux. Only the rare project like OO.org and others that are plainly and obviously intended for people who are not going to be willing or able to modify the software have any kind of focus on serving the user.
Case in point, look at GUIs in Linux. KDE gives you a billion options, GNOME gives you three. For heaven's sake, is there no middle ground? And neither one of them look as nice as OSX or Windows, though they do now seem to be competing with a version of Windows that is almost a decade old.
Seriously, this is why only nerds and masochists use Linux. For anybody who doesn't feel like spending all of their time tweaking the operating system, they just use Windows or OSX. There is nothing Linux can do that either of those can't, am I supposed to torture myself just to save 50 bucks on the price of a computer? Get real.
That turned into a bit of an anti-Linux rant, but it all comes down to the fact that people are going to develop for the systems they use. If more people want to use Windows, more people are going to develop for Windows. Add to that a barrier to entry of 4 million lines of code, and it's no wonder new developers are shunning the Linux kernel.
No, I don't think you did.
Indeed, my local paper did an article on a few 20-somethings in my city who were pulling in six figures easy after banging out a couple moderately successful iPhone apps. My city is not exactly a hotbed of software developement.
Why the hell would you tackle a massive, convoluted kernel project for not even so much as a little recognition, let alone any sort of monetary reward, when you could bang out a couple iPhone apps and pull in a hundred grand a year?
Seriously, what moron chooses the former?
While that sets you apart from many of us, it also reveals Windows on your desktop. Why?
I don't use monitors on my Unix servers...
I don't know if you know this, but nobody puts monitors on Windows servers either. A dedicated monitor for a server of any kind is generally absurd. Usually the most you can expect is a KVM console in a server rack, for those cases where you're troubleshooting a network issue or something else has gone very wrong.
Yeah, I know it's hyperbole, but after your "putty" comment above, it's a fail.
I don't see why, putty is a pretty popular remote terminal app, I work with a few guys who use a windows port to remote into DCS machines from their windows boxes. Or are you saying it's a fail because he might be accessing a CLI from a GUI? That's pretty retarded, GUIs are wonderful things for certain things, CLI is just more efficient if you know the commands and their syntax.
Since we're playing the age game for some reason, I'm 26, and I don't play games any more. ;) I gave up Linux because I didn't need it for work, and the GUI is still utter shit compared to a version of Windows that is a decade old, never mind trying to compare it to a modern version of Windows or OSX.
Linux dev tools are a pain in the ass to use compared to MS's Visual Studio line. You're either dealing with a glorified text editor or you've got an IDE that's so complicated and convoluted you won't master it even after using it every day for 5 years. No useful tool should be that complicated, because it's the code you should care about, not the tool itself. Contrast that with VS, where you can crank out good code fast without an absurd learning curve, and it's pretty easy to see why MS products are more popular, particularly among new programmers.
And if you really really want to go the text editor route, MS gives away all its compilers and runtime libraries for free. They only sell the IDE.
If some college kid can get better results than coders who have been working on the kernel for 20 years, then that's great.
Thing is, that is very rare at this stage of Linux maturity.
Hence fewer and fewer young new developers working on the Linux kernel each year. At this point, most of the new kernel developers who actually contribute are going to be experienced developers from other areas who have decided to work on the kernel, and young developers will need to work on smaller, less complicated projects to build experience.
Linus was able to start the Linux kernel because he was bright and nobody else was doing it. He got it to work, and work pretty well, but it was nowhere near as good as it could have been. Every year since then the experience needed to be able to work on the kernel has grown. This is not some arbitrary level they are setting; as the quality of the code improves, the quality needed in order to contribute to the project increases. Quality code generally comes from experience in dealing with the myriad of programming pitfalls one experiences throughout the years. Linus and the other early kernel developers have simply grown with the project; they are much better programmers than they were when they started out, so they move right along with it.
No, reputation does not stop bad companies from getting good people... Right now there is 10% unemployment in this country, should I get a job with evil company X or do I want to lose, my house and not eat tomorrow?
I know it's harsh to hear this, but most everyone currently unemployed cannot be counted as "good" relative to their field. They are there because they were the first ones to be cut (and sometimes second, third, or fourth). That doesn't speak well to their value in their particular industry. A lot of people think they are really good at what they do, but they generally aren't nearly as good as they think they are, or their field is so competitive that being simply "good" doesn't cut the mustard.
Most of the good employees still have jobs. Most of the great employees work at companies with a good reputation (that's how they attract and keep great employees).
If certification was a condition of employment - i.e. they needed a certified Cisco network engineer, then it is up to the employee to maintain it. If your certification expires and you do not get re-certified, you do not meet the conditions of employment any more and you are essentially committing a breach of contract. Reimbursing such re-certifications is generally considered the decent and is almost always the best way to handle the situation for an employer (for a number of reasons, namely morale and loyalty), but if it is a condition of employment it is ultimately up to the employee to meet their end of the bargain. Firing an employee for not maintaining his certifications is perfectly reasonable, if rather harsh.
On the flip side, if you, say, took a lower paying position on the condition that the employer will be paying for your certification training and testing, then you have every right to demand that training and testing. It's a condition of employment that the employer pay, and they'll be breaching the contract if they don't.
Last but not least, if certification was not a condition of employment on either side, then the employee does not have the right to demand reimbursement for certification, and the employer does not have the right to demand that the employee maintain certification. However, if the employer decides they want the employee to be certified, the employee has every right to expect reimbursement.
See how that works?
All this:
It's a matter of "reasonableness", "human rights", working hours laws and social justice
is bullshit. You don't have a right to impose things on the other party, period. If you demand reimbursement for certification when the employer did not promise any reimbursement, then you have the right to quit and the employer can fire you. Simple. If the employer demands certification but refuses to reimburse, you have to weigh your options - it may well be worth paying for the certification, or you might be better of just quitting. If your skills are in demand, then you'll find a new job. If they aren't, then you don't have leverage anyway, and you'll probably have to deal with it until change or your skills improve and are in more demand (certification often helps here).
It really pisses me off when people demand that others pay for everything. Why can't you pay your own way? Yeah, a lot of times there is enough mutual benefit that others would be willing to pay, but forcing them is bullshit. All you "social justice" ninnies are just little whiny bitches. Go put some effort into yourself and quit expecting everyone to pay your way in life. Dammit.
Silicon Valley is still where it's at, but things have been slowly moving away from there since the 90's.
Ash is abrasive. Any idiot who has washed their hands with LAVA soap can attest to that.
LAVA soap isn't made of ash, dumbass, it's made of pumice. Pumice is a product of volcanoes, but not one that goes floating in the air (it does go hurtling through the air, but that's different). It is also thousands of times more coarse than ash - ash is finer than the finest sands you can find. The individual grains are extremely hard and jagged, and thus very abrasive, but they will also move largely with the air - i.e. as the jet engine creates a flow through it, most of the ash is going to pass right on by and only a very small amount will actually be abrading the engine parts.
That said, I'm no aeronautical engineer, so I wouldn't have a clue about how much these engines can handle. I'd be inclined to think they'll just have to replace various engine parts a lot sooner than they ordinarily would need to though, given that several flights have already been safely made. The commercial flights are also going to be flying through as little ash as possible, unlike the Finnish pilots who flew right through the heart of it. That most certainly will make a big difference in the amount of wear caused by the ash cloud.
I don't know if you know this, but prop planes are still powered by IC engines, that's why they have a giant prop instead of turbine blades. As such, they still take off from dusty areas just fine. The trouble is the quantity of fine ash - there is a shitload of it during an eruption, and this is a very long eruption.
The problem with ash is that it is extremely fine yet very hard. Air filters good enough to block it clog very quickly, after which point your IC engine seizes up. Also, those "relatively robust pistons of steal and iron" aren't nearly as robust as you seem to think they are. Have you ever heard of sabotaging an engine by pouring a little sand or iron filings in the oil? Just a few grains in the combustion chamber can grab the sides of the pistons and seize them in a heartbeat. Volcanic ash acts exactly the same way, it's fine grains of rock - it's very bad news for an IC engine if it gets inside. We get volcanic eruptions near where I live, and for this very reason you can't go driving around once the ash starts falling to the ground. You won't get more than a few miles at best before your engine stalls from lack of air - or if you had a really crappy filter, you may have hosed all your pistons (very not cool).
Jet engines should actually fair a lot better than an ICE, because the air is flowing through continuously. The ash isn't going to be pounding hard on the turbine blades, it's very fine and will move with the air, but it is extremely abrasive. The wear you'll see is in pitting of the turbine blades and exposed metal of areas like the burn chamber. There isn't anything that ash will cause to stop instantly like in an ICE, though you will see a hell of a lot more wear on metal parts (an ICE will seize long before there is significant wear on the system).
...a massive corporation intent on re-establishing its cashflow ...
I don't know if you know this, but big corporations don't get to be big corporations by spending more money in repairs than they receive in receipts. In other words, if the big corporations are clamoring to get back in the skies in the middle of a volcano after verifying the safety of the passengers, you know damage to equipment is going to be less than the receipts they'll get from flights.
In other words, as long as the safety of the passengers is maintained, who the hell cares if they fly? If you're concerned about flying through an ash cloud and don't want to "risk it" (even though there is likely little or no actual risk to you), then don't buy the damn ticket and don't get on the damn plane.
Isn't it just amazing how that works?
RTFA
What's not nerdy or newsworthy about network attacks on an IP-PBX system?
Or are we to assume that because someone is a nerd they must know everything about everything? If that were the case, why would nerds need news?
You do realize that the oil industry [reuters.com] has quite a few tax subsidies [rff.org] also, don't you? They've been getting them for years.
Sorry, but $2-36 billion in subsidies for the entire oil industry (from both links, the first I'm pretty sure is extremely inflated given the fact that even Greenpeace gives $35 billion as their highest estimate) doesn't seem that significant, considering Exxon alone paid $30 billion in taxes in 2007. Also, the oil industry pays a 4-5% higher tax rate than the rest of the market, so a 1-2% break doesn't seem all that bad, considering they already pay more than everybody else.
Add to that state and local taxes and you're looking at half of all revenues from the oil industry going to either a state or federal government.
If you bring the taxes more in line with the rest of the market and drop the subsidies, the oil industry is definitely economically viable. Do the same with nuclear, solar, or wind and the same is not true.
Anyway, back on topic, I'm all for putting public records online. Public records should be public, and since we have the technology to make public records easily accessible, we should do so.
If making a particular type of public record easily accessible causes significant harm, then we should be debating whether or not such records should be public in the first place, not whether or not they should be easily accessible.