Why *should* you care about excluding people? People with a disability? Slashdot really brings out the best in people...
Yes, it does. You might be able to hide your race, sex, physical disabilities, or even the fact that you're actually a sophisticated AI from the planet Zoobie, but one thing you can't hide is stupidity.
As the parent to your post said, "The free market is a great thing.", but as you correctly respond, "As long as it doesn't create a tyrrany of the majority."
Even in a free-market run by a yee-hah, gung-ho, capitialist-loving, laissez-faire, small government (which is what I'd like to see), there is still plenty of room and justification for looking out for the little guy.
It's just like unions. At the heart, the union is a communist concept (notice the little case 'c'). This doesn't make it inherently evil, just like large, powerful corporations aren't inherently good. A reasonable balance however, is best for everyone.
I think this whole issue of rights of media users will ultimately culminate in 99% of people simply becoming criminals in the eyes of an ever increasing burden of laws. A few examples will be made on occasion but everyone will go about their business and just hope they don't win the anti-lottery... just like it is with speed limits.
And to a large extent you are absolutely right. However, take mail privatization as an example. If the U.S. mail (the U.S. is the best example because it's so big, but has a pretty good mail service all things considered) were to be privatized, who's going to force a private carrier to provide reasonable mail service to RFD 2 in Scuffboot, Nebraska. If utilities are privatized and the power companies decide that it's just too expensive to provide those few folks with electricity, what's their recourse.
I think it's reasonable for the government to set some basic standards for access, both physical and electronic for businesses, which like all citizens, benefit from government services. However, as with anything this can be and is taken too far. Of course, if IE didn't suck so bad, this probably wouldn't even be an issue.
I have to say though that this case seems to fall under the same realm as hacking the DVD encryption to watch "The Matrix" on your DVD-enabled Linux box. I admit I didn't RTFA, but I suspect there's another less obvious issue driving Odeon's decision to require the site to come down.
Free market should be the first and overriding principal, but in an advanced and benevolent society, I think there's room for the government to enshrine certain basic guarantees. The problem is that each of 10000 things might seem reasonable but the cumulative effect is burdensome beyond all reasonability.
It's definitely a problem of lots of countries. There's a legitimate issue between people like Disney and people like the massive video pirates in China, it's just that in addressing this issue, it's always the customers who get screwed. Piracy doesn't end and Disney gets a perpetual monopoly on silly little line drawings on crumbling nitrate stock from 80 years ago.
That's the problem with these well-intentioned laws. When someone wants to flout them, the effort to correct the problem seems to be insurmountable. I'm sure there will be lawsuits and court orders and a whole bunch of people's productivity being sucked down a black hole (willingly or not), before this is said and done.
The problem stems from the fact that in our society (modern Western democracies anyway), we are so buried in an avalanche of regulations that there is no way you can even be aware of them all, and when one that is particularly useful... such as a law requiring handicapped access, enforcement becomes infeasible because so much effort is being wasted to meet the utter explosion of bureaucratic requirements.
We already work about half the year just to pay taxes, and when we can work for ourselves how big does the proportion of time we spend dealing with red tape have to be before people get fed up. We are being nickel-and-dimed into losing productivity. Meanwhile this Web site apparently ignores the law and it will probably be months or years before anything can be done about it because the people who could do something about it are too busy making sure that all government contractors are using 7/64" bevelled grommets instead of 3/32" bevelled grommets.
Actually, all we really need to do is restore the copyright to the letter and intention of the writers of the Constitution. If it weren't for the horrendous abuses imposed by Congress in the last few decades, Fair Use would not be such a problem. The fact that Congress has been bought to all but eliminate any rights of the consumer is what we need to change. You're probably right though, it would take an amendment to change that. In fact, not even that would be enough since the Constitution seems to function only as a vague guide to the legislatures (and even worse, the Courts). The checks and balances are failing. That's the real problem, and it's a far, far bigger problem than anything to do with music or movies.
The 9th and 10th amendments say that those powers not specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states, but those have been largely ignored since the late 1800's.
The irony ofcourse being that things don't really get that much faster. A secretary will still take roughly the same time to type out a letter as a decade ago. The current weakest link in the speed chain is the human, and computers spend their time waiting on us.
The real irony is that software isn't really faster. App load times have not changed significantly in 10 years. MS Office is slower than ever. I tried Visual Studio.NET when it came out and it compiled the exact same code as VS6 about 4 times slower. (Maybe it's better now.) I don't see software getting faster, unless of course you consider lean, mean OSS apps like Firefox or Thunderbird where the goal is to get things done and not simply add more checkmarks to some marketing flunkie's wish list.
Not that I expect it to happen soon, but it would be nice if more effort went into computational linguistics.
But that would require work. Adding new skins is where it's at in innovation. Making Windows apps look like Web pages is what's taken the place of innovation for the last 5 years. Making things easier? I can do more, but it sure ain't easier. When video files on computers hit critical mass you needed a different player for each format. Then ActiveMovie came out and all of a sudden you could play most video files with one simple app. Now that there are eighty-bazillion codecs out there, WMP can't play anything unless you laboriously find out what the codec is, find the appropriate software, download it and install it. Sure DivX is better, but it's as much or more trouble to use it than it was for whatever was the hot stuff 10 years ago.
p.s. DivX has some copy protection scheme screws with your system. Don't use 5.1.1 if you want to run a debugger. Even the free version.
You do realize I said the "American Liberal" version of Goebbels. In other words, I was not implying anything other than his propoganda techniques, which are deceptive at best and often outright lies. Moore is a hateful elitest that loathes this country, it's way of life and citizens, and no amount of him saying with puppy dog eyes that he loves America can hide the fact that he bashes this country and its citizens every chance he can get, how can you love something you constantly call "evil". People who complain about the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage (rightly so, IMO) will often gullibly swallow Moore's histrionics without question (Tom Daschle call your office). I think Limbaugh and Savage are at least more honest about who and what they are. Moore does raise some valid points, but he's too busy stroking his own ego, showing us how clever a smart-ass he thinks he is, and wallowing in liberal self-hate to have any credibility.
I would point you this as a brief example of how utterly deceptive Moore is. And it's not limited proponents of opposing ideology. I would direct you liberals Christopher Hitchens, who uses the word "lies" a lot when talking about the content of Moore's movie, or Richard Cohen, who in the Washington Post started taking notes on the movie and gave up because of the sheer "stupidity" of it. His word. The problem with the folks on/., generally being naive, uninformed college-age or near-college-age people (as I once was, but at least I wasn't liberal;-) is that they fall into that trap of hating Bush so much they will buy anything that supports their point of view. Eight years ago, we saw the same stupidity on the right concerning President Clinton, who despite being an utter sleazeball, did do a significant number of positive things for the country.
In fact, Michael Moore himself clearly targets almost exclusively what Karl Marx called "useful idiots", those easily manipulated, unquestioning folks who will buy any mindless rhetoric. Smarter people who simply agree with him can take him for what he is, but that's not the point of his movie.
If I said "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot", I would probably get a score of 5, but if I say "Michael Moore is a big, fat stupid white man." it will probably get modded a troll. If I criticize President Bush (and there are plenty of things to criticize), everyone thinks I'm smart thoughtful poster, but if I show support for him (which I do... overall I think he's a great President), I'm considered a stupid right-wing nutjob who wants to create an American Taliban.
You can't deny there's a pretty disgusting double standard around here. That's why I prefer the technical stuff. News for nerds, you know.
It's a shame that Disney released a a very positive movie about America last weekend (I can't even recall the name, which shows how much coverage it got), which from what I read, in a completely non-partisan and non-political way, shows inspirational stories that demonstrate what makes this country. It probably made about $47. People would rather watch the cynical, bitter fat guy who hates America. That's sad.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Try criticizing Michael Moore some time. The majority of these people are so ignorant or deluded that they don't realize this guy is just the American liberal Josef Goebbels, and his movies don't hold up to even most cursory of scrutiny. But if you mention that on/., you get modded into oblivion.
This guy should be on a stamp. This is exactly the kind of philanthropy and forward-thinking that brought us Linux, and while Sediq will porobably never become rich, he is making contributions to society just as if he were rich.
By the way, I just noticed half of a paragraph in my last post I meant to take out entirely. I was talking about a place I used to work out developing C++ in a style that would have looked archaic 15 years ago. It was a nightmare.
Radiation was cool/hip in the 50's and 60's when the comics were written, and passe when SP1 came out.
When SP2 comes out, automatic firewalls will be the the new hotness mutation.
Seriously though, in the days of Shelley's "Frankenstein", electricity was the "new hotness mutation". The effects are the same, but we change the causes to take advantage of the latest buzzwords. I'm sure when they remake "Spiderman" in 3D Holovid in 2050, the spider will have been altered with tachyons or (insert your favorite Star Trek-like technobable that becomes reality here).
(p.s. IANAP... tachyons are still considered only theoretical, right?)
But then, what good is a microscopic amount of tritium going to be as a plot device?
About the same amount of good as having your main character get a small welt and mild itching after being bitten by a genetically-engineered spider.;-)
I'm so sick of reading these nitpicker lists where 98% of the so-called errors are trivial continuity errors. Real issues are fun to read and discuss, but I don't really give a crap that George Castanza didn't have the ketchup in his hand when they cut to Jerry, but Jerry's witty rejoinder makes him squirt ketchup across the table when he jump cuts back. Big deal. On the other hand, real plot holes or complete inconsistencies can be fun to talk about. For instance when Michael Moore claims Bush let the Saudis out of the U.S. when all the planes were grounded, pointing out the fact that it was actually Richard Clarke (the _terrorism_ guy) and the flight ban had been lifted, so nothing wrong was done is useful and instructive. That's an error worth pointing out. Unfortunately, these lists are usually just exercises in people's powers of observing insignificant minutia, and the fact that directors often flip the film (or even run it backwards like they did in helicopter shot in The Two Towers) seems to provide the majority of the issues.
Here's one for free: In "This Island Earth" Dr. Meacham and his lady friend duck under the water to escape the explosion of the car driven by Russell Johnson's character. The next scene shows them stepping onto land and they are clearly dry. Woo hoo! I'm a GENIUS!
The reward for such powers of perceptiveness were skillfully and cleverly satirized by the infamous Marvel No-Prize, until the dolt readers became incensed that they never got anything and Marvel actually had to start sending something out.
So you're saying some information is worse than none? How ridiculous. I seen many examples of bugs and problems that could have been avoided by simply prefixing "p" in front of a variable name that's a pointer. Much of the information you describe is described by the name of the variable. Beyond that you have to read the code a little bit. Consistent use of variable names and a decently-designed class library (or at least something less cryptic than STL, which sacrifices everything that makes C++ good for performance) will solve the other problems. If your class library is appropriately designed, you will be forced to treat your data in the way it needs to be treated. Quoting and encoding will be properly handled. Data source should be irrelevant because all data would be treated the same, and automatically translated as appropriate. Allocation, locking and other issues will be handled simply and consistently by a well-designed class (often the constuctor and destructor can be used to handle these things transparently). You can't blame Hungarian notation for a lack of proper encapsulation and data abstraction. If you are going to code like that, go back to Fortran.
And the "maintenance cost" you speak of? If the change is a fundamental type change (say a pointer to a reference, rather than an int to a long), then you'd better check all those instances of a variable because you're liable to have problems (even if it compiles).
Hungarian notation won't make a stupid coder smart, but it will certainly help a smart coder avoid mistakes. I'm a smart coder; I can't speak for the rest of the world.
Hungarian notation or at least some subset of it, is a lingua franca that exists primarily in Windows programming due to an attempt to move away from IOCCC candidate coding with one character variable names or inscrutable naming conventions and abbreviations. The other step is consistency in the API's and libraries, something Windows fails at miserably, and MFC is only somewhat better. The code is would have written for these clowns would have required a minute fraction of the development and maintenance that their archaic "design" required, and yet they were proud of their ignorance. Oh well, it's no spin off the government's teeth, because they can just piss more millions as needed. I'll stick to private concerns where getting work done efficiently actually matters.
The last company I worked for was not run by PHB's, because PHB's don't realize they are stupid. These people were deliberately stupid. When my supervisor complained that my use of Hungarian notation was confusing and meaningless to her, I pointed out that the first Windows book you open up will... at which point the project engineer raised his hand to interrupt and said, simply "We don't read books here."
Needless to say, it was a government contractor for the U.S. military.
Now I work for a very small company too. My boss is the owner of the business, and he's a really sharp guy who appreciates me and my talents, and I him. Assuming the business doesn't fail (always a risk with startups), I believe it will be a very fruitful relationship. It made the contrast even more stark with my last job and drove home to me how miserable I was there. Sad to say, I've only ever been happy when I've worked primarily by myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the sign wouldn't be too bad if it was on the menu of a Korean restaurant.
<rimshot>
Why *should* you care about excluding people? People with a disability? Slashdot really brings out the best in people...
Yes, it does. You might be able to hide your race, sex, physical disabilities, or even the fact that you're actually a sophisticated AI from the planet Zoobie, but one thing you can't hide is stupidity.
As the parent to your post said, "The free market is a great thing.", but as you correctly respond, "As long as it doesn't create a tyrrany of the majority."
Even in a free-market run by a yee-hah, gung-ho, capitialist-loving, laissez-faire, small government (which is what I'd like to see), there is still plenty of room and justification for looking out for the little guy.
It's just like unions. At the heart, the union is a communist concept (notice the little case 'c'). This doesn't make it inherently evil, just like large, powerful corporations aren't inherently good. A reasonable balance however, is best for everyone.
s/principal/principle
An extra thought to justify replying to myself:
I think this whole issue of rights of media users will ultimately culminate in 99% of people simply becoming criminals in the eyes of an ever increasing burden of laws. A few examples will be made on occasion but everyone will go about their business and just hope they don't win the anti-lottery... just like it is with speed limits.
And to a large extent you are absolutely right. However, take mail privatization as an example. If the U.S. mail (the U.S. is the best example because it's so big, but has a pretty good mail service all things considered) were to be privatized, who's going to force a private carrier to provide reasonable mail service to RFD 2 in Scuffboot, Nebraska. If utilities are privatized and the power companies decide that it's just too expensive to provide those few folks with electricity, what's their recourse.
I think it's reasonable for the government to set some basic standards for access, both physical and electronic for businesses, which like all citizens, benefit from government services. However, as with anything this can be and is taken too far. Of course, if IE didn't suck so bad, this probably wouldn't even be an issue.
I have to say though that this case seems to fall under the same realm as hacking the DVD encryption to watch "The Matrix" on your DVD-enabled Linux box. I admit I didn't RTFA, but I suspect there's another less obvious issue driving Odeon's decision to require the site to come down.
Free market should be the first and overriding principal, but in an advanced and benevolent society, I think there's room for the government to enshrine certain basic guarantees. The problem is that each of 10000 things might seem reasonable but the cumulative effect is burdensome beyond all reasonability.
It's definitely a problem of lots of countries. There's a legitimate issue between people like Disney and people like the massive video pirates in China, it's just that in addressing this issue, it's always the customers who get screwed. Piracy doesn't end and Disney gets a perpetual monopoly on silly little line drawings on crumbling nitrate stock from 80 years ago.
That's the problem with these well-intentioned laws. When someone wants to flout them, the effort to correct the problem seems to be insurmountable. I'm sure there will be lawsuits and court orders and a whole bunch of people's productivity being sucked down a black hole (willingly or not), before this is said and done.
The problem stems from the fact that in our society (modern Western democracies anyway), we are so buried in an avalanche of regulations that there is no way you can even be aware of them all, and when one that is particularly useful... such as a law requiring handicapped access, enforcement becomes infeasible because so much effort is being wasted to meet the utter explosion of bureaucratic requirements.
We already work about half the year just to pay taxes, and when we can work for ourselves how big does the proportion of time we spend dealing with red tape have to be before people get fed up. We are being nickel-and-dimed into losing productivity. Meanwhile this Web site apparently ignores the law and it will probably be months or years before anything can be done about it because the people who could do something about it are too busy making sure that all government contractors are using 7/64" bevelled grommets instead of 3/32" bevelled grommets.
Actually, all we really need to do is restore the copyright to the letter and intention of the writers of the Constitution. If it weren't for the horrendous abuses imposed by Congress in the last few decades, Fair Use would not be such a problem. The fact that Congress has been bought to all but eliminate any rights of the consumer is what we need to change. You're probably right though, it would take an amendment to change that. In fact, not even that would be enough since the Constitution seems to function only as a vague guide to the legislatures (and even worse, the Courts). The checks and balances are failing. That's the real problem, and it's a far, far bigger problem than anything to do with music or movies.
Which amendment would that be?
The 9th and 10th amendments say that those powers not specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states, but those have been largely ignored since the late 1800's.
I seem to recall a story from the late 80's that a certain kind of IBM monitor wouldn't work in the Southern hemisphere.
I have no idea if there's any truth to this... perhaps the monitor wouldn't work because the toilets flow backwards.
But do they cut the RED wire or the BLUE wire?!
The sky is blue.
./ repeated the same joke.
IE has a new vulnerability.
Someone on
The irony ofcourse being that things don't really get that much faster. A secretary will still take roughly the same time to type out a letter as a decade ago. The current weakest link in the speed chain is the human, and computers spend their time waiting on us.
The real irony is that software isn't really faster. App load times have not changed significantly in 10 years. MS Office is slower than ever. I tried Visual Studio
Not that I expect it to happen soon, but it would be nice if more effort went into computational linguistics.
But that would require work. Adding new skins is where it's at in innovation. Making Windows apps look like Web pages is what's taken the place of innovation for the last 5 years. Making things easier? I can do more, but it sure ain't easier. When video files on computers hit critical mass you needed a different player for each format. Then ActiveMovie came out and all of a sudden you could play most video files with one simple app. Now that there are eighty-bazillion codecs out there, WMP can't play anything unless you laboriously find out what the codec is, find the appropriate software, download it and install it. Sure DivX is better, but it's as much or more trouble to use it than it was for whatever was the hot stuff 10 years ago.
p.s. DivX has some copy protection scheme screws with your system. Don't use 5.1.1 if you want to run a debugger. Even the free version.
Read this.
Wow! You must be some kind of investigative reporter. I don't think anyone knew that.
e k/
Read this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5335853/site/newswe
although since you know so much, you're probably already familiar with it.
You do realize I said the "American Liberal" version of Goebbels. In other words, I was not implying anything other than his propoganda techniques, which are deceptive at best and often outright lies. Moore is a hateful elitest that loathes this country, it's way of life and citizens, and no amount of him saying with puppy dog eyes that he loves America can hide the fact that he bashes this country and its citizens every chance he can get, how can you love something you constantly call "evil". People who complain about the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage (rightly so, IMO) will often gullibly swallow Moore's histrionics without question (Tom Daschle call your office). I think Limbaugh and Savage are at least more honest about who and what they are. Moore does raise some valid points, but he's too busy stroking his own ego, showing us how clever a smart-ass he thinks he is, and wallowing in liberal self-hate to have any credibility.
/., generally being naive, uninformed college-age or near-college-age people (as I once was, but at least I wasn't liberal ;-) is that they fall into that trap of hating Bush so much they will buy anything that supports their point of view. Eight years ago, we saw the same stupidity on the right concerning President Clinton, who despite being an utter sleazeball, did do a significant number of positive things for the country.
I would point you this as a brief example of how utterly deceptive Moore is.
And it's not limited proponents of opposing ideology. I would direct you liberals Christopher Hitchens, who uses the word "lies" a lot when talking about the content of Moore's movie, or Richard Cohen, who in the Washington Post started taking notes on the movie and gave up because of the sheer "stupidity" of it. His word. The problem with the folks on
In fact, Michael Moore himself clearly targets almost exclusively what Karl Marx called "useful idiots", those easily manipulated, unquestioning folks who will buy any mindless rhetoric. Smarter people who simply agree with him can take him for what he is, but that's not the point of his movie.
If I said "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot", I would probably get a score of 5, but if I say "Michael Moore is a big, fat stupid white man." it will probably get modded a troll. If I criticize President Bush (and there are plenty of things to criticize), everyone thinks I'm smart thoughtful poster, but if I show support for him (which I do... overall I think he's a great President), I'm considered a stupid right-wing nutjob who wants to create an American Taliban.
You can't deny there's a pretty disgusting double standard around here. That's why I prefer the technical stuff. News for nerds, you know.
It's a shame that Disney released a a very positive movie about America last weekend (I can't even recall the name, which shows how much coverage it got), which from what I read, in a completely non-partisan and non-political way, shows inspirational stories that demonstrate what makes this country. It probably made about $47. People would rather watch the cynical, bitter fat guy who hates America. That's sad.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Try criticizing Michael Moore some time. The majority of these people are so ignorant or deluded that they don't realize this guy is just the American liberal Josef Goebbels, and his movies don't hold up to even most cursory of scrutiny. But if you mention that on /., you get modded into oblivion.
No kidding (although I could :-)
This guy should be on a stamp. This is exactly the kind of philanthropy and forward-thinking that brought us Linux, and while Sediq will porobably never become rich, he is making contributions to society just as if he were rich.
Then I guess we must agree to disagree.
By the way, I just noticed half of a paragraph in my last post I meant to take out entirely. I was talking about a place I used to work out developing C++ in a style that would have looked archaic 15 years ago. It was a nightmare.
I just told one of my sons... he's psyched! ;-)
Radiation was cool/hip in the 50's and 60's when the comics were written, and passe when SP1 came out.
When SP2 comes out, automatic firewalls will be the the new hotness mutation.
Seriously though, in the days of Shelley's "Frankenstein", electricity was the "new hotness mutation". The effects are the same, but we change the causes to take advantage of the latest buzzwords. I'm sure when they remake "Spiderman" in 3D Holovid in 2050, the spider will have been altered with tachyons or (insert your favorite Star Trek-like technobable that becomes reality here).
(p.s. IANAP... tachyons are still considered only theoretical, right?)
But then, what good is a microscopic amount of tritium going to be as a plot device?
About the same amount of good as having your main character get a small welt and mild itching after being bitten by a genetically-engineered spider.
Too bad he didn't give up his fee to get rid of all the cheesy dialog. Or Leonardo Cantactrio.
I'm so sick of reading these nitpicker lists where 98% of the so-called errors are trivial continuity errors. Real issues are fun to read and discuss, but I don't really give a crap that George Castanza didn't have the ketchup in his hand when they cut to Jerry, but Jerry's witty rejoinder makes him squirt ketchup across the table when he jump cuts back. Big deal. On the other hand, real plot holes or complete inconsistencies can be fun to talk about. For instance when Michael Moore claims Bush let the Saudis out of the U.S. when all the planes were grounded, pointing out the fact that it was actually Richard Clarke (the _terrorism_ guy) and the flight ban had been lifted, so nothing wrong was done is useful and instructive. That's an error worth pointing out. Unfortunately, these lists are usually just exercises in people's powers of observing insignificant minutia, and the fact that directors often flip the film (or even run it backwards like they did in helicopter shot in The Two Towers) seems to provide the majority of the issues.
Here's one for free: In "This Island Earth" Dr. Meacham and his lady friend duck under the water to escape the explosion of the car driven by Russell Johnson's character. The next scene shows them stepping onto land and they are clearly dry. Woo hoo! I'm a GENIUS!
The reward for such powers of perceptiveness were skillfully and cleverly satirized by the infamous Marvel No-Prize, until the dolt readers became incensed that they never got anything and Marvel actually had to start sending something out.
So you're saying some information is worse than none? How ridiculous. I seen many examples of bugs and problems that could have been avoided by simply prefixing "p" in front of a variable name that's a pointer. Much of the information you describe is described by the name of the variable. Beyond that you have to read the code a little bit. Consistent use of variable names and a decently-designed class library (or at least something less cryptic than STL, which sacrifices everything that makes C++ good for performance) will solve the other problems. If your class library is appropriately designed, you will be forced to treat your data in the way it needs to be treated. Quoting and encoding will be properly handled. Data source should be irrelevant because all data would be treated the same, and automatically translated as appropriate. Allocation, locking and other issues will be handled simply and consistently by a well-designed class (often the constuctor and destructor can be used to handle these things transparently). You can't blame Hungarian notation for a lack of proper encapsulation and data abstraction. If you are going to code like that, go back to Fortran.
And the "maintenance cost" you speak of? If the change is a fundamental type change (say a pointer to a reference, rather than an int to a long), then you'd better check all those instances of a variable because you're liable to have problems (even if it compiles).
Hungarian notation won't make a stupid coder smart, but it will certainly help a smart coder avoid mistakes. I'm a smart coder; I can't speak for the rest of the world.
Hungarian notation or at least some subset of it, is a lingua franca that exists primarily in Windows programming due to an attempt to move away from IOCCC candidate coding with one character variable names or inscrutable naming conventions and abbreviations. The other step is consistency in the API's and libraries, something Windows fails at miserably, and MFC is only somewhat better. The code is would have written for these clowns would have required a minute fraction of the development and maintenance that their archaic "design" required, and yet they were proud of their ignorance. Oh well, it's no spin off the government's teeth, because they can just piss more millions as needed. I'll stick to private concerns where getting work done efficiently actually matters.
... I know where you can get a cheap eye.
The last company I worked for was not run by PHB's, because PHB's don't realize they are stupid. These people were deliberately stupid. When my supervisor complained that my use of Hungarian notation was confusing and meaningless to her, I pointed out that the first Windows book you open up will... at which point the project engineer raised his hand to interrupt and said, simply "We don't read books here."
Needless to say, it was a government contractor for the U.S. military.
Now I work for a very small company too. My boss is the owner of the business, and he's a really sharp guy who appreciates me and my talents, and I him. Assuming the business doesn't fail (always a risk with startups), I believe it will be a very fruitful relationship. It made the contrast even more stark with my last job and drove home to me how miserable I was there. Sad to say, I've only ever been happy when I've worked primarily by myself.