I agree; however, I don't think it's always a case of "yes-men" because people like Jobs can be very persuasive - although I'll admit that this type of behavior results in something equivalent to the "yes-men" syndrome. Hell, it's the basis of Scientology. People are often more than happy to be sheep, it takes the weight of responsibility off their shoulders.
To be fair to Jobs, who I personally despised as a person, he always looked at the world as he wanted it to be - not how it was. Sometimes he managed to reshape bits of it to match his 'reality.' He seemed to believe that you could will things to change and, in some respects, he was right. I wouldn't expect him to be any different regarding healthcare.
That being said, the manner in which he got his liver was unethical, and he was a terrible person.
GitHub has banned the wife, the founder involved was put on leave, as was the engineer who apparently handled rejection well (he should be used to it...)
Actually they don't anymore. They did in the 80's. I spend time in Zurich, St. Moritz, and a few other areas in Switzerland, and although I haven't been to Japan in a decade I've been around Honshu a bit and Hokkaido. They are still very expensive, but the only place I know that is more expensive than the Bay Area is Hong Kong.
Microsoft bought them, and when I went up to Redmond, the Microsoft guys were talking about making Softimage mass-market software. But that never happened.
Maybe you were talking to the wrong "Microsoft guys" because I was working at SoftImage during this period and nobody at Microsoft espoused anything resembling what you claim above.
SoftImage's Digital Studio was embracing OLE2 (then COM, then DCOM) because it was going to be a non linear video/audio editor that could be deeply extended through a plugin architecture - Microsoft wanted to build on that work and get SoftImage 3D onto Win32 (DS' decision to use COM/DCOM is, of course, more complicated than this, but it would be a lengthy discussion) and Irix, but with the same extensibility features and a close integration with Digital Studio to create an 'uber' production pipeline.
Nobody saw a "mass market" opportunity for SoftImage.
So Microsoft sold Softimage to Avid. Avid made overpriced film and video editing systems, sold with semi-customer hardware and built into cool-looking furniture. Softimage had a good video editor in addition to the 3D line, and that's what Avid really wanted.
Yes, this, 100x this. Avid had been resting on its questionable laurels and DigitalStudio scared the living sh** out of them. They paid Micro$oft something along the lines of 10x what Micro$oft paid for SoftImage for the company - just when XSi was in Beta (it was called Sumatra back then.)
They did convert from Softimage to "Softimage XSI", which broke all existing plug-ins and didn't have a plug-in API that worked. That's when I dropped Softimage.
Actually, XSi had been in development for years (this was the project I worked on, as well as DigitalStudio's framework late in the game, and believe it or not a short lived attempt to run XSi on Direct3D - that was painful) at this point. It was in beta when Avid panic bought SoftImage from Micro$oft.
I'm not sure what problems you had with the plugin system, as I personally wrote plugins for it without any special difficulties.
The best thing you wrote was
They had no clue what to do with the 3D product.
This was so very true it boggles the mind. You would think that a company that was interested in making money (presumably) would at least make some effort to profit from having the industry leading special effects/vfx modeling package, but no - companies can be - and often are - remarkably stupid.
Of course, given how Avid had gotten themselves in the position of having to buy DS to begin with, the SoftImage purchase can really only be seen to be a rather large and expensive band-aid.
Yes, that 3.x line did seem to go on 4-ev-er but we tried to get Sumatra out as best we could... Many cold nights unburying my car in Montreal at 2AM so I could drive home to Laval - at least with no traffic!
It was all over, but the shouting. Alias transformed Wavefront into Maya in roughly this timeframe, while MS starved out "dot release" life support on SoftImage...
Total horsesh**.
I worked at SoftImage when Microsoft owned it and left shortly after Sumatra (which became XSi.)
SoftImage was breaking new ground constantly during this period and reacting to Maya competitively as well (at this point the two packages were for two different types of users but were converging rapidly.) Micro$oft owned the company, and NT was most definitely a target platform in addition to Irix, but from a feature set point of view it was all driven by industry desires and those desired were especially well expressed by the excellent product managers who were absolute experts.
Non linear animation editing, tile based distributed rendering, intelligent automated render farming, a game development art pipeline SDK, caustics, awesome mental ray integration, integrated FK/IK, physics, integration points with Digital Studio (SoftImage's non-linear video editor) - tons of other great new stuff.
You really shouldn't belittle the incredible work and efforts of so many people on something so complex that came out so well as "starved out 'dot release' life support."
Comparing across schools just reflects your lack of understanding of the discussion
Actually, it clearly demonstrates the opposite. I'm sure you'd like to simply compare between disciplines at the same school, but that would defeat your argument.
I'd love to hear your explanation as to how you believe that CalTech's Comp Sci degree is less difficult than Clemson's EE program.
A second undergraduate degree of mine is in Classics. Having taking a graduate course in FGPA based signal analysis, I can tell you that declining Greek based upon dialect is much more difficult. Wavelet compression in hardware versus Homeric/Attic Greek intervocalics? I will take signal analysis every time.
We had two people drop CS at our school because it was hard and get into a nearby school's engineering program.
While theoreticians can be said to possess a certain level of explorative intellegence and a voracious memory not possessed by engineers, engineers possess an intelligence that helps one deal with having neither of the luxuries of glossing over fine details nor a flexible objective.
The stupidity of this incredibly overreaching generalization cannot be understated.
Someone might as well say "While engineers can be said to have enough intelligence to make things after they've been taught enough theory, cleary only theoreticians are truly intelligent - otherwise the engineers wouldn't need them..."
(Yes, that's an equally stupid and overreaching generalization.)
Well, if it is pretty much universally, we can compare the Comp Sci regimens of CMU, Berkeley, RPI, MIT, CalTech, Stanford, and compare those to the EE programs of Clemson, Texas A&M, San Diego State, and the OP's Arizona State.
Something tells me they don't match up, and certainly don't favor the engineering schools.
Quite obviously the converse can be true, but then - I'm not the one claiming that the opposite is "universally" the case...
That's because there are two types of Computer Science departments in universities.
Ones that teach Computer Science, like many liberal arts schools, and those that teach "Computer Science" like a trade skill.
A school that teaches actual Computer Science will be heavily math based as computer science is fundamentally a mathematical discipline.
You could just as easily argue that people drop out of real Computer Science to go EE (I personally know two individuals who did this because they were surprised that Computer Science wasn't "Computer Programming". One of them quite during the MIPS assembler course, the other during compiler design.)
Seriously? LOL. An applied science doesn't require smarter people than pure science. The intrinsic limitation of being 'applied' would suggest that pure science would actually require smarter people.
In any case, the reality is that neither requires smarter people.
Don't get me wrong, I don't blame Obama - although he's not doing enough to reverse this trend and is, in fact, establishing some new ones (targeted killings of American citizens without charging them with a crime.)
The start of all this I blame on neo-conservatism which has a fundamental tenet of using fear to get what you want. That doesn't make the Bush administration entirely responsible because we stood by and let it happen.
We're not a demoncracy anyhow, we're an oligarchy now (and have been in the 19th century as well) thanks to the idiocy of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Assmasher I really think we are in near agreement. I guess we just disagree about the definition of the phrase "as policy".
- I agree.
Our primary difference is that I believe that the pervasiveness and solidification into "policy" of the erosion of our basic rights in the name of "security" is significantly different post 9/11 than pre 9/11.
The "Patriot Act" (another horrifically inappropriately titled bill) is a perfect example.
There has always been a war on terror.
- Here I have disagree. My problem with the "war on Terror" is that it can never be won or finished, and that's why they chose it. This is why it was never termed the "war on Al Qaeda" because the administration that established it doesn't want there to be a quantifiable measurement that could signify the end of the "war on..." It's a crude attempt to legitimize what is basically a 'martial law' style approach to suspending and re-interpreting hugely important aspects of the Constitution.
This is the only part that confuses me. You seriously think that we upheld the values of our constitution up to 9/11 and then just threw them out the window? You really think the US Government didn't violate due process and habeas corpus before 9/11?
You keep missing the part where I specifically use the term "as policy." I believe there have been incidents of everything imaginable under the sun involving the U.S. government; however, pre-9/11 these were not standard government policy in a time of peace. This is entirely the reason behind the bullsh** title "War on Terror" - it can never ever end, so justification of behaviors that could be potentially stomached as short term aberrations can continue ad nauseum.
The U.S. is not at war with anyone other than itself right now.
You apparently ignored the part about it being American policy.
You are also grouping all forms of violence as being the same thing. The police beating an actual suspect during the race riots in 68 could be entirely justified depending upon the context. It could also be entirely unjustified depending upon the context.
Also, I'm not arguing that we've only suddenly started using violence, I'm arguing that we've only suddenly started accepting torture as policy. That we've started accepting unreasonable search and seizure as policy. That we've suddenly allowed the suspension of habeas corpus. That we've suddenly allowed Americans to be killed without being charged with a crime or any form of due process. That we've suddenly allowed the intelligence arms of our government to flat out lie to congress without repercussion. That we've suddenly accepted that our government spies on us extensively in whatever legal means they can AND in clearly illegal means (which are in turn lied about in congressional investigation...)
I don't know of any country that holds any 'moral high ground' and there are virtually no countries without a checkered past or present, BUT many of them manage to hold onto their identity through times of crisis and not forget what made them special.
Post 9/11 America is fundamentally different from pre 9/11 America in ways that previous generations of Americans would be (and probably are) horrified by.
We've basically given up many of the things that made us standout (despite our moral outrages.) Due process, habeas corpus, NO torture, the 4th amendment.
I'm not sure what history books you read in school, but mine clearly covered slavery, Native American genocide, racism, sexism, et cetera... College/University went further of course, but high school was pretty thorough about how deeply flawed we (and every other country made up of human beings) had been.
Interestingly, that same education made it clear that post 9/11 America has introduced changes that quite closely mirror changes in 1920/30's in totalitarian governments where those in power fear the truth as the government clearly does now in America, and believe that the end justifies the means.
This one thing alone, I believe, is the antithesis of what I believed America to be based upon - that the ends do NOT justify the means. That how you play the game is more important than the results.
That being true to being an American was more important than if you were killed because of it.
Now, that's criminally easy of me to say without having to offer any sacrifice, but I truly believe that.
"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Possibly our greatest American.
, and most importantly - self restraint - seem to be missing from intelligence services. This has always been the case.
The difference today is that we pretend we're in a "war on terror" because if you don't pretend it's an active war, you can't even begin to justify the ridiculous kinds of constitutional subversion and 'National Socialist' behavior that would make a WWII veteran pick up his rifle and start shooting (probably beginning with Congress.)
It's really pretty simple. America has always been a country with flaws, but at least we didn't promulgate torture as policy, we didn't systematically suspend habeas corpus. We may have always been pretty shallow on the greed and capitalism side of things all along, but we've always aspired to be better.
Now, because 3000 people died on 9/11 because some a**hole wanted to change America, we torture people and call it enhanced interrogation, we detain people (even American citizens) without any form of due process or the hope of habeas corpus, the government actively spies on its own citizens, government bodies lie to Congress without being censured, our government routinely lies to the American people about what is actually happening during drone strikes, we now attack people inside sovereign countries on a regular basis without that country's permission or knowledge, we have a 'homeland security' (how jingoistic and propagandist is the term 'homeland' in that phrase? LOL) The 4th amendment has been corrupted so that anyone can be searched at any time for no discernible reason at all. Last but not least, you can now, apparnetly, order the death of an American citizen without any form of due process at all by perverting the "clear and present danger" rationale.
Congratulations Usama you f***ing c*nt, you managed to change America. Not that it will benefit the Islamic world in any way, you've simply changed our government into the government you always thought it was, to the detriment of both America and the rest of the world (especially the Muslim world.)
Last two years I've worked 100 hour weeks. 16 hours a day, 2 hours for commute / shower, 4-5 hours of sleep. 6 days a week, sometimes Sundays. I've counted 9000 hours in two years. Of course, now I am slowing down. But let me tell you one thing: 60 hour week is just a breeze. That would almost feel like vacation.
Damn dude... I pulled 100 hours weeks for 6 months once, when I was 24, and it almost killed me.
You make my 60+ hourly weeks much brighter by comparison - thanks for suffering for me:).
I work 60+ hour weeks now and I own my own business. At least 12 hours a day 5 days a week of actual in the office work. Usually get some work on weekends in, some cleanup stuff in the evenings (the IT side of things, backups, checking source control check-ins from others, et cetera...)
I don't know too many corporate jobs that require that level of effort on a regular basis though.
Slashdot Mirror
Well... I think his doctor, and reality, slapped him in the face in the last two years of his life.
I agree; however, I don't think it's always a case of "yes-men" because people like Jobs can be very persuasive - although I'll admit that this type of behavior results in something equivalent to the "yes-men" syndrome. Hell, it's the basis of Scientology. People are often more than happy to be sheep, it takes the weight of responsibility off their shoulders.
To be fair to Jobs, who I personally despised as a person, he always looked at the world as he wanted it to be - not how it was. Sometimes he managed to reshape bits of it to match his 'reality.' He seemed to believe that you could will things to change and, in some respects, he was right. I wouldn't expect him to be any different regarding healthcare.
That being said, the manner in which he got his liver was unethical, and he was a terrible person.
Long live The Woz!
This https://github.com/blog/1800-u... seems to indicate that she's pretty much right on about the two major factors though.
GitHub has banned the wife, the founder involved was put on leave, as was the engineer who apparently handled rejection well (he should be used to it...)
Actually they don't anymore. They did in the 80's. I spend time in Zurich, St. Moritz, and a few other areas in Switzerland, and although I haven't been to Japan in a decade I've been around Honshu a bit and Hokkaido. They are still very expensive, but the only place I know that is more expensive than the Bay Area is Hong Kong.
Yep, I lived in Novato as a kid, and I recall SF being distinctly middle class. Then the late 80's/early 90's rolled in and that vanished.
...just say STOP BLOWING YOURSELVES.
I love the Bay Area, lived there as a kid, lived there as an adult. It's beautiful, fun, and hideously expensive.
All that other crap you ascribe to it could be said about most large cities throughout the world.
Get over yourselves FFS.
I wonder how much energy taping out 20TB of data would take...
Microsoft bought them, and when I went up to Redmond, the Microsoft guys were talking about making Softimage mass-market software. But that never happened.
Maybe you were talking to the wrong "Microsoft guys" because I was working at SoftImage during this period and nobody at Microsoft espoused anything resembling what you claim above.
SoftImage's Digital Studio was embracing OLE2 (then COM, then DCOM) because it was going to be a non linear video/audio editor that could be deeply extended through a plugin architecture - Microsoft wanted to build on that work and get SoftImage 3D onto Win32 (DS' decision to use COM/DCOM is, of course, more complicated than this, but it would be a lengthy discussion) and Irix, but with the same extensibility features and a close integration with Digital Studio to create an 'uber' production pipeline.
Nobody saw a "mass market" opportunity for SoftImage.
So Microsoft sold Softimage to Avid. Avid made overpriced film and video editing systems, sold with semi-customer hardware and built into cool-looking furniture. Softimage had a good video editor in addition to the 3D line, and that's what Avid really wanted.
Yes, this, 100x this. Avid had been resting on its questionable laurels and DigitalStudio scared the living sh** out of them. They paid Micro$oft something along the lines of 10x what Micro$oft paid for SoftImage for the company - just when XSi was in Beta (it was called Sumatra back then.)
They did convert from Softimage to "Softimage XSI", which broke all existing plug-ins and didn't have a plug-in API that worked. That's when I dropped Softimage.
Actually, XSi had been in development for years (this was the project I worked on, as well as DigitalStudio's framework late in the game, and believe it or not a short lived attempt to run XSi on Direct3D - that was painful) at this point. It was in beta when Avid panic bought SoftImage from Micro$oft.
I'm not sure what problems you had with the plugin system, as I personally wrote plugins for it without any special difficulties.
The best thing you wrote was
They had no clue what to do with the 3D product.
This was so very true it boggles the mind. You would think that a company that was interested in making money (presumably) would at least make some effort to profit from having the industry leading special effects/vfx modeling package, but no - companies can be - and often are - remarkably stupid.
Of course, given how Avid had gotten themselves in the position of having to buy DS to begin with, the SoftImage purchase can really only be seen to be a rather large and expensive band-aid.
Yes, that 3.x line did seem to go on 4-ev-er but we tried to get Sumatra out as best we could... Many cold nights unburying my car in Montreal at 2AM so I could drive home to Laval - at least with no traffic!
It was all over, but the shouting. Alias transformed Wavefront into Maya in roughly this timeframe, while MS starved out "dot release" life support on SoftImage...
Total horsesh**.
I worked at SoftImage when Microsoft owned it and left shortly after Sumatra (which became XSi.)
SoftImage was breaking new ground constantly during this period and reacting to Maya competitively as well (at this point the two packages were for two different types of users but were converging rapidly.) Micro$oft owned the company, and NT was most definitely a target platform in addition to Irix, but from a feature set point of view it was all driven by industry desires and those desired were especially well expressed by the excellent product managers who were absolute experts.
Non linear animation editing, tile based distributed rendering, intelligent automated render farming, a game development art pipeline SDK, caustics, awesome mental ray integration, integrated FK/IK, physics, integration points with Digital Studio (SoftImage's non-linear video editor) - tons of other great new stuff.
You really shouldn't belittle the incredible work and efforts of so many people on something so complex that came out so well as "starved out 'dot release' life support."
Comparing across schools just reflects your lack of understanding of the discussion
Actually, it clearly demonstrates the opposite. I'm sure you'd like to simply compare between disciplines at the same school, but that would defeat your argument.
I'd love to hear your explanation as to how you believe that CalTech's Comp Sci degree is less difficult than Clemson's EE program.
That school must have had a pretty weak definition of the word "engineering."
It had a pretty weak definition of education in general...
...while my statement recognizes that there are qualitative vectors to "intelligence"...
Putting a pig in a silk dress doesn't make it a princess.
A second undergraduate degree of mine is in Classics. Having taking a graduate course in FGPA based signal analysis, I can tell you that declining Greek based upon dialect is much more difficult. Wavelet compression in hardware versus Homeric/Attic Greek intervocalics? I will take signal analysis every time.
We had two people drop CS at our school because it was hard and get into a nearby school's engineering program.
While theoreticians can be said to possess a certain level of explorative intellegence and a voracious memory not possessed by engineers, engineers possess an intelligence that helps one deal with having neither of the luxuries of glossing over fine details nor a flexible objective.
The stupidity of this incredibly overreaching generalization cannot be understated.
Someone might as well say "While engineers can be said to have enough intelligence to make things after they've been taught enough theory, cleary only theoreticians are truly intelligent - otherwise the engineers wouldn't need them..."
(Yes, that's an equally stupid and overreaching generalization.)
That's a great argument
you'd be wrong
Pretty much universally
Well, if it is pretty much universally, we can compare the Comp Sci regimens of CMU, Berkeley, RPI, MIT, CalTech, Stanford, and compare those to the EE programs of Clemson, Texas A&M, San Diego State, and the OP's Arizona State.
Something tells me they don't match up, and certainly don't favor the engineering schools.
Quite obviously the converse can be true, but then - I'm not the one claiming that the opposite is "universally" the case...
That's because there are two types of Computer Science departments in universities.
Ones that teach Computer Science, like many liberal arts schools, and those that teach "Computer Science" like a trade skill.
A school that teaches actual Computer Science will be heavily math based as computer science is fundamentally a mathematical discipline.
You could just as easily argue that people drop out of real Computer Science to go EE (I personally know two individuals who did this because they were surprised that Computer Science wasn't "Computer Programming". One of them quite during the MIPS assembler course, the other during compiler design.)
Seriously? LOL. An applied science doesn't require smarter people than pure science. The intrinsic limitation of being 'applied' would suggest that pure science would actually require smarter people.
In any case, the reality is that neither requires smarter people.
Don't get me wrong, I don't blame Obama - although he's not doing enough to reverse this trend and is, in fact, establishing some new ones (targeted killings of American citizens without charging them with a crime.)
The start of all this I blame on neo-conservatism which has a fundamental tenet of using fear to get what you want. That doesn't make the Bush administration entirely responsible because we stood by and let it happen.
We're not a demoncracy anyhow, we're an oligarchy now (and have been in the 19th century as well) thanks to the idiocy of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Assmasher I really think we are in near agreement. I guess we just disagree about the definition of the phrase "as policy".
- I agree.
Our primary difference is that I believe that the pervasiveness and solidification into "policy" of the erosion of our basic rights in the name of "security" is significantly different post 9/11 than pre 9/11.
The "Patriot Act" (another horrifically inappropriately titled bill) is a perfect example.
There has always been a war on terror.
- Here I have disagree. My problem with the "war on Terror" is that it can never be won or finished, and that's why they chose it. This is why it was never termed the "war on Al Qaeda" because the administration that established it doesn't want there to be a quantifiable measurement that could signify the end of the "war on..." It's a crude attempt to legitimize what is basically a 'martial law' style approach to suspending and re-interpreting hugely important aspects of the Constitution.
This is the only part that confuses me. You seriously think that we upheld the values of our constitution up to 9/11 and then just threw them out the window? You really think the US Government didn't violate due process and habeas corpus before 9/11?
You keep missing the part where I specifically use the term "as policy." I believe there have been incidents of everything imaginable under the sun involving the U.S. government; however, pre-9/11 these were not standard government policy in a time of peace. This is entirely the reason behind the bullsh** title "War on Terror" - it can never ever end, so justification of behaviors that could be potentially stomached as short term aberrations can continue ad nauseum.
The U.S. is not at war with anyone other than itself right now.
You apparently ignored the part about it being American policy.
You are also grouping all forms of violence as being the same thing. The police beating an actual suspect during the race riots in 68 could be entirely justified depending upon the context. It could also be entirely unjustified depending upon the context.
Also, I'm not arguing that we've only suddenly started using violence, I'm arguing that we've only suddenly started accepting torture as policy. That we've started accepting unreasonable search and seizure as policy. That we've suddenly allowed the suspension of habeas corpus. That we've suddenly allowed Americans to be killed without being charged with a crime or any form of due process. That we've suddenly allowed the intelligence arms of our government to flat out lie to congress without repercussion. That we've suddenly accepted that our government spies on us extensively in whatever legal means they can AND in clearly illegal means (which are in turn lied about in congressional investigation...)
I don't know of any country that holds any 'moral high ground' and there are virtually no countries without a checkered past or present, BUT many of them manage to hold onto their identity through times of crisis and not forget what made them special.
Post 9/11 America is fundamentally different from pre 9/11 America in ways that previous generations of Americans would be (and probably are) horrified by.
We've basically given up many of the things that made us standout (despite our moral outrages.) Due process, habeas corpus, NO torture, the 4th amendment.
I'm not sure what history books you read in school, but mine clearly covered slavery, Native American genocide, racism, sexism, et cetera... College/University went further of course, but high school was pretty thorough about how deeply flawed we (and every other country made up of human beings) had been.
Interestingly, that same education made it clear that post 9/11 America has introduced changes that quite closely mirror changes in 1920/30's in totalitarian governments where those in power fear the truth as the government clearly does now in America, and believe that the end justifies the means.
This one thing alone, I believe, is the antithesis of what I believed America to be based upon - that the ends do NOT justify the means. That how you play the game is more important than the results.
That being true to being an American was more important than if you were killed because of it.
Now, that's criminally easy of me to say without having to offer any sacrifice, but I truly believe that.
"They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Possibly our greatest American.
, and most importantly - self restraint - seem to be missing from intelligence services. This has always been the case.
The difference today is that we pretend we're in a "war on terror" because if you don't pretend it's an active war, you can't even begin to justify the ridiculous kinds of constitutional subversion and 'National Socialist' behavior that would make a WWII veteran pick up his rifle and start shooting (probably beginning with Congress.)
It's really pretty simple. America has always been a country with flaws, but at least we didn't promulgate torture as policy, we didn't systematically suspend habeas corpus. We may have always been pretty shallow on the greed and capitalism side of things all along, but we've always aspired to be better.
Now, because 3000 people died on 9/11 because some a**hole wanted to change America, we torture people and call it enhanced interrogation, we detain people (even American citizens) without any form of due process or the hope of habeas corpus, the government actively spies on its own citizens, government bodies lie to Congress without being censured, our government routinely lies to the American people about what is actually happening during drone strikes, we now attack people inside sovereign countries on a regular basis without that country's permission or knowledge, we have a 'homeland security' (how jingoistic and propagandist is the term 'homeland' in that phrase? LOL) The 4th amendment has been corrupted so that anyone can be searched at any time for no discernible reason at all. Last but not least, you can now, apparnetly, order the death of an American citizen without any form of due process at all by perverting the "clear and present danger" rationale.
Congratulations Usama you f***ing c*nt, you managed to change America. Not that it will benefit the Islamic world in any way, you've simply changed our government into the government you always thought it was, to the detriment of both America and the rest of the world (especially the Muslim world.)
Last two years I've worked 100 hour weeks. 16 hours a day, 2 hours for commute / shower, 4-5 hours of sleep. 6 days a week, sometimes Sundays. I've counted 9000 hours in two years. Of course, now I am slowing down. But let me tell you one thing: 60 hour week is just a breeze. That would almost feel like vacation.
Damn dude... I pulled 100 hours weeks for 6 months once, when I was 24, and it almost killed me.
You make my 60+ hourly weeks much brighter by comparison - thanks for suffering for me :).
I work 60+ hour weeks now and I own my own business. At least 12 hours a day 5 days a week of actual in the office work. Usually get some work on weekends in, some cleanup stuff in the evenings (the IT side of things, backups, checking source control check-ins from others, et cetera...)
I don't know too many corporate jobs that require that level of effort on a regular basis though.