Here is a link to information about the Ford Escape. I actually considered it, but it was not available when I needed to get the new vehicle. There is also a little concern about cargo space since it is a smaller SUV, but when it comes out, I will definitely be giving it a look. It is supposed to have V6 power and 4WD with somewhere around 40 mpg. Not bad at all.
Another interesting tidbit mentioned on the site is that in the US there are tax deductions for owning a hybrid vehicle.
Pet Peeve #843288: People who assume that the only reason someone bought an SUV is for enlarging their ego.
I purchased my SUV for several reasons: Montana winters (4-wheel drive), cargo capacity for musical gear, room for additional passengers (though admittedly, I frequently drive in it alone), and easier access in and out (I am rather tall). At the time of purchase, there were really no hybrid equivalents that were capable of doing the things I needed my vehicle to do. If they can come out with a hybrid SUV with 4-wheel drive and good cargo capacity and power to carry the weight of my musical gear, then believe me, I will be one of the first in line to check it out!
Not every SUV driver is out to earn status points. Some of us actually purchased the vehicle out of a need for its capabilities. I reserve the right to complain about the price of gas. Afterall, complaining is the great American national pastime!
Here is the response as seen in the forum on their site:
Given the state of the computer market, the PC client was developed first, and Cyan has since run out of money for further development of additional platform support. We've been given assurances by a couple of people at Cyan that if the PC version of the game sells well, there will be a Mac version released at a later time, similar to (though hopefully with less of a delay than) realMYST.
Of course, if the PC version bombs, it won't matter either way... so talk it up to your PC-owning friends!
Most good shows don't start to click until at least the 2nd season.
That was one of the more intriguing bits about the series for me -- the characters were already very good. The actors really seemed to be enjoying the show and doing a great job of breathing life into their characters. It was well written, and the plots were engaging. The big plot was just getting started when FOX cut them... even with the movie, we may never know where the show would have taken us.
I am very happy to hear that they are at least going to try to get the entire cast on board. It was the full ensemble that really made the show work.
This may come as a shock but CD-Rs can also be used to record data (gasp) or am I the only person in the free world who uses them for this purpose?
You hit probably the single biggest use of blank CD's. Many people are using CD's now as cheap backup storage for their computer data. Also, with the proliferation of digital photography, the need for massive, cheap data storage has grown considerably. It would be interesting to do a study on what exactly these blank CD's are being used for. There is certainly not a one-to-one relationship between blank CD's and copied music (even that which has been legitimately purchased.
Re:Pffft .... Commander Keen
on
Masters of Doom
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If I recall correctly, Commander Keen was amazing breakthrough because of the smoothness of the graphics. I remember its frame rate was very high for the time (40 per second?) making the game very responsive and smooth for a PC game. It was a technical breakthrough not necessarily a great triumph of gameplay design.
I assume you meant #4. I can certainly see your point, and I would agree that with proper supervision, that would be a good reward. The trend that concerns me is purchasing computers for every student. This is extremely expensive, and it is highly debatable whether it would actually result in a better education. I do not think there should be an out-right ban on computers in elementary school, but education should not depend upon them either.
Gays should be allowed to marry. I agree in principle, but not on the basis of "equality."... I do think that if we open the door to "alternatives" like polygamy then we are in danger.
You hit an important point here. Where do you draw the line? Once you have opened the door to the "alternative" for same-sex marriages, why not go ahead and allow polygamy? Afterall, polygamy is cross-cultural and has existed for thousands of years around the world (this is the same argument for homosexuality). This is why many people are concerned about same-sex marriages. It is part of the process of eroding what the traditional family has always been. It is taking a step down a slippery slope, and the end of that slope is complete anarchy. Do we really want to go there?
When you start changing the fundamental values of a society, you need to be very conscious of where those changes will lead. History has shown that the decay of moral values in a society inevitably leads to a collapse of that society.
If more than 50% of the class doesn't pass a test, then fire the teacher. No more teacher's unions and whining about money. There are PLENTY of people out there looking for jobs as teachers that would be more than happy to show you how much children can learn.
While I agree with most of what you said concerning education, here you are going too far. First, teachers do not make enough money. Period. We expect these individuals to try to not only instruct 30+ kids, but also to raise them in a glorified daycare. Furthermore, we given them no power of discipline, and often, when a kid is misbehaving, the teacher is completely powerless to do anything about it -- especially when the parent comes in on the side of the child. (Example, my mom taught a class in which a sixth grade boy was pulling knives on the other kids at recess. Instead of being able to discipline him, the mother and the principle came in on the side of the student and said she could do nothing to discipline him -- not even detention!)
Now, when it comes to changes in education, I think there are several things that should be done.
1) Enforce testing standards and encourage teachers to fail students who are not performing up to standards (as you mentioned). This needs to be combined with an overview process to determine the cause for the student's failure to learn including the responsibility of the parents to assist in the process. Teachers are not suppose to raise kids; they are supposed to teach them.
2) Remove the requirement that teachers join the NEA (National Education Association). In many states, teachers must join to NEA in order to actually become a teacher despite the fact that the NEA is incredibly liberal and supports causes that the teacher may find extremely objectionable (ie. abortion).
3) Parents and the school administration need to give the teachers support and authority to deal out discipline to unruly students. You cannot expect unruly kids to start behaving themselves on their own without some sort of corrective action.
4) Look into administrative salaries and expensive programs first when determining places to trim costs. Football (and believe me, I do love the sport) is extremely expensive, and given the health and safety considerations, should be only offered when an abundance of money is available. Also, computer usage, especially in elementary and even junior high, should be reconsidered. It is very important to learn the basics of math, reading, and writing before learning to use the tool of the computer. Otherwise, the computer becomes a crutch to society. Watch your average sales clerk when for some reason they are unable to use a calculator or cash register. We have somehow forgotten that the basics need to be learned and mastered before we learn the shortcuts. Just look at Frontpage web designers and their lack of understanding in regards to HTML!
5) Give parents more input into what is taught to their children. This also requires the parents themselves to take a more active role in the education of their children. Americans only have an average of 1-2 kids per family right now anyway. Is it that hard to keep track of one or two kids (remember, previous generations had far more to concern themselves with). Have we gotten so busy in our personal lives (read: selfish lives) that we can no longer pay adequate attention to our families? (sorry for the mini-rant).
Personally, I feel insulted by the statement "a carefully crafted marketing image." Say it like it is: a carefully crafted lie to sucker people to give them money for an inferior product. Perhaps we the consumer should start demanding refunds on movies that failed to live up to the advertising like in other industries.
It amazes me that they are even bothering to complain. It is not that much different than spoiled, fabulously wealthy baseball players going on strike when the average salary is $1.8 million dollars. Who are these people trying to kid? There is a reason why I am feeling more and more inclined to see fewer movies each year (and this coming from a former movie addict). I want quality for my money, and whether it is text messages, Internet critic sites, or talking to my friends on the phone, I will not allow their slick, deceptive marketing machine dictate what I will or will not watch (also the reason why I no longer watch TV). I will make an informed decision and spend my money and time pursuing something that may actually have value. If that means that the movie executives aren't able to buy that fifth mansion up in Paradise Valley, Montana, so be it. I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it.
I agree. In reading the article, I couldn't help but wonder what kind of side effects come from the reaction. It did mention the following:
It would cause little fallout compared to a fission explosion, but any undetonated isomer would be dispersed as small radioactive particles, making it a somewhat "dirty" bomb. This material could cause long-term health problems for anybody who breathed it in.
Could these undetonated isomers be "recycled" in a controlled reactor? In other words, are there any byproducts from the reaction that would need to be disposed. Could this perhaps be a cleaner method of energy production compared to our current nuclear power?
It is frightening when considering the potential in weapons, but the same danger exists with virtually any technological breakthrough. Nanobots, hailed as possible cures for cancer and many other diseases, could also pose an incredible threat as a true virus that could kill millions. This is always an interesting point of debate. With technology comes power, and in the hands of humans, power corrupts -- but good can result as well.
I would agree if people were having abortions just to provide stem cells, but that isn't the case. No one is repeatedly getting pregnant and having abortions just to provide stem cells for research. The abortions are going to happen anyway. It just doesn't make sense to throw away the stem cells when they have value.
I agree, but the problem is that it adds some legitimacy to abortion: "Well, at least some good comes out of it." The fear is that by having this extra "excuse", more people will find reason to choose abortion as opposed to other options (raising the child, adoption, etc.)
With the very real possibility of earning a flamebait or troll....
The moral issue with stem-cell research and cloning cannot possibly be compared with Galileo. The science Galileo offered threatened the misguided establishment at that time that taught that earth was the center of universe. It isn't the "new science" that is problem. It is the known facts and the resulting concerns for the sanctity of human life that are at issue.
Cloning is very much in its initial stages of development, and it's early results with animals have been very questionable. Most animal clones either die quickly or are found to be deformed. Given the current track record, to attempt to clone a human would be to produce an individual whose life would be filled with pain and probably an early death. It is these very considerations that require massive amounts of testing on animals for any medical products to protect human lives.
Stem-cell research is questionable due to the source of the material: abortions. While not composing all of the source of stem-cells, it certainly is a contributor. In this country where close to half of the population opposes abortion, I think it is reasonable to restrain public money from going toward something that so many find objectionable.
When comparing these two issues with the war against Afganistan and Iraq, let me ask you a question. Is it better to attack aggressive nations and cruel dictators or to inflict suffering and death upon innocent children with unproven science? While there are certainly some who fear these developments for more dogmatic reasons, it does not mean that there are not rational arguments against them.
How do we know that the SEC isn't already watching the SCO? They could be giving them enough rope to hang themselves before they spring the trap. Until their case proves to be fraudulent (it appears to be overwhelmingly so now, but there is no irrefutable proof... that will be coming soon), there may actually be nothing with which the SEC can actually prosecute at this point. Once everything is in the clear and their lawsuit is proven to be what we all here believe it to be, then the SEC, who has probably been gathering evidence all of this time, will be prepared to move in. I highly doubt that the SEC is failing to notice a story of this magnitude.
I do a little bit of support in addition to my primary duties as a developer (so I can keep in touch with the customers and their requests/etc). We have commercial products that we sell, but we also have a limited, free service accessible from our web page to serve as a demo of the product. I find it interesting that the customers that call in who have purchased our products are generally friendly and respectful. The customers that call in about the free service are almost always rude and demanding. They ask for more features and complain about the limitations. Sometimes you just want to tell them: IT'S A ~FREE~ SERVICE!!! You can always buy our products.
That aside, I have also noticed a serious lack of knowledge in many customers, some of whom are the only "IT" person in the company (I put IT in quotes since their knowledge expressed during the support bring this claim into serious question). I find it really sad how many people I have to walk through the basics (saving a CSV file in Excel, for example) especially when these are people who are supposed to know what they are doing (IT, programmers). Sometimes the web developers are the worst. I have run into so many who know how to use Dreamweaver, but they have no concept of how to actually modify an HTML page by hand. (Another example of where learning the basics before learning the fancy tools is vital... please keep calculators out of schools until at least High School... but I digress...) It is so refreshing when you find someone who actually seems to know what they are doing!
As a disclaimer, I have worked for very small companies (<50 employees) and a moderate sized company (300+ employees). I currently work for a company with about 40 employees. The smaller companies, I have found, are far more enjoyable to work for. You are given a lot more freedom to design and develop without getting lost in a quagmire of beauracracy and red tape. In the larger company, most of our time was spent in mettings are fighting with marketing/sales. There is much better communication in smaller companies between groups because it is actually possible to know everyone.
The advantage of big companies come in stability and security (in general). They generally offer better benefit packages (dental, medical, etc.) due to the better deals they get with insurance companies and investment firms. Smaller companies involve more risk since often times the company is not as established and therefore is more likely to fail. There is also generally a greater wealth of talent to draw from in getting help for problems you cannot solve. There will be a wider range of skills and expertise in a larger company simply because there are more employees. For example, I am basically the UNIX expert in my current company because I am the only one with any experience (not because I am anything close to a guru), so when there is a UNIX problem I do not know how to fix, I have no one in house that can help me. Thank God for the Internet!
I would highly recommend a smaller company, especially if you are single. You do not have the need for stability like a family man does. They are typically much more fun to work in, and there is a good potential to be high up in the company (one of the lead developers/management/whatever suits you) should it become successful. You also get a better feel for how the entire company operates from development to marketing to sales since you know people from every department.
That sounds like a very reasonable proposal to me as well. The problem is that as it now stands, we are relying on the integrity of the individuals running the system without any safeguards. All three points you made will address this by adding accountability to those running the system and the ability of the individual to monitor information about themselves. To allow this kind of power without accountability is asking for trouble. Throughout history, people have done some terrible injustices in what they saw (rightly or wrongly) as a noble cause. This is why you never want to give someone a lot of power with no accountability, even if they seemingly have impeccible integrity.
You forgot the exponential growth rate of the world's population. At only 78,000 new clients every year (many of whom are repeat customers - see the article), we will never catch up.
Lynch the spammers indeed...
BTW, at 78,000 sales per year with $35 profit margin ($50 - $5 for actual product - $10 spammer cost), they are looking at a gross of $2.73 million per year. Not a bad income, all things considered. Maybe I need a career change... oh, wait!
While that is all well and good, assuming that we can in fact trust this particular "senior official", what guarantees do we have that his successor will use the same "restraint"? How can we enforce this restraint especially in the current climate where all restraints regarding privacy and liberty seem to be expendable in the interests of national security?
You make a good point regarding not keeping up with change, however, I think in the world of the Internet, it is a little different. For years, developing applications for the web have been incredibly difficult due to different implementations of standards with the different browsers and proprietary "features". As a web developer, I look at this new standard with dread, and it will probably be many years before I will embrace it due to incompatibility with my user's browsers. Users are notoriously slow to upgrade to the latest and greatest. We are just starting to see some stabilization in the browser market with innovation turning more toward usability features rather than standards support.
I see the new innovations in web development coming in server side tools and development suites..NET is a good example of a new way to deliver content that is usable by the masses that makes the development of complex web applications easier. My biggest concern with a re-write of the web forms is a huge change in code (and the incompatibilities that will result) with relatively little actual gain. In looking at the list of features, I saw nothing that I cannot live without. If there is a major "must-have" feature in there that I missed, please let me know. Really.
Amen to that. I don't really see anything in the standard that cannot be done with the current technology (except the suspend/resume... but as another poster noted, WHY?!). While this argument is often a bad one in that it can cause one to be stuck in the past forever, in the case of web development, stability is better than progress. The web is finally starting to reach a point (after many, many years of frustration) where everyone is using the same standard and most users have capable web browsers. Yet, just when the job of the web developer is looking to become almost managable, they want to add an entirely new mess that will involve a whole new generation of browser incompatibility and proprietary "features". There just aren't enough compelling reasons to face the compatibility nightmare. Yet another worthless standard...
BTW, what is up with this whole "separate the logic from the interface" kick about. While it is an interesting programming model, I do not see why an entirely new standard is required to support it. This kind of thing is already possible given existing server-side technology. Just wondering.
Let's just go ahead and do it already instead of constantly debating and delaying the inevitable. It will make things easier in the long run, and the technology exists already for the transition. Let's move on already so that we on/. can spend our time talking about more important things... like complaining about the RIAA.
So why does it need to go from 0-60 in four seconds and top out at 130?
To make it fun to drive
Having driven a gutless wonder for years, I have come to have a great appreciation for the ability to accelerate quickly. When you are trying to merge into 65 mph traffic from a dead stop, the ability to get up to speed in four seconds is not only "fun" but it gives a real peace of mind and makes me for one feel much safer.
As long as production does not suffer, you actually can gain quite a bit through tele-commuting. Growing companies no longer have to worry about building expansion, and overcrowded offices can be relieved. Also, there are fewer requirements for heating/cooling and water (the employees are paying for their own bathroom breaks). There is also additional savings in general office supplies such as paper towels and even, depending on the situation, pencils, pens, paper, computer equipment.
Cost is not really the big problem. The biggest real concern against tele-commuting is security. Even with a secure connection to work, if the employee installs personal software on their computer, they could introduce viruses that would circumvent your security by using that connection. I believe steps are being taken to improve this, but the security issue is the biggest reason that I have heard used in the companies that I haved worked for.
I have actually been there, and it is actually an interesting museum that traces the history of computers from the first mechanical calculators to current technology. Pretty fascinating stuff, and a pretty large collection of computers and gear. There might be a better one somewhere else, though I have never heard of one specifically. As pointed out, there is also the Museum of the Rockies, though it is overpriced for what you get in my opinion.
Also, if you come up sometime before Memorial day (last weekend in May) or after Labor day (first weekend in September), you can see Yellowstone National Park without all of the tourists -- the best time to see it for sure (note: you pretty much need to see it in September or May unless you don't mind snowmobiling).
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a link to information about the Ford Escape. I actually considered it, but it was not available when I needed to get the new vehicle. There is also a little concern about cargo space since it is a smaller SUV, but when it comes out, I will definitely be giving it a look. It is supposed to have V6 power and 4WD with somewhere around 40 mpg. Not bad at all.
Another interesting tidbit mentioned on the site is that in the US there are tax deductions for owning a hybrid vehicle.
Pet Peeve #843288: People who assume that the only reason someone bought an SUV is for enlarging their ego.
I purchased my SUV for several reasons: Montana winters (4-wheel drive), cargo capacity for musical gear, room for additional passengers (though admittedly, I frequently drive in it alone), and easier access in and out (I am rather tall). At the time of purchase, there were really no hybrid equivalents that were capable of doing the things I needed my vehicle to do. If they can come out with a hybrid SUV with 4-wheel drive and good cargo capacity and power to carry the weight of my musical gear, then believe me, I will be one of the first in line to check it out!
Not every SUV driver is out to earn status points. Some of us actually purchased the vehicle out of a need for its capabilities. I reserve the right to complain about the price of gas. Afterall, complaining is the great American national pastime!
Here is the response as seen in the forum on their site:
Reference
Most good shows don't start to click until at least the 2nd season.
That was one of the more intriguing bits about the series for me -- the characters were already very good. The actors really seemed to be enjoying the show and doing a great job of breathing life into their characters. It was well written, and the plots were engaging. The big plot was just getting started when FOX cut them... even with the movie, we may never know where the show would have taken us.
I am very happy to hear that they are at least going to try to get the entire cast on board. It was the full ensemble that really made the show work.
This may come as a shock but CD-Rs can also be used to record data (gasp) or am I the only person in the free world who uses them for this purpose?
You hit probably the single biggest use of blank CD's. Many people are using CD's now as cheap backup storage for their computer data. Also, with the proliferation of digital photography, the need for massive, cheap data storage has grown considerably. It would be interesting to do a study on what exactly these blank CD's are being used for. There is certainly not a one-to-one relationship between blank CD's and copied music (even that which has been legitimately purchased.
If I recall correctly, Commander Keen was amazing breakthrough because of the smoothness of the graphics. I remember its frame rate was very high for the time (40 per second?) making the game very responsive and smooth for a PC game. It was a technical breakthrough not necessarily a great triumph of gameplay design.
I assume you meant #4. I can certainly see your point, and I would agree that with proper supervision, that would be a good reward. The trend that concerns me is purchasing computers for every student. This is extremely expensive, and it is highly debatable whether it would actually result in a better education. I do not think there should be an out-right ban on computers in elementary school, but education should not depend upon them either.
Gays should be allowed to marry. I agree in principle, but not on the basis of "equality."... I do think that if we open the door to "alternatives" like polygamy then we are in danger.
You hit an important point here. Where do you draw the line? Once you have opened the door to the "alternative" for same-sex marriages, why not go ahead and allow polygamy? Afterall, polygamy is cross-cultural and has existed for thousands of years around the world (this is the same argument for homosexuality). This is why many people are concerned about same-sex marriages. It is part of the process of eroding what the traditional family has always been. It is taking a step down a slippery slope, and the end of that slope is complete anarchy. Do we really want to go there?
When you start changing the fundamental values of a society, you need to be very conscious of where those changes will lead. History has shown that the decay of moral values in a society inevitably leads to a collapse of that society.
If more than 50% of the class doesn't pass a test, then fire the teacher. No more teacher's unions and whining about money. There are PLENTY of people out there looking for jobs as teachers that would be more than happy to show you how much children can learn.
While I agree with most of what you said concerning education, here you are going too far. First, teachers do not make enough money. Period. We expect these individuals to try to not only instruct 30+ kids, but also to raise them in a glorified daycare. Furthermore, we given them no power of discipline, and often, when a kid is misbehaving, the teacher is completely powerless to do anything about it -- especially when the parent comes in on the side of the child. (Example, my mom taught a class in which a sixth grade boy was pulling knives on the other kids at recess. Instead of being able to discipline him, the mother and the principle came in on the side of the student and said she could do nothing to discipline him -- not even detention!)
Now, when it comes to changes in education, I think there are several things that should be done.
1) Enforce testing standards and encourage teachers to fail students who are not performing up to standards (as you mentioned). This needs to be combined with an overview process to determine the cause for the student's failure to learn including the responsibility of the parents to assist in the process. Teachers are not suppose to raise kids; they are supposed to teach them.
2) Remove the requirement that teachers join the NEA (National Education Association). In many states, teachers must join to NEA in order to actually become a teacher despite the fact that the NEA is incredibly liberal and supports causes that the teacher may find extremely objectionable (ie. abortion).
3) Parents and the school administration need to give the teachers support and authority to deal out discipline to unruly students. You cannot expect unruly kids to start behaving themselves on their own without some sort of corrective action.
4) Look into administrative salaries and expensive programs first when determining places to trim costs. Football (and believe me, I do love the sport) is extremely expensive, and given the health and safety considerations, should be only offered when an abundance of money is available. Also, computer usage, especially in elementary and even junior high, should be reconsidered. It is very important to learn the basics of math, reading, and writing before learning to use the tool of the computer. Otherwise, the computer becomes a crutch to society. Watch your average sales clerk when for some reason they are unable to use a calculator or cash register. We have somehow forgotten that the basics need to be learned and mastered before we learn the shortcuts. Just look at Frontpage web designers and their lack of understanding in regards to HTML!
5) Give parents more input into what is taught to their children. This also requires the parents themselves to take a more active role in the education of their children. Americans only have an average of 1-2 kids per family right now anyway. Is it that hard to keep track of one or two kids (remember, previous generations had far more to concern themselves with). Have we gotten so busy in our personal lives (read: selfish lives) that we can no longer pay adequate attention to our families? (sorry for the mini-rant).
No further questions.
The solution is to create good movies.
Amen.
<rant>
Personally, I feel insulted by the statement "a carefully crafted marketing image." Say it like it is: a carefully crafted lie to sucker people to give them money for an inferior product. Perhaps we the consumer should start demanding refunds on movies that failed to live up to the advertising like in other industries.
It amazes me that they are even bothering to complain. It is not that much different than spoiled, fabulously wealthy baseball players going on strike when the average salary is $1.8 million dollars. Who are these people trying to kid? There is a reason why I am feeling more and more inclined to see fewer movies each year (and this coming from a former movie addict). I want quality for my money, and whether it is text messages, Internet critic sites, or talking to my friends on the phone, I will not allow their slick, deceptive marketing machine dictate what I will or will not watch (also the reason why I no longer watch TV). I will make an informed decision and spend my money and time pursuing something that may actually have value. If that means that the movie executives aren't able to buy that fifth mansion up in Paradise Valley, Montana, so be it. I certainly won't be losing any sleep over it.
</rant>There. I feel so much better now...
I agree. In reading the article, I couldn't help but wonder what kind of side effects come from the reaction. It did mention the following:
Could these undetonated isomers be "recycled" in a controlled reactor? In other words, are there any byproducts from the reaction that would need to be disposed. Could this perhaps be a cleaner method of energy production compared to our current nuclear power?
It is frightening when considering the potential in weapons, but the same danger exists with virtually any technological breakthrough. Nanobots, hailed as possible cures for cancer and many other diseases, could also pose an incredible threat as a true virus that could kill millions. This is always an interesting point of debate. With technology comes power, and in the hands of humans, power corrupts -- but good can result as well.
I agree, but the problem is that it adds some legitimacy to abortion: "Well, at least some good comes out of it." The fear is that by having this extra "excuse", more people will find reason to choose abortion as opposed to other options (raising the child, adoption, etc.)
With the very real possibility of earning a flamebait or troll....
The moral issue with stem-cell research and cloning cannot possibly be compared with Galileo. The science Galileo offered threatened the misguided establishment at that time that taught that earth was the center of universe. It isn't the "new science" that is problem. It is the known facts and the resulting concerns for the sanctity of human life that are at issue.
Cloning is very much in its initial stages of development, and it's early results with animals have been very questionable. Most animal clones either die quickly or are found to be deformed. Given the current track record, to attempt to clone a human would be to produce an individual whose life would be filled with pain and probably an early death. It is these very considerations that require massive amounts of testing on animals for any medical products to protect human lives.
Stem-cell research is questionable due to the source of the material: abortions. While not composing all of the source of stem-cells, it certainly is a contributor. In this country where close to half of the population opposes abortion, I think it is reasonable to restrain public money from going toward something that so many find objectionable.
When comparing these two issues with the war against Afganistan and Iraq, let me ask you a question. Is it better to attack aggressive nations and cruel dictators or to inflict suffering and death upon innocent children with unproven science? While there are certainly some who fear these developments for more dogmatic reasons, it does not mean that there are not rational arguments against them.
How do we know that the SEC isn't already watching the SCO? They could be giving them enough rope to hang themselves before they spring the trap. Until their case proves to be fraudulent (it appears to be overwhelmingly so now, but there is no irrefutable proof... that will be coming soon), there may actually be nothing with which the SEC can actually prosecute at this point. Once everything is in the clear and their lawsuit is proven to be what we all here believe it to be, then the SEC, who has probably been gathering evidence all of this time, will be prepared to move in. I highly doubt that the SEC is failing to notice a story of this magnitude.
I do a little bit of support in addition to my primary duties as a developer (so I can keep in touch with the customers and their requests/etc). We have commercial products that we sell, but we also have a limited, free service accessible from our web page to serve as a demo of the product. I find it interesting that the customers that call in who have purchased our products are generally friendly and respectful. The customers that call in about the free service are almost always rude and demanding. They ask for more features and complain about the limitations. Sometimes you just want to tell them: IT'S A ~FREE~ SERVICE!!! You can always buy our products.
That aside, I have also noticed a serious lack of knowledge in many customers, some of whom are the only "IT" person in the company (I put IT in quotes since their knowledge expressed during the support bring this claim into serious question). I find it really sad how many people I have to walk through the basics (saving a CSV file in Excel, for example) especially when these are people who are supposed to know what they are doing (IT, programmers). Sometimes the web developers are the worst. I have run into so many who know how to use Dreamweaver, but they have no concept of how to actually modify an HTML page by hand. (Another example of where learning the basics before learning the fancy tools is vital... please keep calculators out of schools until at least High School... but I digress...) It is so refreshing when you find someone who actually seems to know what they are doing!
As a disclaimer, I have worked for very small companies (<50 employees) and a moderate sized company (300+ employees). I currently work for a company with about 40 employees. The smaller companies, I have found, are far more enjoyable to work for. You are given a lot more freedom to design and develop without getting lost in a quagmire of beauracracy and red tape. In the larger company, most of our time was spent in mettings are fighting with marketing/sales. There is much better communication in smaller companies between groups because it is actually possible to know everyone.
The advantage of big companies come in stability and security (in general). They generally offer better benefit packages (dental, medical, etc.) due to the better deals they get with insurance companies and investment firms. Smaller companies involve more risk since often times the company is not as established and therefore is more likely to fail. There is also generally a greater wealth of talent to draw from in getting help for problems you cannot solve. There will be a wider range of skills and expertise in a larger company simply because there are more employees. For example, I am basically the UNIX expert in my current company because I am the only one with any experience (not because I am anything close to a guru), so when there is a UNIX problem I do not know how to fix, I have no one in house that can help me. Thank God for the Internet!
I would highly recommend a smaller company, especially if you are single. You do not have the need for stability like a family man does. They are typically much more fun to work in, and there is a good potential to be high up in the company (one of the lead developers/management/whatever suits you) should it become successful. You also get a better feel for how the entire company operates from development to marketing to sales since you know people from every department.
Just my two cents.
That sounds like a very reasonable proposal to me as well. The problem is that as it now stands, we are relying on the integrity of the individuals running the system without any safeguards. All three points you made will address this by adding accountability to those running the system and the ability of the individual to monitor information about themselves. To allow this kind of power without accountability is asking for trouble. Throughout history, people have done some terrible injustices in what they saw (rightly or wrongly) as a noble cause. This is why you never want to give someone a lot of power with no accountability, even if they seemingly have impeccible integrity.
I would mod you up, but, obviously, I cannot. :-)
You forgot the exponential growth rate of the world's population. At only 78,000 new clients every year (many of whom are repeat customers - see the article), we will never catch up.
Lynch the spammers indeed...
BTW, at 78,000 sales per year with $35 profit margin ($50 - $5 for actual product - $10 spammer cost), they are looking at a gross of $2.73 million per year. Not a bad income, all things considered. Maybe I need a career change... oh, wait!
While that is all well and good, assuming that we can in fact trust this particular "senior official", what guarantees do we have that his successor will use the same "restraint"? How can we enforce this restraint especially in the current climate where all restraints regarding privacy and liberty seem to be expendable in the interests of national security?
You make a good point regarding not keeping up with change, however, I think in the world of the Internet, it is a little different. For years, developing applications for the web have been incredibly difficult due to different implementations of standards with the different browsers and proprietary "features". As a web developer, I look at this new standard with dread, and it will probably be many years before I will embrace it due to incompatibility with my user's browsers. Users are notoriously slow to upgrade to the latest and greatest. We are just starting to see some stabilization in the browser market with innovation turning more toward usability features rather than standards support.
I see the new innovations in web development coming in server side tools and development suites. .NET is a good example of a new way to deliver content that is usable by the masses that makes the development of complex web applications easier. My biggest concern with a re-write of the web forms is a huge change in code (and the incompatibilities that will result) with relatively little actual gain. In looking at the list of features, I saw nothing that I cannot live without. If there is a major "must-have" feature in there that I missed, please let me know. Really.
Amen to that. I don't really see anything in the standard that cannot be done with the current technology (except the suspend/resume... but as another poster noted, WHY?!). While this argument is often a bad one in that it can cause one to be stuck in the past forever, in the case of web development, stability is better than progress. The web is finally starting to reach a point (after many, many years of frustration) where everyone is using the same standard and most users have capable web browsers. Yet, just when the job of the web developer is looking to become almost managable, they want to add an entirely new mess that will involve a whole new generation of browser incompatibility and proprietary "features". There just aren't enough compelling reasons to face the compatibility nightmare. Yet another worthless standard...
BTW, what is up with this whole "separate the logic from the interface" kick about. While it is an interesting programming model, I do not see why an entirely new standard is required to support it. This kind of thing is already possible given existing server-side technology. Just wondering.
Let's just go ahead and do it already instead of constantly debating and delaying the inevitable. It will make things easier in the long run, and the technology exists already for the transition. Let's move on already so that we on /. can spend our time talking about more important things... like complaining about the RIAA.
So why does it need to go from 0-60 in four seconds and top out at 130?
To make it fun to drive
Having driven a gutless wonder for years, I have come to have a great appreciation for the ability to accelerate quickly. When you are trying to merge into 65 mph traffic from a dead stop, the ability to get up to speed in four seconds is not only "fun" but it gives a real peace of mind and makes me for one feel much safer.
As long as production does not suffer, you actually can gain quite a bit through tele-commuting. Growing companies no longer have to worry about building expansion, and overcrowded offices can be relieved. Also, there are fewer requirements for heating/cooling and water (the employees are paying for their own bathroom breaks). There is also additional savings in general office supplies such as paper towels and even, depending on the situation, pencils, pens, paper, computer equipment.
Cost is not really the big problem. The biggest real concern against tele-commuting is security. Even with a secure connection to work, if the employee installs personal software on their computer, they could introduce viruses that would circumvent your security by using that connection. I believe steps are being taken to improve this, but the security issue is the biggest reason that I have heard used in the companies that I haved worked for.
I have actually been there, and it is actually an interesting museum that traces the history of computers from the first mechanical calculators to current technology. Pretty fascinating stuff, and a pretty large collection of computers and gear. There might be a better one somewhere else, though I have never heard of one specifically. As pointed out, there is also the Museum of the Rockies, though it is overpriced for what you get in my opinion.
Also, if you come up sometime before Memorial day (last weekend in May) or after Labor day (first weekend in September), you can see Yellowstone National Park without all of the tourists -- the best time to see it for sure (note: you pretty much need to see it in September or May unless you don't mind snowmobiling).