> Can we please stop getting old stuff recycled and at least try for something a little less imitative of previous scifi shows?
Hmph. I'd love to see someone do something derivative. Something familiar. Something I can nod my head and say "Yeah, I've seen that before." Something totally derivative. Something that's exactly like a couple of previous sci-fi shows. I nominate "B5" and "Firefly".
> I wasn't particularly thrilled with last night's episode.
I called "Stereotypically Feminist PC Federation Psychobabble!" in the first 5 minutes (just like last week when I yelled out "Jews vs Arabs!" in last week's trailer:-), then groaned and MST3Kd my way through the next nauseatingly Federationally-Correct 45 minutes of the episode, but I'll give credit where it's due: the Captain finally grew a pair and started acting like a Captain for once. (I woulda demoted the guy, but at least I got to see him get a righteous chewing-out.)
Sometimes being in command means you don't get to impose Federation Values on everyone, and sometimes being Federationally-Correct is the wrong thing to do. Pity it was only in the last 10 minutes. But the last 10 minutes turned another nauseating indoctrination-fest into at least a salvageable episode. A few more like that, and I might stop watching Enterprise for more than MST3K value.
"NSA is now funding research not only in cryptography, but in all areas
of advanced mathematics. If you'd like a circular describing these new
research opportunities, just pick up your phone, call your mother, and
ask for one."
- [source unknown, seen in.sig files for at least 10 years]
> > however, in none of these cases was encryption reported to have prevented law enforcement officials from obtaining the plain text of communications intercepted
> >Does this mean that all the communications were successfully decrypted? Or maybe it just means that failures were not reported?
Yes, it means all of the communications were successfully decrypted. It does not mean that failures were not reported.
It is (deliberately) vague about whether decryption was done by s00per-s33kr1t quantum computers on Mars, or if it was done by using other methods to compromise the suspect's password, passphrase, key, or leaked transmissions of plaintext. I don't have a need to know, but I would suspect the latter is the more likely possibility. The weakest link in any cryptosystem is the moron behind the keyboard.
I would point out that we're still barely talking about double digit numbers of wiretaps here. ("16", "18")
Those of you with nightmares about everybody in the US being tapped can move along, because there's very little to see. While it may be possible to do such a thing, it would still be prohibitively expensive. Not just in terms of computing gear (which is getting cheaper and always will get cheaper), but in terms of manpower (which ain't any cheaper, and ain't gonna get any cheaper) to analyze it.
Satellite dishes, make-out sessions in cars, hookers, banned books on the shelves, VCDs of banned religious practices, beer, and pr0n, pr0n, pr0n! Democracy, sexy, whisky, baby! Bring it on!
"I don't like it. It's forbidden under Islam," said Mohammed Mishan, a 26-year-old Iraqi army lieutenant.
"Then what are you doing here?" a man called as the crowd erupted in laughter. Mishan flushed and stalked off.
> this sort of arrogance make me sick...
I would say the same for the sort of arrogance that implies Muslims are too primitive (or too saintly) to enjoy freedom.
> Your post brings up a question -- Who is our economy FOR? Is it for US - to have lives - or does our economy exist for all of us to serve a few rich people?
You're begging the question - presuming an answer in the form of your question. (You're also inventing a false dichotomy - who says that it can't exist for both purposes:)
So the flippant answer is to remind you about how Jello Biafra said "don't hate the media, become the media"? I'd take that one step further: don't envy the rich, become the rich!
But the serious answer: Yes, economy is for us to have lives, but no, not to serve a "few rich people", but to serve ourselves.
The catch is that my definition of "to have lives" means the economy exists to allow us to live whatever lives we choose.
Personally, I enjoy computers. I don't enjoy poopy diapers. A guy who spends all week changing them, and putting up with the yelling and screaming of his offspring, and who has to buy a bigger house and a minivan, and who lives in constant fear that his wife'll just say "So long, and thanks for all the fish"... well, he may have a live, but it's not a live I have any desire to live. (And he'd likely say the same about me!)
There are 168 hours in a week, and I like to average around 8 hours a night of sleep (Less while fragging, more when recovering:) So upon graduation, the economy presented me with a choice between:
A) 40 work, 40 diapers, 56 sleep, 32 "free" time. [default option, no undo]
B) 60 work, 20 fragging while pretending to work, 56 sleep, 32 "free" time.
...and I chose "B". You're free to choose "A". I don't want to take your right to choose "A" (or pencil in a "C"!), and all I ask is that you not take away my right to choose "B".
> And when was the last time you saw spam coming from a US server?
About the same time I started blanket-blocking 12.0.0.0/8 and 24.0.0.0/8 as well as all the other netblocks belonging to residential broadband users.
You're the CEO of rr.com? attbi.com? cogentco? telus.net? pacbell.net? swbell.net? ameritech.net? Until you start blocking port 25 by default - only enabling it when someone calls your support line and says "Yeah, I wanna run an MTA", I don't want to hear anything from any of 'em. Fuck the spammers and your idiot customers they ride in on, but at least your customers can claim ignorance as a defence. You can't, so fuck you for not controlling the damage your clueless fucktard customers do.
Even goddamn uu.net (!) blocked port 25 for its residential dialup luzers. Why the fuck are you you cable/DSL-providing assclowns so unwilling to control your customers? Aren't your businesses in enough trouble without being preemptively firewalled by every sysadmin from here to hell and back?
> The problem with that is that you get lots of wasted hard-drive space if many applications use the same libraries and reproduce them all in their own directories.
3 years ago, I paid $200 for a 10G hard drive.
Today, I paid $200 for a 100G hard drive. RAM's pretty cheap too.
Unless you're telling me that the Earth's rotation has slowed (I haven't noticed) to the point that you now have 240 hours a day to work out library interdependencies, I say it's time to fuck dynamic libraries and the horse they rode in on.:)
> Of course/usr/bin/cat and friends have a very long tradition. Users were moved to/home so that when they fill up the tiny disk, you can still put more stuff in/usr. That was clearly a great idea of a BOFH.
Could be worse. How about we put applications in/opt? And take that somewhat SVR4ish thing to new heights... by naming each application's directory with the vendor's NASDAQ stock symbol!
And a million fucking n00bz with Outleak Excess would still top-post without even snipping irrelevant material when quoting, and when called on it, would claim it was somehow more readable!
> Right. > > Participation is voluntary, and in good communities, there are usually longstanding members who will lay down the heavy, large-knuckled hand of tough love and teach offenders to behave properly. Those who decide that this treatment is unfair leave (or cause more trouble, and get ignored), and those who decide to stay usually do so humbled. I love it. > >I'm sure the unruliest of the rebels wind up creating their own little communities, but I doubt that they'd last quite as long. > >
> Heck, I just wish there were more situations in real life which could be dealt with by simply laying the fist down on instigators and idiots.
> >"YOU! Loud newcomer! Be quiet and be nice, or get out. And if you decide to stay, know this: The strawberry-donuts are ALWAYS mine. Oh, and during your first month here, you are not allowed to wear pants unless you have purchased a pant-permission ticket from one of us. Now, off with the pants."
> What you are describing is the very foundation of society; with rules and enforcement people can live together in large numbers. Away from the physical manifestation it's proven trickier, like those on/. who show up in the middle of a thread and call someone a 'fuckhead' to no point other than their own selfish amusement.
Moderators: Please mod that fuckhead to +5, Insightful:)
> The more likely scenario is that an Islamic republic will be formed after an election (much to the chagrin of the US), and Western music will be banned outright.
Then it's clearly in our best interest to get as much Western music and as many Western movies into the hands of the Iraqi people now, to prevent this from happening.
Hilary Rosen, whose side are you supposed to be on?!
> Rather than waste time writing copyright laws, why don't they fix their infrastructure, health/education systems and provide essential services. No offense to copyright holders (I myself being one of them) but basic human rights should come before protecting whats yours.
Besides, how the hell are we going to win hearts and minds if nobody in the entire frickin' country can afford to pay for CDs and DVDs?
Mass piracy of US intellectual "property" among the people of Iraq would be a good thing, inasmuch as the fastest way to root out religious hysteria is to replace it with consumerism, and the fastest way to get consumerism into the hearts and minds of a people is by saturation-bombing them with top-40 pablum for the kids, romantic comedies for the women, and hardcore bare-ankle-pr0n for the men.
> Wait until Ms. Rosen can cut loose in a country without the Bill of Rights, ACLU, etc. to slow her down. There will be tons of Iraqi citizens doing hard time if they are caught *humming* songs without the CD on them.;-)
Wow, it'll be just like Afghanistan under Islamic fundamentalist rule, in which all music was banned.
> I've been on a plane that was trying to land and someone used their cell phone. It was a very
bumpy ride. The pilot came on and said "Someone was using their cell phone on that landing, if I
find out who it is, they will be reported to the police."
I call foul.
No pilot would attempt to land an aircraft in that condition. (The poster who implied that "a flight attendant probably saw it, and the Captain wanted to put the Fear of God into him" is most likely correct.)
If I'm flying a plane, and I'm noticing enough interference from anything (and I somehow magically intuit that this interference is from a cellphone:) that it jeopardizes my ability to land the plane smoothly, I'm going to come onto the PA waaaaay before landing, and say "Someone with a cell phone is interfering with my navigational systems and jeopardizing the safety of this aircraft. I could land it right here and right now, at 99.995% probability of successful landing, or I could tell you to shut it the hell off and let me land at 99.999 probability of success. Until you shut that phone off, we're all staying up here until I run low on fuel, or you run low on battery power, whichever comes first. Your call."
(After 15 minutes in a holding pattern, the passengers will take care of enforcement in a way that'll make the FAA and FCC seem like teddy bears;)
> Just lock it anyway -- they will cut the lock off if they need to search it and then ziptie it afterwards. It's totally bogus, but at least you know when it's been gone through.
And of course, Federal baggage inspectors are cut from a completely different moral cloth than the merely-human private-sector baggage inspectors.
It's also much easier to sue the Federal government for your stolen laptop than it is some two-bit temp worker agency, because the two-bit temp worker agency has vastly more legal resources to fight the suit with, than something like a Federal agency:)
> Since it doesn't make a difference what the hell you use to stick your heatsink onto your CPU--hell, toothpaste works just as well as AS-3 [dansdata.com]--I'll stick with the easy stuff.
Well, the toothpaste would probably dry out and fail after a few months, so I wouldn't recommend it. (I agree with your contention that the brand of goop doesn't matter, though!)
I'm intrigued by your TIM comments. I've avoided TIMs because older CPUs didn't really have a lot of pressure on the pad. With the new XPs and P4s, maybe it's time to rethink that.
Got any links that demonstrate similar OCability or better temps with TIMs versus goop?
I imagine (imagine, not "know"!) it being "easier" to trap a bubble of air between a largish TIM like the one used on the P4, and the heatsink. Yeah, it can happen with goop too, but if you get crappy temperatures, it's easier to fix with goop.
Anyways - has anyone found a difference between goop and TIM in terms of cooling performance (i.e. overclockability), over a large enough sample, to say that maybe it really *is* time for all us 31337 d00dz to give that gummy pad a second chance?
> First, most individuals who receive dividends hold the stocks in tax-free or tax-defered accounts such as IRAs and 401Ks. So in fact, it is the wealthiest taxpayers who will benefit from Bush's proposal.
Ahem - hogwash.
XYZ offers a 5% dividend. It trades at $10.
Today, a "rich" taxpayer buys 1000 shares ($10K), and a year later, has dividends of $0.50 (5%) per share. Total income $500/y. After tax, $250/y. (38% Federal, 10% Kalifornia, 2% rounding:), or about 2.5%. But why not just buy $100K of T-bills or state/municipal bonds, which yield a tax-free 2% - close enough, really, especially since they're risk-free!
Without that double taxation, the same investor has a new choice: Get $250 on a fixed income investment, or $500 on XYZ. All of a sudden, that $10 stock is worth... more. How much more? Well, the reward has doubled, the risk hasn't. Lots of rich folks will see that, and buy XYZ. XYZ's price will rise - in fact, it'll rise until its after-tax yield is what it was before. (To our rich investor, XYZ's worth $20/share. To someone in a lower tax bracket, XYZ's worth a bit less. XYZ will probably settle around $18-19.)
Now I don't know about you, but if the dividend-yielding stocks in my 401(k) mutual funds holdings go up by 80% (perhaps boosting the fund by 20-30%, as not every holding pays a dividend), I think I'm gonna have a pretty good year:)
> [Blame the dividend double-tax] which nearly killed the classic dividend-paying stock model in favor of the far riskier growth stock model.
*applause* (Nail. Head. Hit.)
The other nail in the coffin was when Congress enacted an effective cap on executive salaries at $1M. In order to "make things fair", Congress said that companies couldn't deduct paychecks for executives over $1M.
With low CEO supply and high CEO demand, the $1M cap became the baseline, and the only thing a company could offer was (you got it!) a metric buttload of stock options.
(Yeah, we saw how that worked out for the shareholders too? Thanks, Congress. Really. Bottom of my heart.;)
> So here's a married man, with two kids, trips to little league and ballet practice, active in the community, likes to travel, and volunteers at his church. This guy doesn't belong in the business? > >And then we have a 21-year-old, fresh out of college, no kids, no relationship, lives on taco bell and mountain dew, works 70 hours a week on code. He does belong in this business?
The ones who belong in the business are the ones who turn out the most maintainable, bug-free code per week.
From the information provided, I can't yet tell you which one belongs in the business. Maybe both do.
Whether you do it in 40 or 70 hours is a lifestyle choice (I'm still only paying you for 40!), as is whether you choose to tie himself down with a wife/sprog/mortgage or burn yourself out by getting hopped up on Bawlz all night long while fragging n00b azz over the company's OC-3.
A good employer is one who can avoid letting his or her prejudices about (legal) lifestyle choices get in the way of hiring decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmph. I'd love to see someone do something derivative. Something familiar. Something I can nod my head and say "Yeah, I've seen that before." Something totally derivative. Something that's exactly like a couple of previous sci-fi shows. I nominate "B5" and "Firefly".
I called "Stereotypically Feminist PC Federation Psychobabble!" in the first 5 minutes (just like last week when I yelled out "Jews vs Arabs!" in last week's trailer :-), then groaned and MST3Kd my way through the next nauseatingly Federationally-Correct 45 minutes of the episode, but I'll give credit where it's due: the Captain finally grew a pair and started acting like a Captain for once. (I woulda demoted the guy, but at least I got to see him get a righteous chewing-out.)
Sometimes being in command means you don't get to impose Federation Values on everyone, and sometimes being Federationally-Correct is the wrong thing to do. Pity it was only in the last 10 minutes. But the last 10 minutes turned another nauseating indoctrination-fest into at least a salvageable episode. A few more like that, and I might stop watching Enterprise for more than MST3K value.
>
> Right?
The secret's out! That ad campaign wasn't a guy in a cow suit, it was a worm in a cow suit!
The Terrible Secret of Space: "EAT MOR CHIKIN!"
- [source unknown, seen in .sig files for at least 10 years]
>
>Does this mean that all the communications were successfully decrypted? Or maybe it just means that failures were not reported?
Yes, it means all of the communications were successfully decrypted. It does not mean that failures were not reported.
It is (deliberately) vague about whether decryption was done by s00per-s33kr1t quantum computers on Mars, or if it was done by using other methods to compromise the suspect's password, passphrase, key, or leaked transmissions of plaintext. I don't have a need to know, but I would suspect the latter is the more likely possibility. The weakest link in any cryptosystem is the moron behind the keyboard.
I would point out that we're still barely talking about double digit numbers of wiretaps here. ("16", "18")
Those of you with nightmares about everybody in the US being tapped can move along, because there's very little to see. While it may be possible to do such a thing, it would still be prohibitively expensive. Not just in terms of computing gear (which is getting cheaper and always will get cheaper), but in terms of manpower (which ain't any cheaper, and ain't gonna get any cheaper) to analyze it.
Iraqis now free to sin
Satellite dishes, make-out sessions in cars, hookers, banned books on the shelves, VCDs of banned religious practices, beer, and pr0n, pr0n, pr0n! Democracy, sexy, whisky, baby! Bring it on!
> this sort of arrogance make me sick...
I would say the same for the sort of arrogance that implies Muslims are too primitive (or too saintly) to enjoy freedom.
I like. Thank you.
You're begging the question - presuming an answer in the form of your question. (You're also inventing a false dichotomy - who says that it can't exist for both purposes :)
So the flippant answer is to remind you about how Jello Biafra said "don't hate the media, become the media"? I'd take that one step further: don't envy the rich, become the rich!
But the serious answer: Yes, economy is for us to have lives, but no, not to serve a "few rich people", but to serve ourselves.
The catch is that my definition of "to have lives" means the economy exists to allow us to live whatever lives we choose.
Personally, I enjoy computers. I don't enjoy poopy diapers. A guy who spends all week changing them, and putting up with the yelling and screaming of his offspring, and who has to buy a bigger house and a minivan, and who lives in constant fear that his wife'll just say "So long, and thanks for all the fish"... well, he may have a live, but it's not a live I have any desire to live. (And he'd likely say the same about me!) There are 168 hours in a week, and I like to average around 8 hours a night of sleep (Less while fragging, more when recovering :) So upon graduation, the economy presented me with a choice between:
A) 40 work, 40 diapers, 56 sleep, 32 "free" time. [default option, no undo]
B) 60 work, 20 fragging while pretending to work, 56 sleep, 32 "free" time.
About the same time I started blanket-blocking 12.0.0.0/8 and 24.0.0.0/8 as well as all the other netblocks belonging to residential broadband users.
You're the CEO of rr.com? attbi.com? cogentco? telus.net? pacbell.net? swbell.net? ameritech.net? Until you start blocking port 25 by default - only enabling it when someone calls your support line and says "Yeah, I wanna run an MTA", I don't want to hear anything from any of 'em. Fuck the spammers and your idiot customers they ride in on, but at least your customers can claim ignorance as a defence. You can't, so fuck you for not controlling the damage your clueless fucktard customers do.
Even goddamn uu.net (!) blocked port 25 for its residential dialup luzers. Why the fuck are you you cable/DSL-providing assclowns so unwilling to control your customers? Aren't your businesses in enough trouble without being preemptively firewalled by every sysadmin from here to hell and back?
3 years ago, I paid $200 for a 10G hard drive. Today, I paid $200 for a 100G hard drive. RAM's pretty cheap too.
Unless you're telling me that the Earth's rotation has slowed (I haven't noticed) to the point that you now have 240 hours a day to work out library interdependencies, I say it's time to fuck dynamic libraries and the horse they rode in on. :)
Could be worse. How about we put applications in /opt? And take that somewhat SVR4ish thing to new heights... by naming each application's directory with the vendor's NASDAQ stock symbol!
Actual examples from a stock Slowaris box:
I'll take BOFH over PHB any day.
> it would have AVRIL LAVIGNE
> AND ICE CREAM
> AND A SODA PUMP WITH UNLIMITED REFILLS
>And UT2K on a BIG SCREEN
"How about [taking the form of] a giant taco that craps ice cream?"
And a million fucking n00bz with Outleak Excess would still top-post without even snipping irrelevant material when quoting, and when called on it, would claim it was somehow more readable!
> Right.
>
> Participation is voluntary, and in good communities, there are usually longstanding members who will lay down the heavy, large-knuckled hand of tough love and teach offenders to behave properly. Those who decide that this treatment is unfair leave (or cause more trouble, and get ignored), and those who decide to stay usually do so humbled. I love it.
>
>I'm sure the unruliest of the rebels wind up creating their own little communities, but I doubt that they'd last quite as long.
>
> > Heck, I just wish there were more situations in real life which could be dealt with by simply laying the fist down on instigators and idiots.
>
>"YOU! Loud newcomer! Be quiet and be nice, or get out. And if you decide to stay, know this: The strawberry-donuts are ALWAYS mine. Oh, and during your first month here, you are not allowed to wear pants unless you have purchased a pant-permission ticket from one of us. Now, off with the pants."
Moderators: Please mod that fuckhead to +5, Insightful :)
Then it's clearly in our best interest to get as much Western music and as many Western movies into the hands of the Iraqi people now, to prevent this from happening.
Hilary Rosen, whose side are you supposed to be on?!
Besides, how the hell are we going to win hearts and minds if nobody in the entire frickin' country can afford to pay for CDs and DVDs?
Mass piracy of US intellectual "property" among the people of Iraq would be a good thing, inasmuch as the fastest way to root out religious hysteria is to replace it with consumerism, and the fastest way to get consumerism into the hearts and minds of a people is by saturation-bombing them with top-40 pablum for the kids, romantic comedies for the women, and hardcore bare-ankle-pr0n for the men.
"God is roasting their servers in hell!"
(Oh, man, we so have to find that guy and get him on Saturday Night Live :)
Wow, it'll be just like Afghanistan under Islamic fundamentalist rule, in which all music was banned.
Hilary Rosen: American Taliban!
I call foul.
No pilot would attempt to land an aircraft in that condition. (The poster who implied that "a flight attendant probably saw it, and the Captain wanted to put the Fear of God into him" is most likely correct.)
If I'm flying a plane, and I'm noticing enough interference from anything (and I somehow magically intuit that this interference is from a cellphone :) that it jeopardizes my ability to land the plane smoothly, I'm going to come onto the PA waaaaay before landing, and say "Someone with a cell phone is interfering with my navigational systems and jeopardizing the safety of this aircraft. I could land it right here and right now, at 99.995% probability of successful landing, or I could tell you to shut it the hell off and let me land at 99.999 probability of success. Until you shut that phone off, we're all staying up here until I run low on fuel, or you run low on battery power, whichever comes first. Your call."
(After 15 minutes in a holding pattern, the passengers will take care of enforcement in a way that'll make the FAA and FCC seem like teddy bears ;)
And of course, Federal baggage inspectors are cut from a completely different moral cloth than the merely-human private-sector baggage inspectors.
It's also much easier to sue the Federal government for your stolen laptop than it is some two-bit temp worker agency, because the two-bit temp worker agency has vastly more legal resources to fight the suit with, than something like a Federal agency :)
Well, the toothpaste would probably dry out and fail after a few months, so I wouldn't recommend it. (I agree with your contention that the brand of goop doesn't matter, though!)
I'm intrigued by your TIM comments. I've avoided TIMs because older CPUs didn't really have a lot of pressure on the pad. With the new XPs and P4s, maybe it's time to rethink that.
Got any links that demonstrate similar OCability or better temps with TIMs versus goop?
I imagine (imagine, not "know"!) it being "easier" to trap a bubble of air between a largish TIM like the one used on the P4, and the heatsink. Yeah, it can happen with goop too, but if you get crappy temperatures, it's easier to fix with goop.
Anyways - has anyone found a difference between goop and TIM in terms of cooling performance (i.e. overclockability), over a large enough sample, to say that maybe it really *is* time for all us 31337 d00dz to give that gummy pad a second chance?
Or boobs! Why do you imply that it's somehow OK to demean boobs? I happen to like boobs!
Ahem - hogwash.
XYZ offers a 5% dividend. It trades at $10.
Today, a "rich" taxpayer buys 1000 shares ($10K), and a year later, has dividends of $0.50 (5%) per share. Total income $500/y. After tax, $250/y. (38% Federal, 10% Kalifornia, 2% rounding :), or about 2.5%. But why not just buy $100K of T-bills or state/municipal bonds, which yield a tax-free 2% - close enough, really, especially since they're risk-free!
Without that double taxation, the same investor has a new choice: Get $250 on a fixed income investment, or $500 on XYZ. All of a sudden, that $10 stock is worth... more. How much more? Well, the reward has doubled, the risk hasn't. Lots of rich folks will see that, and buy XYZ. XYZ's price will rise - in fact, it'll rise until its after-tax yield is what it was before. (To our rich investor, XYZ's worth $20/share. To someone in a lower tax bracket, XYZ's worth a bit less. XYZ will probably settle around $18-19.)
Now I don't know about you, but if the dividend-yielding stocks in my 401(k) mutual funds holdings go up by 80% (perhaps boosting the fund by 20-30%, as not every holding pays a dividend), I think I'm gonna have a pretty good year :)
*applause* (Nail. Head. Hit.)
The other nail in the coffin was when Congress enacted an effective cap on executive salaries at $1M. In order to "make things fair", Congress said that companies couldn't deduct paychecks for executives over $1M.
With low CEO supply and high CEO demand, the $1M cap became the baseline, and the only thing a company could offer was (you got it!) a metric buttload of stock options.
(Yeah, we saw how that worked out for the shareholders too? Thanks, Congress. Really. Bottom of my heart. ;)
>
>And then we have a 21-year-old, fresh out of college, no kids, no relationship, lives on taco bell and mountain dew, works 70 hours a week on code. He does belong in this business?
The ones who belong in the business are the ones who turn out the most maintainable, bug-free code per week.
From the information provided, I can't yet tell you which one belongs in the business. Maybe both do.
Whether you do it in 40 or 70 hours is a lifestyle choice (I'm still only paying you for 40!), as is whether you choose to tie himself down with a wife/sprog/mortgage or burn yourself out by getting hopped up on Bawlz all night long while fragging n00b azz over the company's OC-3.
A good employer is one who can avoid letting his or her prejudices about (legal) lifestyle choices get in the way of hiring decisions.