You're such a tool and a follower. You would rather mindlessly defer an issue to an antiquated and flawed document (the U.S. Constitution) than think for yourself and apply ethics and fairness to the issues. You're no different than unethical religious sheep who would rather defer everything to an antiquated and flawed document (the Bible) than use common sense and thinking and the golden rule to inform their behavior.
The founding fathers weren't always right. The Constitution isn't always right. The point of a democratic-like government is to allow the people to improve the body of law over time, to make it more fair and ethically just. That includes making changes to the Constitution whenever the Constition is found to be wrong, or reinterpreting how it should be applied to various situations.
What this country needs are more judges who think for themselves, possess common sense, and who take the time to really dig into and understand the issues they are presiding over. We need judges who aren't afraid to call out unjust laws for what they are and issue judgments that strike those laws down and make an effort to correct them by setting new precedent.
Of course, if we had a legislative branch that actually did its job right, we wouldn't need judges and justices smacking down their unjust laws all the time. But hey, maybe that's why we're supposed to have a system of checks and balances among the main branches of government in this country. I know Bush and his cronies don't think anyone should be questioning their executive branch (or the congress, so long as it agrees with the white house all the time), but it really is necessary to have a system of checks and balances and to constantly question rather than blindly follow.
But then again, what do I know? I'm just someone who thinks for himself.
If you're not already Boycotting Sony for their misdeeds, then I call upon you to stop purchasing ALL Sony products.
Boycotts are ineffective against large companies like Sony because they make and do so much stuff that it's impossible to avoid all of it. In addition, boycotts are ineffective in general, because typically only a minority of a company's customers are even upset about an issue in the first place, and they calm down and lose interest in the boycott quickly.
If you really want to stick it to Sony, buy some of their stock. That entitles you to be a voting shareholder. Each share you own counts as one vote. Not only can you vote, but most companies allow shareholder to propose initiatives to go on the ballot at the annual shareholders meeting.
If you really want to organize something that will make a real difference, set up a non-profit organization (and a web site to go with it) to collect "donations" from people. Have the non-profit use the donations to buy up tons of Sony stock and use the shareholder power to propose and vote on initiatives to change Sony's unethical behavior. Since the organization is a non-profit, it can't just take profits from the stock if the stock happens to go up (which guarantees donors that the organization's motivations won't be tainted). The organization could even spell out a legal agreement to contributors that when they donate, their donations will be used to purchase shares that the organization will never sell, and that if the organization dissolves, the ownership of the shares will revert back to the donor.
Let's say we have two questions that both are answered correctly by the same percentage of people. It's pretty much guaranteed that different groups of people get those questions wrong.
There would have to be a positive correlation between "the group of people who didn't know the answer to question #1" and some other classification (such as "the group of people who are homosexuals"). It would be extremely unlikely as well as extremely difficult to intentionally rig.
Besides, you can solve it completely by requiring that each choice on the ballot get the same number of questions about them in the questionnaire. So if a question asks, "Where does candidate X stand on this issue?", then you'd have to ask the same question for each of the other candidates.
Sure, people are more likely to know where their own candidate stands than the others, but that's fine -- the more questions you answer correctly, the more your vote counts. So if you only know about your own candidate, your vote counts more than someone who doesn't know anything about any candidates, but your vote counts less than someone who knows about their own candidate and the other candidates too. Everything works out as it rightly should.
I'm sure some people will read this and ask, "But doesn't this discriminate against people who are less educated, or who don't have the time to learn about the issues or candidates?" The answer is yes, of course it does. It's just acknowledging the reality that you can't make a good decision without being informed. It's no different than requiring someone to have eyesight to drive a car -- that policy is intentionally discriminatory against the blind, but who's complaining about that?
Finally, even if there are imperfections with the system I'm suggesting, it would still be light-years better than how the process currently works. Nothing is ever perfect, and you can poke holes in anything, but the system in use now has such obvious problems that it's easy to think up ways to radically improve it.
Yes, but who decides which issues make the questionnaire?
The questions are limited to those that are objective and factual in nature (that's what unbiased means), so it really doesn't matter.
Maybe I vote for someone based upon whether or not they annoy the crap out of me. That's my prerogative.
It shouldn't be, because it's a ridiculous and unsafe basis for choosing a candidate.
A candidate should win because they are the most qualified for the job and best represent the public's views on the issues. They shouldn't win because they are the best looking or the hippest. Therefore your vote should only count if you are voting for a legitimate reason.
'If you figure out which ones did the best and get rid of the ones who have no idea, you'd do even better. Distill it down to the people who really know,' Arrington said.
I've always said that elections should qualify each voter's ballot to make sure the decision is made by the people who are best equipped to decide. The first page of a voting ballot should be a questionnaire that asks simple unbiased questions that require the voter to demonstrate knowledge of who or what they are voting on. "What does candidate X say their stance is on abortion?" "When did you first hear about initiative I-456?" "Please specify which political party each candidate below belongs to", etc. The score a voter gets on their questionnaire would then be used as a "weight" factor when counting their ballot, so that people who know the candidates and the issues better get more of a say, which is clearly how things ought to be.
I'd love to know in what alternate universe a calmly-delivered legitimate line of logical thought constitutes "Flamebait".
Oh, wait, that's right -- it's the Slashdot universe, where anything negative said about any company beloved by fanboys is automatically mis-moderated as either "Troll" or "Flamebait".
World domination isn't the only acceptable competitive strategy. Survival works too. In fact, it's smartest to use the right strategy that is appropriate for your position.
The amount of risk involved in a choice depends on what you have to lose. If you're surviving, but just barely, almost everything is risky to you, because you could lose everything. If you're not even surviving and you know you're fucked anyway, nothing is risky to you because you will lose even if you don't try. If you lead by a huge margin, very few things are risky to you, because it would take an astronomically huge consequence to take your lead away from you.
Apple first started with a big lead and a dominant position but quickly lost it. They've been using a conservative survival strategy ever since. They aren't so screwed that they can take on any old crazy risk, but they also aren't so ahead that they can afford to take on big strategic risks. They have to play it safe, given where they are at. They've been doing a good job of employing the survival strategy, and they've been using it to gradually dig their way back out of a dangerous hole. They should keep playing that same strategy for quite a while.
Licensing MacOS to PC makers would be a high-risk move for Apple, which they can't afford right now. PC makers would demand that Apple sell them Mac OS X at a price lower than what Microsoft charges them for Windows, which would probably cut into the profit margins Apple is used to enjoying on the OS installed on its own machines.
It's not a troll. I didn't write it to try to get a rise out of anyone, and I don't personally dislike the Wii or its controller. My point is entirely valid: the American consumer public has already shown time and time again that they look down on gimmicky controllers (power glove? U-force? Bueller? Bueller?). "Flying magic dildos" accurately describes how the American public will deprecatingly think about the Wii upon first glance, and the Wii isn't doing anything (so far) to really counter that stigma. Sure, when you try a Wii, you may discover the control system isn't a gimmick and actually works well, but you have to be willing enough to risk looking stupid to even pick it up and try it. A lot of people wouldn't even get over that and be willing to try it.
If a console has the highest number of exclusive titles, but 90% of them suck, then it doesn't matter.
The console with the highest number of good exclusive titles will have the advantage. Given Nintendo's history of making most of its own exclusive titles, and designing them in such a way that they seem "too childish" to most gamers, I'm betting the Wii's lead won't help them that much.
The Wii will only win if Nintendo can successfully overcome the American audience's perception that Nintendo is "for kids". Having the cheapest console on the market, with magic flying dildos for controllers, isn't going to help.
Microsoft is neither good nor evil. Microsoft is just a business. A business's job is to make money.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
A business that makes decisions out of any other motivation is being stupid and will ultimately be beaten by competition. A business like that isn't really a business, anyway. It's something else, just trying to fool itself (and others) into thinking it's a business.
You'll never see Microsoft do something just to be a good samaritan, because that's not smart business sense. It's not about being "good" or "evil". It's about making decisions that ultimately make fiscal sense for the company.
Sure, a specific decision by a business might appear altruistic. Either it really is (and the business is stupid), or the business is smart and has fiscally strategic motivations (that the general public isn't privy to).
In this case, I'd guess Microsoft is begrudgingly giving a little bit of ground in order to avoid more legal troubles. Given how much money Microsoft has to spend defending itself in court (not to mention how much they'd lose in sales if Vista was blocked by the European Union) versus how much they'd lose by opening up this particular thing, it was probably a no-brainer.
My problem is not user error, nor am I trying to do something over my head. Your PC's configuration just doesn't have Windows installed on the SATA-RAID like mine does. I installed Windows using the "Press F6 to install 3rd-party drivers" options during the text-based install, and provided the floppy with the SATA-RAID driver, and installed Windows onto the SATA-RAID array. I don't want to disrupt that installation or its ability to boot by installing Linux with GRUB onto a second partition on the same SATA-RAID array, but Linux and/or GRUB don't appear to currently support a way to do that.
I'd love to easily run alternative OSes on my home PC alongside Windows XP, but I can't because my hard drive is a SATA-RAID array. I've been unable to find any straightforward way to get bootloaders (such as GRUB) or alternative OSes (such as Linux) to install on, address, and boot from an SATA-RAID array (aka "fakeRAID"). Some limited support is available in Linux using "dmraid", but apparently you have to be a command-line expert with significant Linux-Fu powers to set that up, and all it will allow you to do is boot up GRUB from a non-SATA-RAID drive and then use it to boot Windows from a SATA-RAID array. No distribution I've found appears to deal well (or at all) with installing Linux to and multi-booting Linux from an SATA-RAID array that already has Windows on it.
This is a huge impediment to people installing and using Linux on modern systems, as motherboard-based SATA-RAID is becoming increasingly common (especially in higher-end home/gaming PCs). The only workaround I've found is to install a spare non-RAID drive and make it bootable to Linux, and then go change the motherboard's BIOS to boot off that drive instead of the RAID array, which is a major PITA just to choose which OS you want to boot.
So my question is, does the Vista bootloader allow booting of non-Windows OSes off of the SATA-RAID array that Vista is installed on? Does EasyBCD really make it easy to host and boot multiple OSes off a single SATA-RAID array? If so, that opens up the door to more easily dual-booting Linux on modern systems.
Mismatched expectations lead to divorce
on
IT and Divorce?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Don't blame the IT field for your divorce. Blame yourself (and your wife) for not ensuring that your ideas of marriage aligned before you got married.
It sounds like your idea of marriage was that you would prioritize your job over your wife under certain circumstances. It sounds like your wife's idea of marriage was that you would prioritize her over your job under those same circumstances. It doesn't mean you always deprioritized your wife or didn't care for her. It doesn't mean she was too demanding or needy. It doesn't mean that either one of you was "wrong" for expecting what you expected. It just means your expectations were fundamentally mismatched.
You need to find yourself a woman who has the same idea of marriage that you do. You both need to check continuously that you are on the same page as each other -- this is what those relationship advice articles mean when they are always talking about "communication". Find a woman who agrees with your expectations and tactics and who wants the same things out of marriage and life that you do. And the same advice would help your ex-wife: she needs to find herself a husband whose idea of marriage aligns with her own.
As for the kid caught in the middle of this divorce, be honest with yourself: who is going to give that kid more time and attention and proper parenting? If it's not you, then do the kid a favor and let your ex play that role. Don't use the poor kid as a tool of vengeance (by fighting for custody just to deny your ex something she wants). Be the better human being and do the best thing for the kid instead of being immature and selfish.
Depends on your priorities in life
on
Microsoft or Google?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If you are one of those people who "lives to work", has no ambitions of settling down or starting a family, isn't risk-averse, and likes Arnold Schwarzenegger and the laid-back stoner-headed culture of California, then pick Google.
If you are one of those people who "works to live", has a family or plans to start one, prefers the stability of a company that focuses on revenue and profit over being an R&D lab, and likes being surrounded by polite but anal-retentive liberal environmentalist organic vegans, then pick Microsoft.
The myths you hear about "mandatory overtime" at Microsoft are bullshit. I work there as a developer, and I can tell you that the amount of overtime people put in varies depending upon what group they choose to work in and how efficient (or not) they are at getting their work done quickly. There are very few times of year when I have to put in more than the typical 40-hour work-week. Of course, some people I know who are working on Vista are putting in tons of late hours these days. So it varies a lot. I suppose the same is true at Google -- lots of variation, depending on what you choose to work on, your working efficiency, and the culture of the group you choose.
Exactly. The article submitter assumes that the defendant's negative reviews were truthful. We have to remember the defendant might have been lying, but if the defendant's reviews were truthful, then the defendant most definitely should have won.
We've definitely seen a number of cases over the last decade in which authors of truthful negative online reviews have lost in court to plaintiffs that were plainly guilty of all the accusations but just didn't like the negative attention. This could very well be another unethical ruling like that. It would be infuriating, but not very surprising.
As more bad laws and wrong rulings go against ethics, it just gets less surprising, which means it also gets more tolerated, which means it happens more. Vicious cycle.
Are OSS projects that rely so heavily on a single person able to be trusted for widespread use?
Not that I'm saying he's guilty, but for the sake of argument, suppose he is: Are software projects that rely so heavily on an unethical mind to be trusted for widespread use? Isn't that part of the common argument around here against Microsoft, for instance?
Theo's absolutely right. The masses depend on OSS developers to maintain the drivers when a device manufacturer drops the ball (which they always do at some point), and the developers need complete device documentation to do that right.
Slashdot Mirror
You're such a tool and a follower. You would rather mindlessly defer an issue to an antiquated and flawed document (the U.S. Constitution) than think for yourself and apply ethics and fairness to the issues. You're no different than unethical religious sheep who would rather defer everything to an antiquated and flawed document (the Bible) than use common sense and thinking and the golden rule to inform their behavior.
The founding fathers weren't always right. The Constitution isn't always right. The point of a democratic-like government is to allow the people to improve the body of law over time, to make it more fair and ethically just. That includes making changes to the Constitution whenever the Constition is found to be wrong, or reinterpreting how it should be applied to various situations.
What this country needs are more judges who think for themselves, possess common sense, and who take the time to really dig into and understand the issues they are presiding over. We need judges who aren't afraid to call out unjust laws for what they are and issue judgments that strike those laws down and make an effort to correct them by setting new precedent.
Of course, if we had a legislative branch that actually did its job right, we wouldn't need judges and justices smacking down their unjust laws all the time. But hey, maybe that's why we're supposed to have a system of checks and balances among the main branches of government in this country. I know Bush and his cronies don't think anyone should be questioning their executive branch (or the congress, so long as it agrees with the white house all the time), but it really is necessary to have a system of checks and balances and to constantly question rather than blindly follow.
But then again, what do I know? I'm just someone who thinks for himself.
If you're not already Boycotting Sony for their misdeeds, then I call upon you to stop purchasing ALL Sony products.
Boycotts are ineffective against large companies like Sony because they make and do so much stuff that it's impossible to avoid all of it. In addition, boycotts are ineffective in general, because typically only a minority of a company's customers are even upset about an issue in the first place, and they calm down and lose interest in the boycott quickly.
If you really want to stick it to Sony, buy some of their stock. That entitles you to be a voting shareholder. Each share you own counts as one vote. Not only can you vote, but most companies allow shareholder to propose initiatives to go on the ballot at the annual shareholders meeting.
If you really want to organize something that will make a real difference, set up a non-profit organization (and a web site to go with it) to collect "donations" from people. Have the non-profit use the donations to buy up tons of Sony stock and use the shareholder power to propose and vote on initiatives to change Sony's unethical behavior. Since the organization is a non-profit, it can't just take profits from the stock if the stock happens to go up (which guarantees donors that the organization's motivations won't be tainted). The organization could even spell out a legal agreement to contributors that when they donate, their donations will be used to purchase shares that the organization will never sell, and that if the organization dissolves, the ownership of the shares will revert back to the donor.
I hear someone tried to port Reiser4 to Mac OS X, but it was like murder on their hard drive.
Gee, it's so good to know that the Firefox team understands that "security by oscurity" is really no security at all.
Let's say we have two questions that both are answered correctly by the same percentage of people. It's pretty much guaranteed that different groups of people get those questions wrong.
There would have to be a positive correlation between "the group of people who didn't know the answer to question #1" and some other classification (such as "the group of people who are homosexuals"). It would be extremely unlikely as well as extremely difficult to intentionally rig.
Besides, you can solve it completely by requiring that each choice on the ballot get the same number of questions about them in the questionnaire. So if a question asks, "Where does candidate X stand on this issue?", then you'd have to ask the same question for each of the other candidates.
Sure, people are more likely to know where their own candidate stands than the others, but that's fine -- the more questions you answer correctly, the more your vote counts. So if you only know about your own candidate, your vote counts more than someone who doesn't know anything about any candidates, but your vote counts less than someone who knows about their own candidate and the other candidates too. Everything works out as it rightly should.
I'm sure some people will read this and ask, "But doesn't this discriminate against people who are less educated, or who don't have the time to learn about the issues or candidates?" The answer is yes, of course it does. It's just acknowledging the reality that you can't make a good decision without being informed. It's no different than requiring someone to have eyesight to drive a car -- that policy is intentionally discriminatory against the blind, but who's complaining about that?
Finally, even if there are imperfections with the system I'm suggesting, it would still be light-years better than how the process currently works. Nothing is ever perfect, and you can poke holes in anything, but the system in use now has such obvious problems that it's easy to think up ways to radically improve it.
Yes, but who decides which issues make the questionnaire?
The questions are limited to those that are objective and factual in nature (that's what unbiased means), so it really doesn't matter.
Maybe I vote for someone based upon whether or not they annoy the crap out of me. That's my prerogative.
It shouldn't be, because it's a ridiculous and unsafe basis for choosing a candidate.
A candidate should win because they are the most qualified for the job and best represent the public's views on the issues. They shouldn't win because they are the best looking or the hippest. Therefore your vote should only count if you are voting for a legitimate reason.
'If you figure out which ones did the best and get rid of the ones who have no idea, you'd do even better. Distill it down to the people who really know,' Arrington said.
I've always said that elections should qualify each voter's ballot to make sure the decision is made by the people who are best equipped to decide. The first page of a voting ballot should be a questionnaire that asks simple unbiased questions that require the voter to demonstrate knowledge of who or what they are voting on. "What does candidate X say their stance is on abortion?" "When did you first hear about initiative I-456?" "Please specify which political party each candidate below belongs to", etc. The score a voter gets on their questionnaire would then be used as a "weight" factor when counting their ballot, so that people who know the candidates and the issues better get more of a say, which is clearly how things ought to be.
To whomever marked my second post as "Flamebait":
I'd love to know in what alternate universe a calmly-delivered legitimate line of logical thought constitutes "Flamebait".
Oh, wait, that's right -- it's the Slashdot universe, where anything negative said about any company beloved by fanboys is automatically mis-moderated as either "Troll" or "Flamebait".
World domination isn't the only acceptable competitive strategy. Survival works too. In fact, it's smartest to use the right strategy that is appropriate for your position.
The amount of risk involved in a choice depends on what you have to lose. If you're surviving, but just barely, almost everything is risky to you, because you could lose everything. If you're not even surviving and you know you're fucked anyway, nothing is risky to you because you will lose even if you don't try. If you lead by a huge margin, very few things are risky to you, because it would take an astronomically huge consequence to take your lead away from you.
Apple first started with a big lead and a dominant position but quickly lost it. They've been using a conservative survival strategy ever since. They aren't so screwed that they can take on any old crazy risk, but they also aren't so ahead that they can afford to take on big strategic risks. They have to play it safe, given where they are at. They've been doing a good job of employing the survival strategy, and they've been using it to gradually dig their way back out of a dangerous hole. They should keep playing that same strategy for quite a while.
Licensing MacOS to PC makers would be a high-risk move for Apple, which they can't afford right now. PC makers would demand that Apple sell them Mac OS X at a price lower than what Microsoft charges them for Windows, which would probably cut into the profit margins Apple is used to enjoying on the OS installed on its own machines.
To whomever marked my post as a "Troll":
It's not a troll. I didn't write it to try to get a rise out of anyone, and I don't personally dislike the Wii or its controller. My point is entirely valid: the American consumer public has already shown time and time again that they look down on gimmicky controllers (power glove? U-force? Bueller? Bueller?). "Flying magic dildos" accurately describes how the American public will deprecatingly think about the Wii upon first glance, and the Wii isn't doing anything (so far) to really counter that stigma. Sure, when you try a Wii, you may discover the control system isn't a gimmick and actually works well, but you have to be willing enough to risk looking stupid to even pick it up and try it. A lot of people wouldn't even get over that and be willing to try it.
If a console has the highest number of exclusive titles, but 90% of them suck, then it doesn't matter.
The console with the highest number of good exclusive titles will have the advantage. Given Nintendo's history of making most of its own exclusive titles, and designing them in such a way that they seem "too childish" to most gamers, I'm betting the Wii's lead won't help them that much.
The Wii will only win if Nintendo can successfully overcome the American audience's perception that Nintendo is "for kids". Having the cheapest console on the market, with magic flying dildos for controllers, isn't going to help.
Slashdot fanboys, repeat after me:
Microsoft is neither good nor evil. Microsoft is just a business. A business's job is to make money.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
A business that makes decisions out of any other motivation is being stupid and will ultimately be beaten by competition. A business like that isn't really a business, anyway. It's something else, just trying to fool itself (and others) into thinking it's a business.
You'll never see Microsoft do something just to be a good samaritan, because that's not smart business sense. It's not about being "good" or "evil". It's about making decisions that ultimately make fiscal sense for the company.
Sure, a specific decision by a business might appear altruistic. Either it really is (and the business is stupid), or the business is smart and has fiscally strategic motivations (that the general public isn't privy to).
In this case, I'd guess Microsoft is begrudgingly giving a little bit of ground in order to avoid more legal troubles. Given how much money Microsoft has to spend defending itself in court (not to mention how much they'd lose in sales if Vista was blocked by the European Union) versus how much they'd lose by opening up this particular thing, it was probably a no-brainer.
My problem is not user error, nor am I trying to do something over my head. Your PC's configuration just doesn't have Windows installed on the SATA-RAID like mine does. I installed Windows using the "Press F6 to install 3rd-party drivers" options during the text-based install, and provided the floppy with the SATA-RAID driver, and installed Windows onto the SATA-RAID array. I don't want to disrupt that installation or its ability to boot by installing Linux with GRUB onto a second partition on the same SATA-RAID array, but Linux and/or GRUB don't appear to currently support a way to do that.
I'd love to easily run alternative OSes on my home PC alongside Windows XP, but I can't because my hard drive is a SATA-RAID array. I've been unable to find any straightforward way to get bootloaders (such as GRUB) or alternative OSes (such as Linux) to install on, address, and boot from an SATA-RAID array (aka "fakeRAID"). Some limited support is available in Linux using "dmraid", but apparently you have to be a command-line expert with significant Linux-Fu powers to set that up, and all it will allow you to do is boot up GRUB from a non-SATA-RAID drive and then use it to boot Windows from a SATA-RAID array. No distribution I've found appears to deal well (or at all) with installing Linux to and multi-booting Linux from an SATA-RAID array that already has Windows on it.
This is a huge impediment to people installing and using Linux on modern systems, as motherboard-based SATA-RAID is becoming increasingly common (especially in higher-end home/gaming PCs). The only workaround I've found is to install a spare non-RAID drive and make it bootable to Linux, and then go change the motherboard's BIOS to boot off that drive instead of the RAID array, which is a major PITA just to choose which OS you want to boot.
So my question is, does the Vista bootloader allow booting of non-Windows OSes off of the SATA-RAID array that Vista is installed on? Does EasyBCD really make it easy to host and boot multiple OSes off a single SATA-RAID array? If so, that opens up the door to more easily dual-booting Linux on modern systems.
Don't blame the IT field for your divorce. Blame yourself (and your wife) for not ensuring that your ideas of marriage aligned before you got married.
It sounds like your idea of marriage was that you would prioritize your job over your wife under certain circumstances. It sounds like your wife's idea of marriage was that you would prioritize her over your job under those same circumstances. It doesn't mean you always deprioritized your wife or didn't care for her. It doesn't mean she was too demanding or needy. It doesn't mean that either one of you was "wrong" for expecting what you expected. It just means your expectations were fundamentally mismatched.
You need to find yourself a woman who has the same idea of marriage that you do. You both need to check continuously that you are on the same page as each other -- this is what those relationship advice articles mean when they are always talking about "communication". Find a woman who agrees with your expectations and tactics and who wants the same things out of marriage and life that you do. And the same advice would help your ex-wife: she needs to find herself a husband whose idea of marriage aligns with her own.
As for the kid caught in the middle of this divorce, be honest with yourself: who is going to give that kid more time and attention and proper parenting? If it's not you, then do the kid a favor and let your ex play that role. Don't use the poor kid as a tool of vengeance (by fighting for custody just to deny your ex something she wants). Be the better human being and do the best thing for the kid instead of being immature and selfish.
If you are one of those people who "lives to work", has no ambitions of settling down or starting a family, isn't risk-averse, and likes Arnold Schwarzenegger and the laid-back stoner-headed culture of California, then pick Google.
If you are one of those people who "works to live", has a family or plans to start one, prefers the stability of a company that focuses on revenue and profit over being an R&D lab, and likes being surrounded by polite but anal-retentive liberal environmentalist organic vegans, then pick Microsoft.
The myths you hear about "mandatory overtime" at Microsoft are bullshit. I work there as a developer, and I can tell you that the amount of overtime people put in varies depending upon what group they choose to work in and how efficient (or not) they are at getting their work done quickly. There are very few times of year when I have to put in more than the typical 40-hour work-week. Of course, some people I know who are working on Vista are putting in tons of late hours these days. So it varies a lot. I suppose the same is true at Google -- lots of variation, depending on what you choose to work on, your working efficiency, and the culture of the group you choose.
I don't get this one. Why do people name their daughters after a car?
Exactly. The article submitter assumes that the defendant's negative reviews were truthful. We have to remember the defendant might have been lying, but if the defendant's reviews were truthful, then the defendant most definitely should have won.
We've definitely seen a number of cases over the last decade in which authors of truthful negative online reviews have lost in court to plaintiffs that were plainly guilty of all the accusations but just didn't like the negative attention. This could very well be another unethical ruling like that. It would be infuriating, but not very surprising.
As more bad laws and wrong rulings go against ethics, it just gets less surprising, which means it also gets more tolerated, which means it happens more. Vicious cycle.
Indeed!
Protein Gel Quickly Stops Bleeding
Thank god... I'm tired of all those protein gels that just keep on bleeding forever when you stab them.
Are OSS projects that rely so heavily on a single person able to be trusted for widespread use?
Not that I'm saying he's guilty, but for the sake of argument, suppose he is: Are software projects that rely so heavily on an unethical mind to be trusted for widespread use? Isn't that part of the common argument around here against Microsoft, for instance?
Theo's absolutely right. The masses depend on OSS developers to maintain the drivers when a device manufacturer drops the ball (which they always do at some point), and the developers need complete device documentation to do that right.
And by the way, have you ever tried to write a phone billing system? There's a lot more to it than meets the eye.
Were you a business strategist for Microsoft?
Just because something is difficult, that's no excuse for not getting it right before unleashing it upon the world.
OMG... STFU!
'The technology industry is perhaps the most guilty of all industries when it comes to love of acronyms,' said Mr Burmaster.
I hear his friends call him "B-dog".