Google has something that Microsoft doesn't - a brand name that's used as a verb. I don't care how much money you have, nothing beats having Jessica Simpson say "I googled for it" on national TV. Having a brand like this means that you have all the free advertising that you want.
In fact if you have some minimal level of vision you can move the thing to a useful place like L1.
Hey, that's a great idea. Really. You should pitch it to anyone who will listen.
And so we are treated to the shuttle-derived lift strategy that although it is terrible from a technical and cost perspective is sold as the ultimate in the reform of NASA.
The key point of this strategy is that we're moving away from launching cargo and people together. At least that part makes total sense to me. It's kind of like saying we're going to get rid of our fleet of buses and replace them with a fleet of cars and trucks. I'm all for having a debate on what types of cars and trucks we drive, just so long as we get rid of the buses.
Thanks for the list. You can add to it the items below. Of course the Walmart link should have been enough on its own to shut up the critics.:-)
Belo Corp - A media giant. They've been actively trying to find missing employees.
Harrah's Entertianment - Handing out checks for at least 90 days. Also note the independent confirmation of the "Evil Walmart" story.
Pinnacle Entertainment - Another casino that's investing $400 million to rebuild their casino. They're also retraining employees with construction job skills so that they can feel productive.
It's the same people who think Burt Rutan has somehow accomplished more than Nasa because Spaceship one in its 3 powered suborbital flights never blew up.
I'd say that people like Burt Rutan because he was able to launch a suborbital flight for less money than NASA spends on toilet paper every year. I agree that the jury is still out on orbital flights for these guys, but they're starting off on the right foot.
And you conveniently forget that before Feb 2003 we thought the Shuttle problems were solved almost 20 years ago.
Not sure who you think "we" are. Even some Shuttle managers freely admit that they were uncomfortable with repeated foam strikes on multiple launches over the years and that it was just a matter of time before enough damage was done to take an orbiter down.
The Shuttle has always been a fragile system. When it works, it works pretty well. But when it fails, it fails very dramatically. In the days of Apollo, for example, we had safety systems to pull the capsule away from the booster in the event of a failure during powered flight. No such systems existed in the Shuttle before Challenger (with the exception of the first five test flights), and even afterward I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to bail out of an orbiter in another Challenger-type explosion.
Since so few of these things have been launched we have very little real world evidence of the safety record of either of these craft.
I totally agree. I do think, however, that you can look at the basic design and ask yourself whether it's prone to failure. I find it kind of interesting that the new head of NASA recently said that the US would never again build a launch system where the primary spacecraft and its crew were placed in a position where falling debris from the booster could do catastrophic damage. While there are certainly a lot of things that can go wrong during a launch, it just makes common sense to remove the obvious problems. I'd be just as happy if we launched CSMs instead of Soyuz, but I fear that NASA won't consider it because it's built a public perception of easy access to space. To bolster this perception, it seems natural to build something that looks like a plane since it's something that the public already is comfortable with.
The Army Corps of Engineers. They've built and maintained the levy system for years along the Mississippi. I also saw a news story on TV about the funding cuts a few days ago.
What do you mean "even" Bill Clinton?
As opposed to Hillary Clinton, who has been calling for Congressional investigations for a few days now. Her most recent "contribution" today was to suggest that FEMA be made a cabinet-level agency. Although I have no first-hand knowledge that she'll be running for President in '08, her stance on the recent tragedy seems more like political posturing for a presidential bid than an act of compassion by those who have been screwed by their government at all levels.
For what it's worth, my respect for Bill Clinton has increased greatly since he left office. I still think he was wrong for "not having sex with that intern" while in office, but now that that chapter in his life is over I can see how people think he's charming (in a charismatic sense). I think it's great that #41 and #42 have developed such a great working relationship. I hope it continues so that all this horseshit in DC can eventually come to an end.
Hmm, I'd have to say no. Of course I don't live in NYC where taxicabs rule. But in virtually the rest of the country, we have "public transit" - bus service, light rail, trains (Amtrak - publically funded), monorail, etc. If I remember right, even NYC transports most commuters on a public subway. I remember going there once and parking at the Port Authority parking lot. Sounds pretty public to me.
So can you tell me how you believe that the private sector controls transportation?
Would you rather wait until after hurricaine season is over to figure out what went wrong?
Absolutely I would. You and I may not have liked the response, but firing everyone now and replacing them may be more disastrous. That doesn't mean that a bunch of people don't need to go. Let's just make sure that we take the time to find the right people.
the public market was to take care of the levee system, not the free market
Let's take it one step further - it was Congress that cut funding for levees. The White House proposed cuts, but we all know that it's Congress that ultimately holds the Power of the Purse. One of my Senators (from the State of Washington) has put out a zillion press releases about how she is bringing in funding for Homeland Security, and about how we need to spend even more because we're not doing a good enough job on port security. Now her party is the one throwing around all kinds of accusations about how others didn't do enough to help others.
Personally, I wish everyone would just shut up for a while and help somebody out. Even Bill Clinton said the other day that now is the time to act. We can point fingers later.
Leaving these problems up to industry is not the answer. The reason, it's obvious, because industry doesn't care about poor people.
How many low-income workers are still getting paid by their supposedly uncaring employers? I've heard countless stories of compassion by employers both large and small. They don't do it out of guilt, or shame, or because it's going to make them money. They do it because they value their workers as human beings.
It's time that NASA either steps up and fixes the Shuttle permanently (until it can be replaced) or kills it. The idea that managers can keep working on it at $1 billion a pop is really just a waste of good money, and with no accountability they'll just keep trying and trying. No commercial manufacturer would tolerate the same failures over and over again. Why should the taxpayers settle for less?
My advice? Stop work on the ISS, buy some Soyuz spacecraft to service it through the end of its tortured life, and spend the money that would have been spent on the Shuttle for a replacement system.
Standard capitalist theory states that, a free market will produce the best products at the best price.
I think that you may misunderstand capitalist theory. My understanding of the theory is that free markets will produce what the free market desires, and that the free market will hopefully desire the best products at the best prices. This is a key distinction because it allows for things like McDonalds. The reason that McDonalds succeeds isn't because it has the best quality food at the best price. Instead is succeeds because you can walk into a McDonalds virtually anywhere in the world and get a consistent experience. The market likes that consistency, and McDonalds offers it to them. Another example is cell phones. The prices suck, but the convenience of not being tied to a landline makes it very attractive to many people.
Now, personally, I'm a liberal, I don't think theres any point in having an economy (or a society for that matter) that doesn't provide for the needs of it's participents. So I consider things like the number of people below the poverty line, or who can't afford essentials, and the difference between the top 5% and bottom 5% as being important indicators as well. A "free" market clearly fails to reach the optimum given those standards. Capitalist economies tend to concentrate wealth.
I'd describe my political leanings as "conservative with a mean libertarian streak running throughout the core". What might surprise you is that I agree with what you're saying about wealth and the bottom 5%. For as much as I'm not a fan of the way that we've currently implemented Social Security, I think that the Social Security Disability program is the greatest thing that ever existed. I don't think that as a society we can ask people to bear the huge cost of caring for a disabled relative, especially since it could happen to any one of us at any time. There are times when collectively we need to support each other.
That being said, I also believe that there are people who want to be poor. They won't tell you that, but when they can't get off their lazy ass to get a job and then whine about it all day long then I have little sympathy. I remember when Wisconsin (I believe) switched over to a welfare-to-work program. I watched an interview on TV (PBS at that!) with a woman who was being paid to scrub hallways so she could get her check. Her comment was "I'm not learning anything this way." My thought at the time was "You're learning to work hard." It was clear that she was capable of doing the work, but her pride had gotten in the way. My hope for her was that she could turn that floor scrubbing job into a good paying job somewhere. I'm sure if she stuck with it then she could.
A *totally* free market, however, doesn't meet *anyones* standards. Even the most rabid of free marketers think that the goverment needs to enforce contracts and agreements.
Ok, you got me here. This is probably one of the few areas where I think that the government should step in. Having access to the courts to solve contractual disputes is a good thing. But again, if you think about it in the context of keeping free markets free, then you need to have some mechanism to keep everyone honest.
Theres no such thing as a free marketer (maybe some crackpot in a shack somewhere).
Actually, I have a home in Seattle.:-)
"Let the free market decide" is invariably the cry of people with no more compelling argument to show why things shouldn't be regulated. It's demonstrable fact that a "free market" doesn't always produce an optimal market, not in an abstract economic sense and certainly not in a more humanist moral sense.
I respectfully disagree, at least the way that you phrase it. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. I'm a libertarian at heart. When I say this, most people automatically jump to the conclusion that I'm a big supporter of the ACLU. And indeed I agree with some of their positions, but not a lot. That's because I'm both a civil libertarian (people free to chose their own paths) and a social libertarian (groups of people free to chose their own society). I extend the same principle to the free market - Individual companies may pursue their own interests, but the market has to be "free" for all players to enter and participate. It's why I'm not a big fan of software patents, especially when they don't meet the "new and novel" test as they should. The fact that a large software company can bully smaller companies into submission by having lawyers defend patents for the blatantly obvious is just wrong.
optimal market
I'd really love a definition of this. I'm sure that virtually any government employee will tell you that the "optimal market" is one which is highly regulated and controlled by the government because it ensures consistency and dependability. It's one reason that the US government controls the largest retirement fund in the world. If you're definition of "optimal market" is one in which the greatest number of goods and services exist and are freely traded, then a government controlled market is not optimal. To extend the example above, much of the push to a privatized Social Security system is to allow greater choice in the market with the possibility for greater gains (and losses). So without trying to have a debate on Social Security here, I'm just trying to say that different people will define what is optimal in radically different and often opposing ways.
No, it's a market influence tactic. Market control means that the market has no reasonable way of avoiding the pressure. When Standard Oil bought up key pieces of land that prevented their competition from building oil pipelines and thereby effectively choking off their delivery channels, that's market control. In that way it's not much different than using armed thugs to scare away competitors customers. In Microsoft's case, there is little that Microsoft can do to prevent an competing OS from delivering its goods short of controlling PC hardware market.
"But what about the Microsoft tax?" you might ask. "Isn't Microsoft controlling Dell/Gateway/other vendors by forcing them to ship a copy of Windows with every PC?" Well, I won't disagree that Microsoft uses strongarm tactics to push their stuff, but all those vendors and the customers who buy their software have other choices. If you don't want to pay the tax, go buy hardware from another vendor or build it yourself, then load it with Linux. You may not get what you want (like being able to play WM9 files), but that's your choice because you wanted to save $100. You car doesn't automatically come with free air conditioning just because you live where it's hot - you have to pay for it. So either pay for it or live without.
Hey, I *totally* sympathize with you here. I used to work for a company that filtered my postal mail. I found this out one day when I was missing one of my magazines. When I inquired about it, I was told that I was spending too much of my day "reading" and not enough time working. These people were not real smart. (That means you, Mary!:-)
I suggest you spend an hour a week keeping your resume up-to-date and sending out copies to someone who will appreciate your skills.
I see where you're coming from now. The problem is that it's not just amateur sites that silently truncate data. The first two that I tried - Slashdot (in the "real name" field) and Yahoo Address Book (in the "other number" field) both failed the test. And I have yet to find a web browser that complains when a query string exceeds the max length that's defined in the standard, so that means that potentially 100% of the Internet can truncate data somewhere along the way with absolutely no notification of any kind. So I can see how you'd think that it's just lameass web sites designed by hacks that truncate data, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
Well, I assumed that you'd be visiting sites with dynamic content rather than static. If you're on a page built with FrontPage then it's highly unlikely that you're going to have a database backend to test.
He wants to see some (frentic) activity whenever he walks in our labs and offices and he is deeply suspicious that I am slacking off as much as I can. The results are no excuse for him.
Is this a boss who also is concerned with how you dress? Let's face it - many in business care more about how something is accomplished than what is accomplished. If this is your company, I recommend putting out a resume, but only if you're willing to truly be judged on your efforts.
Plus, since he is from a different field, he does not realy understand the details of our work (=ammount of work required) so whenever he assigns me a new (urgent) subproject and I would tell him how much time I will need to complete it, he starts arguing with me that I should finish it faster if I did not make excuses and work harder.
There is a perception out there that software changes are super easy to make and that you should be able to whip them out in no time. I don't know what technique you use to push back on your boss, but if it's an "I can't do it in that amount of time" kind of argument then you're sure to lose. What I recommend instead is that you start listing off the various tasks that need to be done and how long they'll take. Don't bury him in detail, but try to keep the tasks reasonably short (a few days at most). If you list of 100 things that each take a day, it's kind of hard to argue that it won't take 100 days to get the job done. I suspect that your boss just thinks that you suck at understanding the task and estimating the time to completion, so I recommend you show him that you can handle it.
but the concept that you should not make sure that your input is correct is so passé it honestly surprised me to see somebody espouse it.
As I mentioned in another thread, there are probably tons of broken apps out there if you force feed them too much data. (For example, try putting a really long name into/. as your "real name" and see what happens, or enter a too-long phone number into Yahoo address book.) In practice we see this all over the place on the web. When was the last time your browser notified you that it was exceeding the length of a query string?
However, history has demonstrated that in any engineering discipline, especially software engineering, you must put in safeguards and make sure that people don't do the wrong thing. After all, strcpy is fine as long as people do the right thing.
I know that memcpy/strcpy are the source of many buffer overflow problems (and hence security problems), so I really can't say that your argument is all wet. On the other hand, I've spent time in a Pascal world where you can do anything without getting permission. I prefer the problems of screwing up strcpy to the problems of trying to get something to run properly in Pascal. Actually, I used to have my students write strcpy so that they could see exactly how it works, and what the implications are of a buffer overrun.
If you have a commanding market share that allows you to engage in anticompetetive practices then you are a monopoly.
On Slashdot, one man's "insightful" comment is another man's troll. The same holds true with anti-competitive practices. For example, if Microsoft really had true command of the market then they'd charge whatever they want for their OS. Now I don't know about you, but I think $100 for Windows XP is a pretty good deal. You might not, but then again you probably weren't alive in the days when a single seat on a mid-range VAX system ran around $1,000. Of course I think that Linux has a much better pricing model, which is why I have 6 Linux machines in my house and only 2 Windows boxes. (I haven't gotten my kids switched over yet, and I use the other primarily for testing on IE.)
Maybe you don't feel you have any choice but to use Windows, but I suspect that you're in the minority on this forum. As for the broader marketplace, do you really think that Microsoft would spend millions of dollars lying about TCO or attempting to scare business owners with FUD about supposed problems with the Linux licensing model if they really had true control over the market?
Personally, I hope that Microsoft sets the price for Windows Vista at $10,000/copy. It'll just speed up F/OSS adoption for both businesses and consumers.
I'm sorry - aren't Mac OS, Linux, Sun, and three different versions of BSD enough competition for you? And that's just on the PC side of things. Nobody's twisting your arm to use Windows.
So you do recognize that monpolies and cartels interfere with market forces operating unimpeded?
It depends on what the barriers to entry are. In the case of Standard Oil where they were buying up land and preventing people from building pipelines to compete with them then the answer is "yes". In the case of Microsoft where anyone (like Linus Torvalds) can fire up a machine and write a new OS and distribute it freely on the Internet then the answer is "no". "Free market" means just that - a level playing field where all can participate with fearing harm from their competitor, other than that inflicted by delivering better goods and services.
Slashdot Mirror
Google has something that Microsoft doesn't - a brand name that's used as a verb. I don't care how much money you have, nothing beats having Jessica Simpson say "I googled for it" on national TV. Having a brand like this means that you have all the free advertising that you want.
Hey, that's a great idea. Really. You should pitch it to anyone who will listen.
And so we are treated to the shuttle-derived lift strategy that although it is terrible from a technical and cost perspective is sold as the ultimate in the reform of NASA.
The key point of this strategy is that we're moving away from launching cargo and people together. At least that part makes total sense to me. It's kind of like saying we're going to get rid of our fleet of buses and replace them with a fleet of cars and trucks. I'm all for having a debate on what types of cars and trucks we drive, just so long as we get rid of the buses.
Belo Corp - A media giant. They've been actively trying to find missing employees.
Harrah's Entertianment - Handing out checks for at least 90 days. Also note the independent confirmation of the "Evil Walmart" story.
Pinnacle Entertainment - Another casino that's investing $400 million to rebuild their casino. They're also retraining employees with construction job skills so that they can feel productive.
I'd say that people like Burt Rutan because he was able to launch a suborbital flight for less money than NASA spends on toilet paper every year. I agree that the jury is still out on orbital flights for these guys, but they're starting off on the right foot.
Not sure who you think "we" are. Even some Shuttle managers freely admit that they were uncomfortable with repeated foam strikes on multiple launches over the years and that it was just a matter of time before enough damage was done to take an orbiter down.
The Shuttle has always been a fragile system. When it works, it works pretty well. But when it fails, it fails very dramatically. In the days of Apollo, for example, we had safety systems to pull the capsule away from the booster in the event of a failure during powered flight. No such systems existed in the Shuttle before Challenger (with the exception of the first five test flights), and even afterward I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to bail out of an orbiter in another Challenger-type explosion.
Since so few of these things have been launched we have very little real world evidence of the safety record of either of these craft.
I totally agree. I do think, however, that you can look at the basic design and ask yourself whether it's prone to failure. I find it kind of interesting that the new head of NASA recently said that the US would never again build a launch system where the primary spacecraft and its crew were placed in a position where falling debris from the booster could do catastrophic damage. While there are certainly a lot of things that can go wrong during a launch, it just makes common sense to remove the obvious problems. I'd be just as happy if we launched CSMs instead of Soyuz, but I fear that NASA won't consider it because it's built a public perception of easy access to space. To bolster this perception, it seems natural to build something that looks like a plane since it's something that the public already is comfortable with.
The Army Corps of Engineers. They've built and maintained the levy system for years along the Mississippi. I also saw a news story on TV about the funding cuts a few days ago.
What do you mean "even" Bill Clinton?
As opposed to Hillary Clinton, who has been calling for Congressional investigations for a few days now. Her most recent "contribution" today was to suggest that FEMA be made a cabinet-level agency. Although I have no first-hand knowledge that she'll be running for President in '08, her stance on the recent tragedy seems more like political posturing for a presidential bid than an act of compassion by those who have been screwed by their government at all levels.
For what it's worth, my respect for Bill Clinton has increased greatly since he left office. I still think he was wrong for "not having sex with that intern" while in office, but now that that chapter in his life is over I can see how people think he's charming (in a charismatic sense). I think it's great that #41 and #42 have developed such a great working relationship. I hope it continues so that all this horseshit in DC can eventually come to an end.
Hmm, I'd have to say no. Of course I don't live in NYC where taxicabs rule. But in virtually the rest of the country, we have "public transit" - bus service, light rail, trains (Amtrak - publically funded), monorail, etc. If I remember right, even NYC transports most commuters on a public subway. I remember going there once and parking at the Port Authority parking lot. Sounds pretty public to me.
So can you tell me how you believe that the private sector controls transportation?
Absolutely I would. You and I may not have liked the response, but firing everyone now and replacing them may be more disastrous. That doesn't mean that a bunch of people don't need to go. Let's just make sure that we take the time to find the right people.
Let's take it one step further - it was Congress that cut funding for levees. The White House proposed cuts, but we all know that it's Congress that ultimately holds the Power of the Purse. One of my Senators (from the State of Washington) has put out a zillion press releases about how she is bringing in funding for Homeland Security, and about how we need to spend even more because we're not doing a good enough job on port security. Now her party is the one throwing around all kinds of accusations about how others didn't do enough to help others.
Personally, I wish everyone would just shut up for a while and help somebody out. Even Bill Clinton said the other day that now is the time to act. We can point fingers later.
How many low-income workers are still getting paid by their supposedly uncaring employers? I've heard countless stories of compassion by employers both large and small. They don't do it out of guilt, or shame, or because it's going to make them money. They do it because they value their workers as human beings.
Ok, I'm really confused. You really think that it was the private sector's job to evacuate New Orleans? How did you come to this conclusion?
My advice? Stop work on the ISS, buy some Soyuz spacecraft to service it through the end of its tortured life, and spend the money that would have been spent on the Shuttle for a replacement system.
All the king's horses and all the king's men, could put Pete ba..ck to..ge..ther... Oh, wait, wrong story.
I think that you may misunderstand capitalist theory. My understanding of the theory is that free markets will produce what the free market desires, and that the free market will hopefully desire the best products at the best prices. This is a key distinction because it allows for things like McDonalds. The reason that McDonalds succeeds isn't because it has the best quality food at the best price. Instead is succeeds because you can walk into a McDonalds virtually anywhere in the world and get a consistent experience. The market likes that consistency, and McDonalds offers it to them. Another example is cell phones. The prices suck, but the convenience of not being tied to a landline makes it very attractive to many people.
Now, personally, I'm a liberal, I don't think theres any point in having an economy (or a society for that matter) that doesn't provide for the needs of it's participents. So I consider things like the number of people below the poverty line, or who can't afford essentials, and the difference between the top 5% and bottom 5% as being important indicators as well. A "free" market clearly fails to reach the optimum given those standards. Capitalist economies tend to concentrate wealth.
I'd describe my political leanings as "conservative with a mean libertarian streak running throughout the core". What might surprise you is that I agree with what you're saying about wealth and the bottom 5%. For as much as I'm not a fan of the way that we've currently implemented Social Security, I think that the Social Security Disability program is the greatest thing that ever existed. I don't think that as a society we can ask people to bear the huge cost of caring for a disabled relative, especially since it could happen to any one of us at any time. There are times when collectively we need to support each other.
That being said, I also believe that there are people who want to be poor. They won't tell you that, but when they can't get off their lazy ass to get a job and then whine about it all day long then I have little sympathy. I remember when Wisconsin (I believe) switched over to a welfare-to-work program. I watched an interview on TV (PBS at that!) with a woman who was being paid to scrub hallways so she could get her check. Her comment was "I'm not learning anything this way." My thought at the time was "You're learning to work hard." It was clear that she was capable of doing the work, but her pride had gotten in the way. My hope for her was that she could turn that floor scrubbing job into a good paying job somewhere. I'm sure if she stuck with it then she could.
A *totally* free market, however, doesn't meet *anyones* standards. Even the most rabid of free marketers think that the goverment needs to enforce contracts and agreements.
Ok, you got me here. This is probably one of the few areas where I think that the government should step in. Having access to the courts to solve contractual disputes is a good thing. But again, if you think about it in the context of keeping free markets free, then you need to have some mechanism to keep everyone honest.
Actually, I have a home in Seattle. :-)
"Let the free market decide" is invariably the cry of people with no more compelling argument to show why things shouldn't be regulated. It's demonstrable fact that a "free market" doesn't always produce an optimal market, not in an abstract economic sense and certainly not in a more humanist moral sense.
I respectfully disagree, at least the way that you phrase it. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. I'm a libertarian at heart. When I say this, most people automatically jump to the conclusion that I'm a big supporter of the ACLU. And indeed I agree with some of their positions, but not a lot. That's because I'm both a civil libertarian (people free to chose their own paths) and a social libertarian (groups of people free to chose their own society). I extend the same principle to the free market - Individual companies may pursue their own interests, but the market has to be "free" for all players to enter and participate. It's why I'm not a big fan of software patents, especially when they don't meet the "new and novel" test as they should. The fact that a large software company can bully smaller companies into submission by having lawyers defend patents for the blatantly obvious is just wrong.
optimal market
I'd really love a definition of this. I'm sure that virtually any government employee will tell you that the "optimal market" is one which is highly regulated and controlled by the government because it ensures consistency and dependability. It's one reason that the US government controls the largest retirement fund in the world. If you're definition of "optimal market" is one in which the greatest number of goods and services exist and are freely traded, then a government controlled market is not optimal. To extend the example above, much of the push to a privatized Social Security system is to allow greater choice in the market with the possibility for greater gains (and losses). So without trying to have a debate on Social Security here, I'm just trying to say that different people will define what is optimal in radically different and often opposing ways.
"But what about the Microsoft tax?" you might ask. "Isn't Microsoft controlling Dell/Gateway/other vendors by forcing them to ship a copy of Windows with every PC?" Well, I won't disagree that Microsoft uses strongarm tactics to push their stuff, but all those vendors and the customers who buy their software have other choices. If you don't want to pay the tax, go buy hardware from another vendor or build it yourself, then load it with Linux. You may not get what you want (like being able to play WM9 files), but that's your choice because you wanted to save $100. You car doesn't automatically come with free air conditioning just because you live where it's hot - you have to pay for it. So either pay for it or live without.
You gotta love a cynic. :-)
I suggest you spend an hour a week keeping your resume up-to-date and sending out copies to someone who will appreciate your skills.
I see where you're coming from now. The problem is that it's not just amateur sites that silently truncate data. The first two that I tried - Slashdot (in the "real name" field) and Yahoo Address Book (in the "other number" field) both failed the test. And I have yet to find a web browser that complains when a query string exceeds the max length that's defined in the standard, so that means that potentially 100% of the Internet can truncate data somewhere along the way with absolutely no notification of any kind. So I can see how you'd think that it's just lameass web sites designed by hacks that truncate data, but nothing could be farther from the truth.
Well, I assumed that you'd be visiting sites with dynamic content rather than static. If you're on a page built with FrontPage then it's highly unlikely that you're going to have a database backend to test.
Is this a boss who also is concerned with how you dress? Let's face it - many in business care more about how something is accomplished than what is accomplished. If this is your company, I recommend putting out a resume, but only if you're willing to truly be judged on your efforts.
Plus, since he is from a different field, he does not realy understand the details of our work (=ammount of work required) so whenever he assigns me a new (urgent) subproject and I would tell him how much time I will need to complete it, he starts arguing with me that I should finish it faster if I did not make excuses and work harder.
There is a perception out there that software changes are super easy to make and that you should be able to whip them out in no time. I don't know what technique you use to push back on your boss, but if it's an "I can't do it in that amount of time" kind of argument then you're sure to lose. What I recommend instead is that you start listing off the various tasks that need to be done and how long they'll take. Don't bury him in detail, but try to keep the tasks reasonably short (a few days at most). If you list of 100 things that each take a day, it's kind of hard to argue that it won't take 100 days to get the job done. I suspect that your boss just thinks that you suck at understanding the task and estimating the time to completion, so I recommend you show him that you can handle it.
As I mentioned in another thread, there are probably tons of broken apps out there if you force feed them too much data. (For example, try putting a really long name into /. as your "real name" and see what happens, or enter a too-long phone number into Yahoo address book.) In practice we see this all over the place on the web. When was the last time your browser notified you that it was exceeding the length of a query string?
However, history has demonstrated that in any engineering discipline, especially software engineering, you must put in safeguards and make sure that people don't do the wrong thing. After all, strcpy is fine as long as people do the right thing.
I know that memcpy/strcpy are the source of many buffer overflow problems (and hence security problems), so I really can't say that your argument is all wet. On the other hand, I've spent time in a Pascal world where you can do anything without getting permission. I prefer the problems of screwing up strcpy to the problems of trying to get something to run properly in Pascal. Actually, I used to have my students write strcpy so that they could see exactly how it works, and what the implications are of a buffer overrun.
On Slashdot, one man's "insightful" comment is another man's troll. The same holds true with anti-competitive practices. For example, if Microsoft really had true command of the market then they'd charge whatever they want for their OS. Now I don't know about you, but I think $100 for Windows XP is a pretty good deal. You might not, but then again you probably weren't alive in the days when a single seat on a mid-range VAX system ran around $1,000. Of course I think that Linux has a much better pricing model, which is why I have 6 Linux machines in my house and only 2 Windows boxes. (I haven't gotten my kids switched over yet, and I use the other primarily for testing on IE.)
Maybe you don't feel you have any choice but to use Windows, but I suspect that you're in the minority on this forum. As for the broader marketplace, do you really think that Microsoft would spend millions of dollars lying about TCO or attempting to scare business owners with FUD about supposed problems with the Linux licensing model if they really had true control over the market?
Personally, I hope that Microsoft sets the price for Windows Vista at $10,000/copy. It'll just speed up F/OSS adoption for both businesses and consumers.
I'm sorry - aren't Mac OS, Linux, Sun, and three different versions of BSD enough competition for you? And that's just on the PC side of things. Nobody's twisting your arm to use Windows.
It depends on what the barriers to entry are. In the case of Standard Oil where they were buying up land and preventing people from building pipelines to compete with them then the answer is "yes". In the case of Microsoft where anyone (like Linus Torvalds) can fire up a machine and write a new OS and distribute it freely on the Internet then the answer is "no". "Free market" means just that - a level playing field where all can participate with fearing harm from their competitor, other than that inflicted by delivering better goods and services.