Planes are pressurized, they would never implode, they would explode. Also, skydivers don't pressurize their planes, and they fly at lower altitudes than commercial jets, so it's not as big of a deal anyway.
That's from the center of Ft. Collins. I live on Harmony, it's under 50 miles. I don't know where 54 is. I take I-25 and do about 80 or so, then take 119 into Boulder and you can cruise at 45 mph, you'll be at The Sink in 45 minutes. Piece of cake.
Boulder is less than 50 miles from me, where I live in Ft. Collins. You do the math, thats an average of 60 miles an hour. In a state where the speed limit is 75, 60 mph is nothing. But keep exaggerating some more. I'm sure there are at least a few people that will believe the stuff you're spewing.
Why do you keep mentioning Denver?? Is it that difficult for you to understand my posts? For the last time...I live in Fort Collins, I can get to downtown Boulder in 45 minutes easy. I can get to IBM in 30 minutes flat, from Ft. Collins. Do you need me to explain it to you again?
P.S. I never said IBM and other Boulder firms were a scant 30 minutes from Ft. Collins. I said "a half hour or so". So yea, it might take 40 or 45 minutes for some places in Boulder, but it's not even close to 2 hours like you're trying to make it sound.
I never said anything about "tech jobs". The parent asked where all the people that live in Ft. Collins work and I answered. Are all these companies going on huge hiring sprees? No. Are a lot of them doing some hiring? Yes. Do you have a decent chance of getting a good job if you look around? MOST DEFINITELY. Trust me buddy, there is nowhere in the country where high paying jobs are oozing out of the woodwork. It's gonna be a mixed bag wherever you go. And for a town of 130,000, FOCO has some pretty good companies.
Secondly YOU need to quit yanking peoples chains. Look at a damn map. Downtown Boulder is 45 minutes from me on a bad day. You're trying to make it sound like it's 2 hours away, bullshit. Denver is SE of Boulder and I can get there in just over an hour. IBM is HALF AN HOUR away, period. Also, I didn't describe a single job that was in Greeley.
And housing costs are just fine in FOCO. You're talking about Denver, I never said anything about Denver. A 2 bedroom apt in FOCO is $550 a month, try finding something that cheap anywhere in CA.
"I have no idea where the people here work if they can afford to shop at all the new places.
But above all, there are only two kinds of buildings under construction here. Churches and banks.
Where do these people work???"
I live in Ft. Collins also. Try HP, Poudre Valley Hospital, Eastman Kodak, Anheuser-Busch, Agilent, Celestica and Colorado State University for starters. Within a half-hour drive or so your will find IBM, Ball Aerospace, NOAA, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Lockheed Martin, and the University of Colorado to name a few. All this is in a town within an hour or two of some of the best skiing, hiking, camping, climbing and biking in the country and a very affordable cost of living. Oh and did I mention there are several great microbreweries right in town:)
Seriously, the only people I hear rag on Ft. Collins are the ones that have lived there their whole lives and don't realize how good they have it.
"An analogy that actually compares to what I said would be more like comparing the seat stitching between the Mustang and the Corvette, and saying that the Corvette won based on the seat stitching. Sure, the seat stitching is more comfortable in the Corvette, and it may make a big difference to people sitting in them, but it has nothing to do with how fast the Corvette and Mustang are, or what the Mustang is actually capable of."
Not exactly, it would be more like comparing a Corvette and a Mustang and saying that while on paper the Corvette is faster the Mustang is faster in reality. Not because of a better drivetrain or chassis, but faster because the controls are positioned so horribly in the Corvette that it's not possible to push the car to it's limits.
"The issues mentioned that I complained about have nothing to do with the format, but with how badly those specific Blu-Ray titles were put together. If a Blu-Ray disc is put together badly, why does that mean that the Blu-Ray format is worse than HD-DVD format? It doesn't. It means these specific Blu-Ray titles were put together worse than these specific HD-DVD titles, and that's ALL it means."
I understand the distinction you're making between the HD-DVD vs. BLU-RAY formats and HD-DVD vs. BLU-RAY camps. What I'm saying is that the technical differences between the formats is only one piece of a larger picture. Yes us geeks love to talk tech, maybe to the extent that we occasionally lose sight of the larger picture. As we've seen in the past having the better format on paper in no way guarantees victory.
Whether HD-DVD looks better because of the disks, because of the software used to master them or because of the hardware the disks play on is irrelevent. The end result to the consumer is the same: when I go to the store and compare formats HD-DVD looks better, when I read reviews they say that HD-DVD looks better. Therefore the average consumer will purchase HD-DVD until such time as the situation changes. And when comparing these two formats we must look not only at the technical differences but at the overall picture to get a clear idea of where each camp stands. That is the 20 billion dollar question after all is it not? Which format will win??
"Okay, so due to issues WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMATS THEMSELVES, HD-DVD won. This means nothing."
Sure it means nothing, except that with currently available hardware and movies HD-DVD looks better and costs less and will likely be more appealing to consumers, giving the HD-DVD camp an edge for the near future. So yea, except for that one little thing it means nothing.
You know I could just as easily say that comparing the motor in a Mustang to the motor in a Corvette is pointless because it's two different cars and wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison. But for some reason the car magazines do that all the time, why do you suppose that is???
"You don't put a design element in that requires perfect craftsmanship to install, and that kills somebody if it fails."
Sure you do, all the time. Look at the aerospace industry where the failure of a single faulty weld could lead to the deaths of hundreds of people. Same thing with bridges, tunnels, etc. It would be nice if we never had other peoples lives in our hands when making design decisions but that's just the way it is.
"First of all you have a situation where workers are supposed to drill in a uncomfortable and dirty environment. Then they're supposed to clean the hole very carefully so they're expoxying the bolt to rock, not milliions of dust particles. And the workers are supposed to do this overhead. And in an almighty rush. Even the best and most conscientious workers cannot be trusted to do this at better than 99% perfection, and 99.99% perfection wouldn't be enough."
Construction workers expected to work in uncomfortable and dirty environments and still do good work? Yea you're right, that is just unheard of (sarcasm). Drive around some construction sites when it's 100 degrees out and look at the work some of those guys are doing and the conditions under which they are doing it. Then tell me it was somehow a mistake to have construction workers on the Big Dig working in an "uncomfortable and dirty environment". It's construction work! A lot of times it is not fun or pretty but that's just the way it is, somebody has to do the job and they have to do it right regardless of the conditions. Oh yea, any design like this has a factor of safety, it said in the article that the FOS was 4. So you do not need 100% perfection to build something that will still function acceptably.
In this article by "average" they are probably talking about the mean, in which case the population is not necessarily split 50-50 on either side of the mean, it could be 60-40 or something. What you are referring to is the median.
The vast majority of content on Wikipedia is generated by a core group of a few thousand people. Furthermore plenty of inane stuff does get posted on Wikipedia, I would go so far as to say the majority of content posted on Myspace is inane, it's just deleted.
Non-competes are common for engineers and other mid-level positions, you know, regular people with families just trying to get by. Is it really fair to prevent them from working in their choosen profession for a year or more, with no compensation? What is he/she supposed to do? Go lay roofing for a year to pay the bills? it's pretty pointless to try and start a new career if in 12 months you can return to your old one that you were perfectly happy and succesfull with. I think most people would be much more accepting of non-competes if the company were willing to support them in some way during their non-compete period. For example; a stipend worth half your salary at the time you left, you can work a crap job somewhere to make up the remainder or just take a 12 month vacation, plus reimbursement for educational expenses during the non-compete period, (gotta keep your skills sharp during your time off). To me that would be a reasonable agreement.
When I first read this story my immediate reaction was that it was a clear case of the university overstepping it's bounds. Then I thought about it for awhile and realized that it was common and accepted for clubs and organizations within a university to have their own code of conduct seperate from the university and that I may have initially overreacted.
Now I have thought about it some more and changed my opinion again. I now feel that the university is overstepping their bounds in this case. To me the key thing is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using Facebook and the students are fully responsible for their actions while using it. The problem is that some students post things that they shouldn't and that can get the students and the university in hot water.
Would you ban athletes from talking to the press entirely? No, but you may tell them that they cannot badmouth the school and other players when talking to the press. Would you ban athletes from going to social events? No, but you might tell them that they aren't allowed to get sloppy drunk or there will be serious consequences. It's the same thing with Facebook, don't ban them from using it, just tell them to exercise some common sense, for the athletes that don't there will be consequences.
Posters comparing this to sports teams banning athletes from skydiving and motorcycle riding are mistaken, it is not the same thing. They are banning athletes from participating in dangerous activities because they don't want their multi-million dollar investements to get damaged. And it doesn't matter how good of a skydiver you are, you can still die from events outside of your control, that is what they want to avoid. What they do not typically do is ban athletes from activities where the athlete, and the athlete alone, is fully responsible for their actions. Going to a party and having a few beers for example, sending and receiving emails with friends and teammates, going on a date with a woman, etc. All are activities that could potentially have severe negative consequences for the team, but the player is fully responsible for his actions and it's his butt on the line if he screws up, that's the difference.
This sounds all well and good on paper but in practice it probably won't do much. If a potential employer uses Facebook to check you out and decides not to hire you based on what they find they probably arent going to tell you they used Facebook. They will just not hire you and that's the end of it. And I don't see how you could possibly prove that they checked you out on Facebook.
Hmmm, as I recall even the original design was not very good and probably wouldn't have passed code. Like many engineering failures it is a chain of bad decisions and mistakes by different people and organizations that lead up to failure.
The main benefit I would see to using a box beam instead of an I-beam is that you could easily drill a hole through a box beam to stick the rod through. On an I-beam you couldn't drill a hole through the center without compromising the beam, you would need some sort of special hangar that would attach to the end of the beam for the rod to go through, this would require more design time and more construction time and would probably end up costing more than just using a slightly larger box beam. While a box beam may be weaker than an I-beam for a given amount of material there is nothing inherently wrong with them if properly spec'd.
"In engineering there is no difference between the plans and the changes: they are both the plan."
What? Field changes are not the same thing as plans. I'm not sure where you work but at my job if someone asks me for "the plans" and I hand them a folder of field changes I will probably hear some select four-letter words and be sent back to get the actual "plans". Now it's true both will be used in construction, but trying to use the two terms interchangeably is wrong and will only confuse people.
"I studied _ART_ in college and I spotted the flaw a mile away."
Yes it shows that you studied art and not engineering. We actually studied this failure in one of my classes. The poorly welded box beams probably contributed to the failure but the much larger flaw was changing the support from one in which the box beams would only be supporting the weight of one floor to one in which they would be supporting the weight of all the floors. As I recall a junior engineer approved the change without consulting with more experienced engineers. The construction crew is not at fault because they built the structure according to approved plans and field changes.
I will just pop in to say, as I have before, that Dvorak is a yellow journalist. He writes outlandish articles to get attention. Every time Slashdot posts his articles they lower themselves further into tabloid territory. If Slashdot doesn't care about credibility and is only concerned with getting as many viewers as possible then more power to them
Probably because Google is very secretive about their business and a lot of that information just isn't available. Not only that but Google has servers located around the country, probably the world, and in all likelihood is buying bandwidth from more than one supplier.
One thing is certain though; a company the size of Google, using that much bandwidth, is most deffinitely not getting it for free. They are paying, and probably paying a hell of a lot.
I am by no means an expert in lean manufacturing but...
If MS estimates they need 5 million chips for quarter 1 but only end up using 4 million of them wouldn't they just use the extra million chips they ordered in the following quarter? Granted that's not the most efficient way of doing things but it's not like the chip supplier would have to eat the full cost of the chips.
If your friend is so computer illiterate that he thought MS Office was included free on every computer sold and he had no clue what a pop-up ad was how well do you think he would do in a Linux environment? How easy of a time would he have setting up his internet? or printer? With no guidance and no previous computer experience remember.
If Toshiba wants HD-DVD to win the battle they would be well advised to get some high def pornos available as soon as possible. Porn is one of the main reasons VHS beat out Betamax and has been the driving force behind many other technological innovations.
Step 1: Give Internet Explorer away for free and include it with every copy of Windows sold, increasing its usage to over 80%.
Step 2: Break from accepted standards. Website programmers become lazy and code to these broken standards. Now Internet Explorer is the only browser that will properly render all websites. Usage surges to over 90%.
Step 3: Require users have the latest version of Windows to use the latest version of Internet Explorer. Now, even though the browser is still free, in a roundabout way people have to pay to use it.
Step 4: Profit.
Oh yea, Dvorak is a yellow journalist. If Slashdot has a shred of integrity they should not post any of his articles.
Slashdot Mirror
Planes are pressurized, they would never implode, they would explode. Also, skydivers don't pressurize their planes, and they fly at lower altitudes than commercial jets, so it's not as big of a deal anyway.
That's from the center of Ft. Collins. I live on Harmony, it's under 50 miles. I don't know where 54 is. I take I-25 and do about 80 or so, then take 119 into Boulder and you can cruise at 45 mph, you'll be at The Sink in 45 minutes. Piece of cake.
Boulder is less than 50 miles from me, where I live in Ft. Collins. You do the math, thats an average of 60 miles an hour. In a state where the speed limit is 75, 60 mph is nothing. But keep exaggerating some more. I'm sure there are at least a few people that will believe the stuff you're spewing.
Why do you keep mentioning Denver?? Is it that difficult for you to understand my posts? For the last time...I live in Fort Collins, I can get to downtown Boulder in 45 minutes easy. I can get to IBM in 30 minutes flat, from Ft. Collins. Do you need me to explain it to you again?
P.S. I never said IBM and other Boulder firms were a scant 30 minutes from Ft. Collins. I said "a half hour or so". So yea, it might take 40 or 45 minutes for some places in Boulder, but it's not even close to 2 hours like you're trying to make it sound.
I never said anything about "tech jobs". The parent asked where all the people that live in Ft. Collins work and I answered. Are all these companies going on huge hiring sprees? No. Are a lot of them doing some hiring? Yes. Do you have a decent chance of getting a good job if you look around? MOST DEFINITELY. Trust me buddy, there is nowhere in the country where high paying jobs are oozing out of the woodwork. It's gonna be a mixed bag wherever you go. And for a town of 130,000, FOCO has some pretty good companies.
Secondly YOU need to quit yanking peoples chains. Look at a damn map. Downtown Boulder is 45 minutes from me on a bad day. You're trying to make it sound like it's 2 hours away, bullshit. Denver is SE of Boulder and I can get there in just over an hour. IBM is HALF AN HOUR away, period. Also, I didn't describe a single job that was in Greeley.
And housing costs are just fine in FOCO. You're talking about Denver, I never said anything about Denver. A 2 bedroom apt in FOCO is $550 a month, try finding something that cheap anywhere in CA.
Yep Boulder is much better, if you don't mind paying twice as much for your house ;)
"I have no idea where the people here work if they can afford to shop at all the new places. But above all, there are only two kinds of buildings under construction here. Churches and banks. Where do these people work???"
:)
I live in Ft. Collins also. Try HP, Poudre Valley Hospital, Eastman Kodak, Anheuser-Busch, Agilent, Celestica and Colorado State University for starters. Within a half-hour drive or so your will find IBM, Ball Aerospace, NOAA, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Lockheed Martin, and the University of Colorado to name a few. All this is in a town within an hour or two of some of the best skiing, hiking, camping, climbing and biking in the country and a very affordable cost of living. Oh and did I mention there are several great microbreweries right in town
Seriously, the only people I hear rag on Ft. Collins are the ones that have lived there their whole lives and don't realize how good they have it.
"An analogy that actually compares to what I said would be more like comparing the seat stitching between the Mustang and the Corvette, and saying that the Corvette won based on the seat stitching. Sure, the seat stitching is more comfortable in the Corvette, and it may make a big difference to people sitting in them, but it has nothing to do with how fast the Corvette and Mustang are, or what the Mustang is actually capable of."
Not exactly, it would be more like comparing a Corvette and a Mustang and saying that while on paper the Corvette is faster the Mustang is faster in reality. Not because of a better drivetrain or chassis, but faster because the controls are positioned so horribly in the Corvette that it's not possible to push the car to it's limits.
"The issues mentioned that I complained about have nothing to do with the format, but with how badly those specific Blu-Ray titles were put together. If a Blu-Ray disc is put together badly, why does that mean that the Blu-Ray format is worse than HD-DVD format? It doesn't. It means these specific Blu-Ray titles were put together worse than these specific HD-DVD titles, and that's ALL it means."
I understand the distinction you're making between the HD-DVD vs. BLU-RAY formats and HD-DVD vs. BLU-RAY camps. What I'm saying is that the technical differences between the formats is only one piece of a larger picture. Yes us geeks love to talk tech, maybe to the extent that we occasionally lose sight of the larger picture. As we've seen in the past having the better format on paper in no way guarantees victory.
Whether HD-DVD looks better because of the disks, because of the software used to master them or because of the hardware the disks play on is irrelevent. The end result to the consumer is the same: when I go to the store and compare formats HD-DVD looks better, when I read reviews they say that HD-DVD looks better. Therefore the average consumer will purchase HD-DVD until such time as the situation changes. And when comparing these two formats we must look not only at the technical differences but at the overall picture to get a clear idea of where each camp stands. That is the 20 billion dollar question after all is it not? Which format will win??
"Okay, so due to issues WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMATS THEMSELVES, HD-DVD won. This means nothing."
Sure it means nothing, except that with currently available hardware and movies HD-DVD looks better and costs less and will likely be more appealing to consumers, giving the HD-DVD camp an edge for the near future. So yea, except for that one little thing it means nothing.
You know I could just as easily say that comparing the motor in a Mustang to the motor in a Corvette is pointless because it's two different cars and wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison. But for some reason the car magazines do that all the time, why do you suppose that is???
"You don't put a design element in that requires perfect craftsmanship to install, and that kills somebody if it fails."
Sure you do, all the time. Look at the aerospace industry where the failure of a single faulty weld could lead to the deaths of hundreds of people. Same thing with bridges, tunnels, etc. It would be nice if we never had other peoples lives in our hands when making design decisions but that's just the way it is.
"First of all you have a situation where workers are supposed to drill in a uncomfortable and dirty environment. Then they're supposed to clean the hole very carefully so they're expoxying the bolt to rock, not milliions of dust particles. And the workers are supposed to do this overhead. And in an almighty rush. Even the best and most conscientious workers cannot be trusted to do this at better than 99% perfection, and 99.99% perfection wouldn't be enough."
Construction workers expected to work in uncomfortable and dirty environments and still do good work? Yea you're right, that is just unheard of (sarcasm). Drive around some construction sites when it's 100 degrees out and look at the work some of those guys are doing and the conditions under which they are doing it. Then tell me it was somehow a mistake to have construction workers on the Big Dig working in an "uncomfortable and dirty environment". It's construction work! A lot of times it is not fun or pretty but that's just the way it is, somebody has to do the job and they have to do it right regardless of the conditions. Oh yea, any design like this has a factor of safety, it said in the article that the FOS was 4. So you do not need 100% perfection to build something that will still function acceptably.
In this article by "average" they are probably talking about the mean, in which case the population is not necessarily split 50-50 on either side of the mean, it could be 60-40 or something. What you are referring to is the median.
The vast majority of content on Wikipedia is generated by a core group of a few thousand people. Furthermore plenty of inane stuff does get posted on Wikipedia, I would go so far as to say the majority of content posted on Myspace is inane, it's just deleted.
Non-competes are common for engineers and other mid-level positions, you know, regular people with families just trying to get by. Is it really fair to prevent them from working in their choosen profession for a year or more, with no compensation? What is he/she supposed to do? Go lay roofing for a year to pay the bills? it's pretty pointless to try and start a new career if in 12 months you can return to your old one that you were perfectly happy and succesfull with. I think most people would be much more accepting of non-competes if the company were willing to support them in some way during their non-compete period. For example; a stipend worth half your salary at the time you left, you can work a crap job somewhere to make up the remainder or just take a 12 month vacation, plus reimbursement for educational expenses during the non-compete period, (gotta keep your skills sharp during your time off). To me that would be a reasonable agreement.
When I first read this story my immediate reaction was that it was a clear case of the university overstepping it's bounds. Then I thought about it for awhile and realized that it was common and accepted for clubs and organizations within a university to have their own code of conduct seperate from the university and that I may have initially overreacted.
Now I have thought about it some more and changed my opinion again. I now feel that the university is overstepping their bounds in this case. To me the key thing is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using Facebook and the students are fully responsible for their actions while using it. The problem is that some students post things that they shouldn't and that can get the students and the university in hot water.
Would you ban athletes from talking to the press entirely? No, but you may tell them that they cannot badmouth the school and other players when talking to the press. Would you ban athletes from going to social events? No, but you might tell them that they aren't allowed to get sloppy drunk or there will be serious consequences. It's the same thing with Facebook, don't ban them from using it, just tell them to exercise some common sense, for the athletes that don't there will be consequences.
Posters comparing this to sports teams banning athletes from skydiving and motorcycle riding are mistaken, it is not the same thing. They are banning athletes from participating in dangerous activities because they don't want their multi-million dollar investements to get damaged. And it doesn't matter how good of a skydiver you are, you can still die from events outside of your control, that is what they want to avoid. What they do not typically do is ban athletes from activities where the athlete, and the athlete alone, is fully responsible for their actions. Going to a party and having a few beers for example, sending and receiving emails with friends and teammates, going on a date with a woman, etc. All are activities that could potentially have severe negative consequences for the team, but the player is fully responsible for his actions and it's his butt on the line if he screws up, that's the difference.
This sounds all well and good on paper but in practice it probably won't do much. If a potential employer uses Facebook to check you out and decides not to hire you based on what they find they probably arent going to tell you they used Facebook. They will just not hire you and that's the end of it. And I don't see how you could possibly prove that they checked you out on Facebook.
Hmmm, as I recall even the original design was not very good and probably wouldn't have passed code. Like many engineering failures it is a chain of bad decisions and mistakes by different people and organizations that lead up to failure.
The main benefit I would see to using a box beam instead of an I-beam is that you could easily drill a hole through a box beam to stick the rod through. On an I-beam you couldn't drill a hole through the center without compromising the beam, you would need some sort of special hangar that would attach to the end of the beam for the rod to go through, this would require more design time and more construction time and would probably end up costing more than just using a slightly larger box beam. While a box beam may be weaker than an I-beam for a given amount of material there is nothing inherently wrong with them if properly spec'd.
"In engineering there is no difference between the plans and the changes: they are both the plan."
What? Field changes are not the same thing as plans. I'm not sure where you work but at my job if someone asks me for "the plans" and I hand them a folder of field changes I will probably hear some select four-letter words and be sent back to get the actual "plans". Now it's true both will be used in construction, but trying to use the two terms interchangeably is wrong and will only confuse people.
"I studied _ART_ in college and I spotted the flaw a mile away."
Yes it shows that you studied art and not engineering. We actually studied this failure in one of my classes. The poorly welded box beams probably contributed to the failure but the much larger flaw was changing the support from one in which the box beams would only be supporting the weight of one floor to one in which they would be supporting the weight of all the floors. As I recall a junior engineer approved the change without consulting with more experienced engineers. The construction crew is not at fault because they built the structure according to approved plans and field changes.
Google Earth has it modeled in fairly good detail and you can fly around it all you want, zoom in, pan, etc. http://earth.google.com
I will just pop in to say, as I have before, that Dvorak is a yellow journalist. He writes outlandish articles to get attention. Every time Slashdot posts his articles they lower themselves further into tabloid territory. If Slashdot doesn't care about credibility and is only concerned with getting as many viewers as possible then more power to them
Probably because Google is very secretive about their business and a lot of that information just isn't available. Not only that but Google has servers located around the country, probably the world, and in all likelihood is buying bandwidth from more than one supplier.
One thing is certain though; a company the size of Google, using that much bandwidth, is most deffinitely not getting it for free. They are paying, and probably paying a hell of a lot.
I am by no means an expert in lean manufacturing but...
If MS estimates they need 5 million chips for quarter 1 but only end up using 4 million of them wouldn't they just use the extra million chips they ordered in the following quarter? Granted that's not the most efficient way of doing things but it's not like the chip supplier would have to eat the full cost of the chips.
If your friend is so computer illiterate that he thought MS Office was included free on every computer sold and he had no clue what a pop-up ad was how well do you think he would do in a Linux environment? How easy of a time would he have setting up his internet? or printer? With no guidance and no previous computer experience remember.
If Toshiba wants HD-DVD to win the battle they would be well advised to get some high def pornos available as soon as possible. Porn is one of the main reasons VHS beat out Betamax and has been the driving force behind many other technological innovations.
Step 1: Give Internet Explorer away for free and include it with every copy of Windows sold, increasing its usage to over 80%. Step 2: Break from accepted standards. Website programmers become lazy and code to these broken standards. Now Internet Explorer is the only browser that will properly render all websites. Usage surges to over 90%. Step 3: Require users have the latest version of Windows to use the latest version of Internet Explorer. Now, even though the browser is still free, in a roundabout way people have to pay to use it. Step 4: Profit. Oh yea, Dvorak is a yellow journalist. If Slashdot has a shred of integrity they should not post any of his articles.