Why just black. Why not brown, red, or yellow.

I lived in India for several months, I know what it's like to walk into a restaurant and have 20 pairs of eyes watch every move I make. I'm sure someone from Mexico or Senegal would experience the same thing.

I know people of all skin colors that have lived among other people of different skin colors and I've heard plenty of stories to tell of ignorant people making rash judgements. I've heard people from India say racist things about people with dark skin, and I've heard people with dark skin say racist things about people with lighter skin. I know a white person that was stopped by a cop in a neighborhood where people with browner skin colors predominately live. He didn't complain about 'walking while white'.

I'm sure that no matter where someone goes in this world, people with a skin color or any other attribute that is in the minority are viewed differently from people in the majority. What makes some people think they are experiencing something no one else in the world experiences or can understand? Or that only white people don't get it? Why was it in college that groups of people with similar attributes (i.e. ethnic background, religion, political leanings) all tended to group together and often made fun of everyone not like them.

A good step in getting rid of racists attitudes is to ignore the morons who are racist and stop letting them interfere with our lives. Generalizing the attitudes and behaviors of an entire group of people just because of the traits of a small minority is prejudice.

No matter what your skin color is.

And then a minority of people decide to better protect their money, it's OK??? Even though most people already know to protect their money and stay out of bad neighborhoods??

What a moronic argument. He broke the law, ran like a coward, was basically a traitor who thought he, and he alone, knew best. And was willing to coerce his fellow employees to break the law along with him.

Extradite him, try him, hopefully toss his cowardly traitorous ass in jail.

What a bunch of BS. Apple only prevented people from loading third party music on the device they sold, not on everyone's.

That's why I didn't buy one. I don't buy any Apple product because the company limits choice beyond what is reasonable and purely for control purposes. I have no doubt they are telling the truth, that it's because of music deals and iTunes. I can believe that Apple wanted to lock their customers into iTunes and was willing to make such deals.

But I fail to see how this can be an antitrust issue when there were plenty of other choices that we cheaper. It was only an issue for the iDrones out there who couldn't see past their little white cases.

BTW ... my wife had a nano. Hated iTunes. She gave it away 6 months after I gave it to her for Christmas. What a piece of crap software, I should have known better.

Do you gain an advantage when interviewing for a job?? Not with me and many others, so the value in that instance is very low. I'm more interested in how smart you are, the specific experience you have in a subject, and your ability to utilize those skills. Certification just says you can study something very well. I've known people that have studied a subject and gotten certified with no experience, someone like that is useless.

Are you going for a job that requires it?? Some teaching and support positions require certification for public relations and marketing reasons. So in those instance, it's probably mandatory.

Do you want to use it as a tool to work towards learning as much as you can as a subject?? It can be very helpful to an individual to independently gain skills that may or may not be available in a more formal setting, such as college or trade school, and is probably a lot cheaper. I would say that value is very high for someone that wants to use it like that.

I like the flexibility I have to work the hours I choose to. I get paid to do a job, no matter what the hours. I would much rather get comp time than paid overtime, and my company is pretty flexible.

And for those calling for unionization, take a look around you. How many 'union' companies are left?? The textile industry, steel industry, and many others are all GONE after unions raised wages so high it became cheaper to build factories overseas. Many successful car companies have tossed unions aside, and were better able to handle the economic downturn that GM and Chrysler. Remember many years ago when everyone started outsourcing?? The main reason was high wages.

I've been paid overtime a couple of times in my career. And it sucked. Because I got sucked into the overtime trap, and worked more hours to get more pay. Then, when overtime was not allowed, I was stuck on the short end of a paycheck because I had gotten used to it.

I'd rather work smarter, and work fewer hours, than work longer hours and have less free time.

Just because some have a sucky job and can't find a better one because they have average skills, don't penalize those that have great jobs.

Smart programmers pick up new languages very quickly. I'd rather hire someone smart who doesn't know Python, than someone mediocre and only knows Python.

Someone may make $100K today in Python, but what about a few decades from now. I know COBOL, and still know people writing COBOL supporting legacy code. But the majority of the ones unwilling/unable to learn a new language are out of a job.

I'd rather be learning new things and have several tools in my belt than just one and be limited.

And easily replaced.

.. but 'skills discrimination' is. When I left my last job as a Java programmer, I discovered that although I was a pretty darn good developer, because I didn't have exposure to common tools and frameworks (Bamboo, Maven, Swing), it limited who was interested in me. I did get a job, but it was through contacts, which tends to limit possibilities. (Interestingly, I did get a call from Disney because of my experience in other areas, but I wasn't interested in what they offered.)

I think as long as one stays up-to-date and gets exposed to newer things, there isn't any issue with staying in the non-managerial lane. It limits your income, unless you are really good, but I make a very comfortable salary at 55. The companies I spoke with a couple of years ago didn't seem to want experts in the things they were looking for, just someone who didn't need to be trained on everything *except* Java. (Worked for a very small company prior, didn't need any tools to write the POJOs that we used)

I have noticed that I get paid a little bit more because of my leadership abilities. It's not just managers that need to lead, team leads and Sr. engineers need to be seen as leaders also. I just swapped roles at the company I am with, and one of the things that the VP liked about me was my leadership skills. The new role is as Enterprise Software Engineer, and I need to be able to work with small teams to get projects done.

From the crop of developers I've interviewed over the last few years, there are a bunch of under-skilled people who think very highly of themselves and want to be paid more than they are worth.

My company has hired some very bright people and paid them very well. But then there are people like this MIT grad we hired several years ago, purely based on her resume and what BS came out of her mouth, only to discover she was perhaps one of the worst developers I've ever worked with. She was fired several months later. We looked at dozens of resumes, and interviewed 5 or so. Of that batch, she was the only one that seemed remotely qualified.

My 'replacement' at my last job made 2/3rds of what I made, and within a month or two they discovered why I was worth the wages they paid me as he single-handledly almost destroyed a critical database that would have put them out of business and then didn't have the skills to fix it. They had to hire me as a contractor to help fix the mess he made.

Many of our current developers seem to think QA is where you send code to find bugs once it compiles clean. The ones that work in my new group are going to learn really fast that depending on QA to find your bugs is the quickest way to find the door.

If someone wants a batch of developers they have to babysit and spoon feed requirements to, they are a dime a dozen and deserve to be paid the same. If someone wants developers who can think for themselves, are self-motivated, and are able to fill in the blanks by finding things out ... they are few and far between and worth the price paid.

What a purely sexist comment. There is no more a male 'act' than a female 'act'.

People who share the same traits that specific businesses like have the opportunity to get paid the same. In sales, it could be people with aggressive and self-motivation traits that get paid more. In nursing, it could be traits like compassion and being detail-oriented. In tech, creativity, flexibility, and the quest to learn new things might garner higher pay.

Overall, people who take less time off and put in more hours always get paid more. As they should.

People get paid based on quantity and quality of work, and what they are willing to do it for. My personal pay jumped dramatically when I stopped accepting the excuse 'we can't afford to pay you more' and found new jobs. If someone else can't do that, the only person they can blame is themselves. I have plenty of people calling me looking for me to change jobs, if someone isn't happy with their salary and aren't getting those calls, maybe it's their skill set that is the problem.

Just because someone wants to be able to write programs or run excel spreadsheets or write their term paper on a tablet, doesn't mean it's a good form factor for that.

The more I use my tablet, the more I appreciate my desktop for what it is, a place to comfortable sit and work for long periods. The few times I've tried to use either my tablet or my wife's laptop for work, the more I don't bother anymore and go sit at my desktop. It's just far more comfortable for that type of work. I have dual monitors and a real keyboard. The Chiclets Bluetooth keyboards and the single monitor just don't cut it anymore.

For example, when paying bills, I have three apps open, a spreadsheet with my budget, Quicken, and a web browser for bill paying. Even with dual monitors it's not enough screen to see all three at the same time. I use dual monitors at work, but when I work from home I can only do a single monitor (at this point, they are working at fixing that). I am a lot less productive.

The CPUs on my desktop are much faster than the tablet, and I have access to far more storage and connections (i.e. USB, smart cards, sound, camera, etc).

I don't think the tablet will ever be able to replace the desktop. Just as the laptop never did. Some people can do without them, but they have less capabilities with the exception of being able to sit by the pool and work.

Which I've tried before and found it just wasn't that comfortable. And far too distracting.

It's not 'worse in every way'. It's great for what it is designed for (tablet) and Windows 8 is great for what it's designed for (desktop)

Which is why I have a desktop for work where I sit down and work for long periods, and a tablet for reading, watching movies, playing short games, and taking notes in meetings. It's handwriting recognition is pretty good, it's not perfect but usually I just go back afterward and correct any spelling issues.

My Samsung Note III does have multiple windows as the default, and it works great. When I click a link in Facebook, it opens in a side window that is easily closed. I can use the pen to draw a box and open many apps in it, like a calculator or map. Or, I just slide in from the right to get a list of apps to open.

I don't need to map network drives to my laptop, I can play any media file I want on TV, using my tablet as a remote for my Harmony Hub.

I use the pocket cloud app, and have full access from my tablet to my desktop if I need it, which does run Windows 8. With a bluetooth keyboard, it's OK for short sessions. From that session, I can then RDP to my work computer and do support if I'm needed.

I have not had any need to run a command manually on my tablet, that's just a stupid comment geeks and nerds throw out for something that has become almost irrelevant.

When I decided to get a tablet, I looked at both the Surface Pro and Android, and picked the Android because I felt for the money I spent, I got more value for what I needed.

My Note III does exactly what I need it to do, and my desktop does also. For instance, I'm typing this from my desktop because typing on ANY tablet is a pain in the ass for anything of length.

The ONLY think I wish it came with was a built-in scripting/cron capability of some sort. But it hasn't bothered me so much that I've even done any searches to find any add-ons.

And I've known some folks with PhDs that were pretty stupid and had no common sense when it came to many things other than their area of expertise! I knew a programmer who claimed to have a PhD from MIT that was one of the worst programmers I have ever worked with. I knew a gentleman with a PhD in neural networks that was the worst VP of Software Development ever.

I doubt if Angela Merkel is stupid, but assuming that just because someone has a PhD is 'smart' or capable of doing anything worthwhile is ... well ... stupid.

I lived the first 45 years of my life in states that followed daylight savings time. I didn't like it when I had kids, because it seemed for a couple of weeks after the switch, they were all messed up.

Now I live in Arizona, where we leave the damn clocks alone, and I love it. It's a minor inconvenience occasionally when relatives back east are three hours ahead instead of two, but it's great not having to deal with the time shift directly.

As for people wanting DST because they get more daylight in the evening ... why don't you just get up earlier. It's the same amount of daylight either way, it's only YOUR schedule that doesn't allow you to enjoy it.

... who thinks they are entitled to unlimited usage is naive. And wrong. ... who thinks they can get unlimited usage without paying a high price is a fool. And wrong. ... who doesn't read the contract to find out what 'unlimited' really means is just damn lazy. And probably a little bit of both of the above.

So how is the fueling station going to get enough juice to charge 5-10 cars at the same time??? Their own generating station?? High-voltage electric lines directly from the sub-station?? And how are they going to get that much power out into the middle of some of the large tracts of land that make up the western half of the US??

I hope they can do it. I'm cheering for them to find a way.

I doubt if we will see anything nearing 25% electric-only cars in the next 20-40 years. I see households possible having two cars, one gas and one electric. My wife and I have two, I have a higher-MPG, smaller car because I travel farther that is also our 'travel' car if we drive long distances. She has the heavier utility because she likes to sit up higher and drives less and we need something to go to Home Depot and get stuff or to the dump and get rid of stuff. We have two cars because it's not practical, based on our jobs. to car pool. Even with other people because we work odd, and sometimes unexpected, hours.