Pushed too hard, too fast? Horseshit.

In reality, this was something rolled back by a Republican administration because (a) it would cost money, (b) it was instigated by a Democratic Congress and President, and (c) the fact that it was a chance to kick the Dems because they were being "international" (as if that's bad in and of itself) and to promote jingoism and American exceptionalism, was just icing on the cake. So, of course, it had to go. But it wasn't because it was too hard, too fast. It was pure political calculation wrapped up in a political campaign to kick the Democrats. All brought to you by the Republicans (Their motto: "Wrong since Roosevelt and proud of it").

Why of course! Because many of these "charitable organizations" are 503c's for "research and non-partisan education" like the Heritage Foundation and MoveOn.org who's tireless work benefits us all so much.

Well, we saw what happened when the Bell System got too big for its britches. Heavily regulated for fifty years or so and then broken up. Too bad the days of the trust buster and anti-monopolist are gone.

Knowing this, I would also assume that various forms of senility and other issues are baked into our meatware. Instead of spending so many research resources dicking around trying to fix these faulty vessels, we should instead focus our efforts on uploading consciousness so that it can be preserved. Once we know how to do that, we can start working on new, more reasonable body forms, or just start cloning folks to use serially, replacing their minds after we've purchased them. Because what better way is there to accumulate funds than being eternal? That's what economics is all about, huh?

Well, that depends on the amount the jobs pay, doesn't it? Have average salaries for manufacturing jobs (with respect to inflation) increased, decreased, or remained the same over the past 20 or so years?

That's how you can have an increase in the number of jobs while simultaneously collapsing a middle class. You can also convert full-time positions with benefits to part-time positions without, decrease sick and vacation days, require people lucky enough to have health benefits pay increasing amounts for them, etc., not to mention taking actions that simply raise stress in people's lives like making people work more erratic shifts, threatening them with off-shoring or outsourcing, basically any psychological gambit that makes the employee feel powerless - which has the follow-on effect of making them too cowed to asked for a fair share of the company's profits, again leading to less money for what was equivalent or better work. Plus that latter thing makes it less likely that workers would organize as a labor block or politically in their communities - a fine multiple win for the factory owners vs. their employees.

So yes, I can see several ways that a middle class can be hollowed out, even while increasing numbers of even worse, lower-paid jobs are created (and taken). That you don't see how this doesn't make things better for most demonstrates that either you are unaware of how the real world has been working for quite a while or you have some sort of odd ideological ax to grind.

The "bad for wildlife" question basically comes down to:

* how much mass you have to move
* how much land area you have to occupy

per watt generated.

Coal and hydro lose because they both require a lot of mass (water and coal) and a lot of area (dammed waterway, mines and transport).

Nuclear and geothermal win because they both require very little mass and very little area other than the plant itself - uranium ore has at least 1000 times the energy per gram as coal.

Any kind of solar is in the middle because of the large area needed to capture relatively dilute solar energy.

Not in civil cases - there's only apreponderence of the evidence. Besides, I'm pretty sure the ToS you agreed to with your ISP would never let you get past a mediator, let alone into a courtroom.

No, the main issues with Vista were the fact that for most of its life, its driver support sucked (It was v1.0 of a new line, what do you expect?) with many really broken ones out of the gate (because they released the OS way too soon for the hardware manufacturers to be ready) and it's broken security model which incessantly asked its users if they were sure whether they wanted to let this or that do something or the other.

They fixed both of these issues (for the most part) in Win7. Which is why people still want Win7.

Maybe, maybe not. What's your evidence?

Looks to me more as if you're trying to post a political troll post.

I'm sure that's the case overall. Adding in such managers as fast food and chain store shift managers (as well as project managers in tech) will do that for you. What's the average management salary level for people managers in high-tech? That's what the discussion's about.

I'd peg that at average engineers salary about where you put it, but the average for managers is going to be at the $120-140K range.

You already know that unsecure use of these languages can lead to serious security breaches throughout the system. We have several methods to deal with this kind of insecurity - but they cost, either in development time or needing more people or more process or simply not being able to do certain things. All of which suck.

Honestly, at this point, I really don't see much choice other than putting most of the web on lockdown. We've built our libertarian utopia and due to the intrusion of the real world, it's sort of become a bit of a crapfest. It's time for us to grow up and actually figure out how to govern the place (or at least parts of it) for the greater benefit of all of us, even at the cost of some of our liberties (and, before you yell "I am BennyF's BFF and he who s willing to give up...blah, blah, blah", I'm hoping this governance would be democratic, representative, and permanent, rather than temporary, resulting in a greater enjoyment of this resource for all into the future), rather than letting the whole shebang collapse in a riot of fraud and idiocy.

None of the linked articles even mention Feynman's name.

Why should they? Not many current astrophysics papers mention Galileo, either. Nor do most papers in modern computing reference the work of John von Neumann.

In science, an original idea or suggestion by someone, no matter how famous, is built upon by others, who's work is built upon by others, until someone actually turns an incomplete idea into a field of study. And by this time the literature has evolved to view the problem slightly differently, perhaps more completely, perhaps from a point of view that's more useful from a research point of view. And then these papers by the others who made these changes become the ones that are referenced. It's the cycle of scientific research. And don't think it's because we've forgotten our roots... If you asked the author of this paper, I'm pretty sure he'd start with either Shannon or Feynmann. We leave older references off, because, often it's not relevant to the research you're talking about. And, frankly, your space is already so limited you don't want to spend any on name checks.

But come on, do you really think a 55 year old paper is going to be at the top of impact rankings when computed against current research in a field moving this fast? And, even if so, isn't it more likely this work has been superseded by others? IT'S BEEN 55 GOD DAMN YEARS, FOR CHRISSAKE!!! I think your hero worship is showing. At least find a more modern reference.

Interesting indeed! It's almost like a puff piece for them, with an underlying message:

See how well Gartner pushed the "Internet of Things" meme! We took it from nothing to peak hype in only three years! Very efficient for your PR dollar, isn't it? You want to know the "new thing", don't you? Heck! You want to invent the "new thing"! In fact, you have a new thing you're inventing right now, don't you? Well, if we write enough reports for you, your category of new thing will be in the buzz and hype forefront! You'll have investors crawling down your shorts looking for jewels! And they're so inexpensive! Remember - nothing to "hype leader" in three years!

'Cause that's what they do - write reports reinforcing what the industry wants to hear about itself to be used as PR. They do it at all levels, too. I've read many of these things at the product level, too. Basically, discount any sales estimates by about 4/5 and lengthen the time frame of any graph by about 150% and it might be accurate*. Hell, I'd love to be in that business, but even I don't have brass ones big enough to "invent the future" like that.

*Which is a interesting measure in and of itself - how much do you have to distort a graph of any prediction to make it match what actually happened.

People have debated whether language knowledge should be considered descriptive or prescriptive for centuries. I doubt you two chuckleheads are going to resolve this debate today. Nor do I think Slashdot is the ideal place to resolve this issue. But that's me.

How do the Recruiters/Agents submit their chosen candidate applications to HR?

They don't, if they're smart. They may start there, but they parlay their contacts there into contacts in the engineering department whom they start to contact directly to find out about openings. Really, it's all about networking now from the top down. Positions have become too specialized to allow random people to apply. Chances are your manager also knows enough people who need jobs that he doesn't have to go through HR (except for the final paperwork), anyway.