In my experience, I have seen that engineers with a BSEE and the additional 2 years of real world experience to be much more useful than MSEE degrees. And it seems like a greater percentage of MSEEs were useless types who could study/test well but not actually deliver any solutions.

I look at the return on investment on a MSEE, and I don't see it. You lose 2 years of income, which you take off the end of your career when you earn the most (100+K/yr), and pay an $50+K for the two years of tuition. You wind up in an >$300K hole, and the premium from having an MSEE doesn't really compensate.

Let me ask you as a hiring manager: which would you prefer, an engineer with a BSEE and 2 years of experience doing the job you need, or someone with an MSEE who may have taken a class about what you need?
 

Someone's memory is awfully short. Renditions, torture, and the Patriot Act are just some of the actions of Bush Jr. I just don't see any significant expansion into civil liberty violations by Obama. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think Obama has done anything notable to improve on the civil rights violations introduced by Bush, but I don't see anything like what Bush cooked up being introduced either.

Until the streaming media companies are purchased by the ISP (or vice versa).

And how many corporate execs get to hit the golf course for a 10:00 tee off?

Trusting a union is safer than trusting a corporation. For every corrupt union position I can show a dozen worse corporation actions.

Sorry, netbooks are completely different than tablets. The differences include a keyboard, standard USB and video ports, standard expansion (you can add extra memory and upgrade the hard drive), replaceable batteries, and ethernet ports. The line between netbooks and laptops are pretty blurry, while the difference between a netbook and a tablet are pretty profound.

I agree. In addition, just because semiconductor processing hits a economically nonviable to avoid roadblock doesn't mean IC development will cease. There will continue to be architectural improvements (and hey, maybe compiler improvements too!), and also ICs better tuned for specific requirements.

Of course, that depends if 2012 doesn't destroy the world...

First off, I don't see how multimedia poses any significant loading to a modern system, unless you are talking about recoding HD videos.And while parallelization is difficult, I can assure you that a huge number of other hard problems have been already addressed in modern computers (try making a transistor that is only 32nm from scratch). And while Just Cause 2 is pretty nice, it runs on an Xbox360. A lot more can be done on a modern PC, but really isn't.

OK, by mentioning screen resolutions I totally threw you off the track. However, games are not incorporating significantly higher complexity than in the past. Why don't games have massively deformable terrain? Why not have deep physics emulation? AI has improved, but I haven't seen any improvement that scales with CPU improvements over the last few years. Why not load up 4 cores for AI? There are 6 core CPUs now available, and still games don't really need more than 2 cores, even though quad cores have been out for 3 years. There is a significant amount of CPU & GPU power available in the newest systems that aren't being tapped in games, which were the traditional driver for PC development for more than 15 years. This untapped performance in unusual, and must have some reason.

I believe that the main factor is developer focus on consoles.
   

Actually, I think that you may have missed the point. Because it seems to me that there is stagnation in CPU & graphics requirements now. Instead of truly pushing the capabilities of modern hardware, graphics are stuck at this meh level. Why aren't monitors pushing beyond 1920x1080/1200? Because of HDTV standardization (I know 30inch monitors are higher res, but work with me). The reason that a 2year old GPU can handle modern games is because the modern games don't push the envelope. Why? Because the consoles are taking up a lot of developer mindshare.

Bing is copying USER activity. USER's can disable this if they wish.

This is a disingenuous distinction. Bing knew that the search term was going to Google, and that the user responded to Google results. Google is not claiming ownership to the search results. They are simply claiming that Bing is not developing a search technique, it is simply copying Google search results.

Yes, Google's results are helping that along, but Bing is not copying Google's results. Why would they? Google's results are often shit, and Bing is billing itself as a completely different animal.

Then why copy shit? You can't have it both ways without some cognitive dissonance.

Sooo - if I copy your credit card number and use it to buy something for myself, then that's ok? Because HOW the data was generated in the first place is quite important. Google actually developed a method to find the 'long tail' searches. Microsoft then copied them. But then you claim that Google was the bad guy for exposing Bing's innovative approach? Google's approach is not one that can be gamed the same way as Bing. Since such a simple effort was able to change Bing results, I would be much more inclined to trust Google's searches. At the very least, Bing has a minimum of one additional SEO trick that can be applied to it, and without much difficulty.

So? There is apparently no other issue with David Watson's tax returns, as the IRS probably reviewed his taxes with a fine tooth comb (I'm sure the IRS would have nailed him for more if they could have). Therefore his taxes can be reasonably assumed as correctly done.

Once again, why does Steve Jobs get to do it while this guy doesn't? There could be up to 100 shareholders in his little S-Corp too, so the argument that the low salary helps all the shareholders is bogus.

Here's an idea: HP can buy Windows Phone 7 from Microsoft for its nice UI and graft that onto WebOS's core -- after modernizing the core, of course.

First off, bad idea, and second, WebOS already has a modern core.

So thousands and thousands of units were sold at a loss. Compare that to millions of PS3 consoles out there, and this is an example of being penny wise and pound foolish.