Software developers are NEVER on the clock, as they are salaried employees.

This doesn't change the fact that it's usually necessary to work at the hours when other people are working, so you can communicate with them, participate in meetings, etc.

Over 200 votes to remove his founder bit, which gives him sysop powers no all wikis, and only about a third are opposing that. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Remove_Founder_flag

This is the mentality that I don't understand. Apple doesn't support some old lame technology you have laying around and they have "limited vision"? The mac mini is the same volume as 5 jewel cases stacked on one another - and it's a pretty good computer. USB ( thanks to Apple's limited vision of making the iMac use only USB ) was ubiquitous when the Mac Mini was announced. Should they have included SCSI and Parallels ports as well - in case you had some of those peripherals laying around? If Apple didn't have "limited vision" their products would be the bloated, backward crap the rest of the industry spews out.

Work, don't talk. Deliver quality code.
Cooperate. Share.
Don't act like a know-it-all or "try to impress" just be yourself, track your deliverables and always over-deliver without making a big scene about it. If you have time, help others if they need it.

then you are forgiven my good sir. Please go about your daily routine knowing you have been blessed :-)

Apart from the pictures of your mom?

Yeah, other stuff is sent. Instructions for money transfer, I suppose. You could work to which charities the guy donates.

What you *couldn't* do is steal any money, or make the guy think he had more or less money than he did. If you tried, he and the bank would see that the messages were coming from somebody else; that's the definition of authentication.

...stopped at Civ 3 anyway. The game has been done to death and no rehash of graphics, world geometry or technology trees will change or improve it sufficiently for me to buy the same game over and over again...

Seriously, have you ever talked to anybody in the media player business? We *all* hate DRM - it's a pain in the neck to do well, there's absolutely no benefit to the end user (our customer), and you have to make ridiculous commitments to the content providers - about physical security of the keys, procedures for managing the inevitable discovery of workarounds, etc.

I worked on the iPod team, and later for a company using Windows Media DRM. You might remember that the original version of the iPod had no DRM at all - we just put a "don't steal music" sticker on it, and stored the songs in a "hidden" folder.

The record labels insisted on Apple imposing a DRM scheme for the iTunes store. They would have preferred that Apple license Windows Media, but as you might imagine, that idea really didn't fly for Apple.

Instead, Apple created Fairplay, which was enormously less restrictive and annoying to end-users, most of whom were never aware that it existed at all. At the time "unlimited play on up to 5 computers and an unlimited number of iPods" was an incredible step forward compared to the mess that was WM-DRM.

Without the success of Apple's much-less restrictive scheme, the record companies would never have considered allowing Amazon to sell DRM-free songs.

We had someone like that on the jury I served on for a Federal case. One of our jurors decided that she didn't want to be responsible for sending someone to prison, so she was going to vote "not guilty". We had to explain to her several times that that wasn't her decision to make, and that we were supposed to be determining whether or not the defendants were guilty of the crimes they had been charged with. I was worried that she'd have to be removed from the jury, and that'd result in us not being able to come to a decision.

Eventually, she agreed to discuss the case, and we managed to come to a decision. Well, 6 decisions, actually, since we had 2 defendants, each charged with three different crimes.

>Of course, it does give us some protection should we decide to use nukes first

And that is exactly the objection the USSR had (and now the Russians have) against missile-defense systems. It would take a hellaciously-expensive system to take out all of the Russian stockpile if it were launched at one time, but after a US first-strike, there would be a lot fewer missiles left, and it'd be relatively easy to pick off the retaliatory strike.

Once the US has built a system that protects it from retaliation, it becomes much easier for someone in Washington to contemplate using nukes on the Russians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-sulfur_battery
"A sodium-sulfur battery is a type of molten metal battery[1] constructed from sodium (Na) and sulfur (S)"

In the one case I'm familiar with, which was at another company, the infection was traced to a single PC on the production floor that was just *packed* with malware. Apparently, it had been re-purposed from somebody's desk to the QA station when production capacity was expanded.

This was at a reputable, top-tier contract manufacturing company.

You probably don't need an exact solution for this. If you divided the windshield into a 10x10 grid, and assume that the driver's head is in a particular position in the cabin, you might be able to shade just that square, and cast a shadow over everywhere the driver's head would likely be. This would en up shading a lot more than just the disk of the sun, bit it'd be an overall improvement, since you wouldn't have been able to see anything in that area anyway.

It's not an orbital WMD platform, that would be against the treaty. It's just a plane..which can stay in orbit for most of a year...and drop a nuke anywhere in the world, at any time. Totally different thing.