Thanks for cutting through the clutter. I read through far too many comments arguing for this set of hours vs that set of hours. No one's family life is the same. No one's biorythms are the same. I've been a programmer, analyst, project manager, entrepreneur since the early 1980's and have learned that my teams performed best if their hours were self-managed. Even within the same individual I sometimes needed to work in small 50 minute increments and, at other times, in huge non-stop spurts with a satisfying 18 hour day.

These days, if I'm productive n hours, that's exactly how many hours I work. I'd make exceptions to this only to honor confirmed appointments and periodic team meetings.

Thanks, again, for a quality post!

Wanna know your machines mac address?

"...post reviews anonymously, as no good can come from identifying yourself." FALSE but I understand your point. The protection of free speech isn't granted at the whim of people in power. It comes from credible individuals placing their personal ass on the line. It always has. It always will. Mitreya, cowering anonymously is NOT free speech...it's capitulation. It's a form of giving in and allowing yourself to be intimidated...and becoming part of the problem of eroding liberty.

A LOT of good comes from posting in an identifiable way. For starters, it instantly humanizes the message. Most people, me included, automatically discount a strong review posted anonymously. It could be a false review planted by the operation's manager/owner...or the competition. I've been to great places that had awful reviews...all posted anonymously. Reviews made under a real name shout "I'm willing to put my personal credibility behind this."

That this individual kept the review up, while under fire, gives him lots of instant credibility with me! I hope he gets crowd-sourced financial support for his upcoming battle. I sincerely hope he never heeds your advice.

Was that book "Steel Beach" by John Varley?

Doesn't IRS Form 1040 and all its attendant schedules, state taxes on personal property already do that? ...except they make YOU do all the work?

Me too, but it is somewhat dependent on the vendor supplying the software. My trust in both is declining.

I've always wondered who operates the airport concourse subways and trams. There's no visible driver. Is it totally automated? Are they monitored remotely?

"...everything else also should have advanced at a similar rate." False premise. Different technologies advance at different rates, largely driven by demand and profit motive.

Intel is not a government agency with a confused budget, mission and goals that change with each election. Intel always knows that it exists to make money. It expects to do it by continuously offering more function at reduced cost to a broader set of expanding markets. NASA is a government agency whose customers are the few politicians that control their budget.

There's hope. NASA is steadily releasing its space monopoly yet, seeding the world with expert space knowledge while contributing to demand for space services. It's necessary for the economic development of space. It will evolve into a pure science and regulatory agency by dropping routine launch-services, exploration missions and placing more emphasis on X-Prize competitions and developing regulations promoting and governing private-sector access to space. Expect rapid space-tech engineering (engineering, not science) and commercial development by investor-financed space companies focused on communications, transportation logistics, mining. At a more mature market stage, expect competition to drive steady Intel-like advances, creating new markets and techniques for space logistics companies. (Air-launch, elevator delivery from Earth, ballistic shipments of space commodities to logistics outposts in deep space) Expect deliveries of space-hydrocarbons, financed by specific futures contracts traded on the stock market.

Oops I meant to say "...core principles governing its foreign relationships/entanglements." Bottom line, I'm looking for the constitutions of stable democracies to define their relationships with the world, making their actions moral, predictable and somewhat certain. A democracy's "hurdle" authority to engage in military adventures or destabilize sovereign powers should come from the clear violation of core values.

Good point and food for thought. Thanks. Most democracies have a constitution addressing internal relationships and do NOT have a stable, difficult-to-change document addressing a few core principles. I've always thought of that was a weakness and a source of our foreign policy confusion and inconsistencies. The existing moral confusion leads to easy manipulation by small but powerful interests.

Given the track record of leaders that would take office by violent seizure, I think the financial cost to protect elected leaders is well worth it. Democracies generally result in less atrocious evil than other forms of government. Having a few elected leaders easily taken out, undermines democracy and incentivizes change via coup by a handful of violent people.

To me, it's not about protecting against policy change. It's about protecting preserving people's choices for their leaders and protecting those leaders from duress. Most have loved ones.

The key is ensuring such protective services are loyal to the office, preserving electoral results, rule of law, orderly succession by protecting the "leader-elect" from violent threats NOT political threats. I'd screen personnel for their absolute loyalty to our system and regularly-tested competency at protecting people.

I'm bothered that Kennedy and Reagan were taken out by (probably) a single person, but am somewhat assured by your observation that it didn't change our system.

Only HP Lovecraft's Cthulhu has input. I thought it was self-evident.

Eliminate Macbook's startup sound. It plays loudly through the speakers EVEN WHEN THE HEADPHONES ARE PLUGGED IN. What were they thinking? I don't want to disturb my wife sleeping less than 3 feet from the Macbook's speakers. I show her I had the phones plugged in. She never believes me.

Desktop designers figured out how to eliminate the PC case speaker. Someday, I'm hopeful that Apple will "innovate" and follow suit. I swear I'm going to violently open the white plastic case and perform unauthorized surgery with a pair of rusty wire snips.

I use both Libra and Microsoft. There's a big difference in my ability to interact with the world. I want to use LibreOffice whole hog because the interface is relatively stable from one version to the next, but I've concluded my government actively works to shut down open software and open documents, as it races towards "e-gov."

I loved the pre-ribbon MS-Office interface. (e.g. Office 2003) It had a semi-understandable philosophy of organization, toolbars were stable, easily customized and it took very few clicks to get anything done. However, each interface "improvement" seemed to thumb its nose at fans and anyone "invested" in Microsoft. It meant more clicks and time to do the same thing, in addition to nullification of my muscle-memory caused by the hunting around, it also destroyed any time investment I made in setting up reasonable defaults, like single line spacing between lines and investments in menu customization and pre-programmed footer standardization, such as "server\pathname" and "page y of x" in every footer. With the introduction of the ribbon system in 2007, I tried switching to OpenOffice/Libre Office and liked the more conservative menu system, but am concerned that it, too will try emulate MS look and feel.

With the introduction of a blindingly white, thin texted menu visualization system in Office 2013, I just want to say F.U. and go open-source whole hog, since Microsoft regularly says F.U. to people, like me, that pay them money.

The issue that prevents me from going whole-hog is that various agencies of my government send out mandatory regulatory response documents to businesses using the latest versions of Excel, using Excel's proprietary features (macros) and I must fill in the blanks and respond by a certain date. When I try to raise issue with this, the attitude verges on "How cheap of you to ask for something in a different format. Smart businessmen invest in new software and try not to be a pain to their regulators." Consequently many businesses work downstream with their vendors (often small business) the same way. If my government was truly serious about breaking up a monopolies, it would stop mandating use of specific brands by putting out e-forms that didn't require a particular brand of software. If it insisted it needs to use Excel internally, at least, export to another generally usable format that doesn't require a specific purchase.

We're actively contemplating cyber-security laws requiring that citizens have only secure computers or be subject to fines and/or disconnection. I expect us to make a proprietary mess of that, too.

I actually don't mind monopolies when earned by consumer choice. I just mind monopolistic behavior towards customers who have no reasonable choice, reinforced by government action.

You presume all problems have a neat solution? I don't. I also avoid "solutions" that are more dangerous than the original problem. This law favors the popular powerful press and hurts smaller independent news organizations. Usually, that's a bad idea.