I don't recall ever enabling this feature and I've seen in in Chrome for awhile now. Perhaps I've forgotten doing it, but I rarely change the Chrome flags, and usually only for a very specific reason based on debugging or something.

True, although I should point out that to make a shot at about a mile away, you need to be very, very good at that anti-vehicle rifle. Of course, there are people who can, but they are very serious business types of former military snipers.

The SS does check angles to ensure that the President is not rolling up on somewhere that you could get a one mile shot on a target. And when they can't they make sure of that, they try to make sure that no one knows the exact drop off points well enough to plan to be in such a place ahead of time.

Are you sure about that? You know, serious business types of threats like foreign intelligence or maybe pro terrorists may be using encryption, but there are plenty of people who go out and kill people who post YouTube videos and make posts about it. Lack of operational security isn't always an indicator of whether a threat is real, it just means they have a higher chance of being caught if someone is paying attention. The Secret Service is trying to pay attention.

It could be, if you are doing so competitively. I just don't think it would be a very popular sport.

Again sports != athletics.

A name for old time gunslinger/gamblers in the Old West who played poker and bet on horses for a living was they were "sporting men". While you can certainly admire the reflexes of a gunfighter, they were actually called sporting men because of their livelihood as professional gamblers, and there is no need for any sort of athleticism for that job description.

His mom is Kate Upton?

Adderall is meant to allow ADHD minded individuals able to cope better with life in general. Their disability, if disability it is, happens to be with the larger picture of living, maintaining a job, etc. That is what they have Adderall for.

That disability has little to do with video gaming, as games tend to be short and very engrossing. That means that someone who *needs* Adderall, may still derive just as much of an enhancement from it as someone who doesn't need Adderall to deal with life in general.

Think of it being like Viagra. Viagra was originally to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension, and if you take it for that, it is a fully medical use to treat a real illness.

However, your use for it's originally-intended medical purpose doesn't mean that you wouldn't get an erection just like everyone else. After all, that's how they discovered that side effect.

I'm not sure that is true. Yes, people with ADD will probably be attracted to video games enough to enjoy them and thereby get enough skill and practice in to become a pro at it.

However, you don't gain anything from being twitchy and inattentive when actually in competition. You want fast reflexes, especially in a shooter, but if you're playing a team game, you need to know what is going on with your team and focus on your task. Something like Adderall can probably help with that.

My company would be stuck on a number because small businesses have to care about 20K and the percentage of that you tack on to it for benefits.

As a hiring manager, I'm given a number and that's what I get to hire someone with. If someone asks for more, I can usually try to accommodate, but if you want 100K and I can only give you 80K, then it comes down to whether you want the job or not.

As for rewarding your work... equity can certainly come into play, but if the principle is that I have to pay you what other people are making, then perhaps I just can't hire you to begin with. Some people would say that maybe I should not hire you if I can't pay you the same as someone else. I don't know if I agree, but I can see that argument. Still, I'm out a worker that I could really use to unburden everyone else on the team.

If you are willing to work for 80K, I am happy to give you bigger merit raises than your peers if you worked extra hard, but if you walk in the door unhappy with your base salary, should I cut into the bonus pool of others just so you can get a massive raise to make your salary equal to theirs? Didn't they deserve their raise too? Or do they deserve less simply because their base number is higher than yours?

Of course, there are policies like equity raises that some businesses have which ensure that people do get on that sort of footing, but that's often a separate pool and not all places can afford it.

What I don't think is that you should consider what someone else makes to be a reflection on what the company thinks of *you*. If you're capable, you may start lower, but I'd probably be happy to see you become a manager or advanced individual contributor where that other guy will never get higher than he is today. You'll start at 80K, but you'll someday get to 150K whereas the other guy will never see the other side of 110. Alternately, you could be selected for more training opportunities or given more interesting work. All of that turns into more money too, either at that work place or at another place you move to later.

The problem is that it is very hard to do what is fair because the conditions in which "fair" are measured in can change. If we're making hundreds of millions of dollars, then its hard to justify giving you low pay, but if we're not, then I can't afford to give you the same higher pay that would be fair when we were doing well. Fairness is a very subjective concept unless you very strictly define what you are talking about.

I'd say that leverage in negotiations sort of comes into play, but consider that I may have hired a person for 100K and I was told that I can hire someone else, but I only get 80K this time because that's all that can be justified with the number of accounts we have. So, I hire someone at 80K.

If Ms. 100K and Mr. 80K start talking, there are all sorts of possible problems, but in the end, though, I was only given 80K to hire someone. If you didn't accept that, I can't hire you. Would you prefer to have not gotten the job? That will depend on if you were in demand, I suppose, but I'd usually say that if 80K was acceptable to you, then you're not losing out.

That's why you probably shouldn't talk to other people. You might well be convinced you should be making 100K, but if you'd insisted on that number, I couldn't hire you, so you'd probably not have a job. Also, Ms. 100K may have been hired while the company was doing very well and was able to be generous. Instead of dropping her salary or laying her off in a slump, we kept her on. We can't afford 100K people anymore, but we want to be fair to her and maintain our word when it comes to what she makes. Should we have instead laid her off or knocked 20K off her salary so that you could feel better about yours?

You need to find a number that works for you, and you need to insist on it. If you get it, you should be able to do everything you wanted to do with that salary. Don't worry what other people make, someone is always going to make more than you. Understand what you are happy with and get that. If you need to adjust, then it should come from your own needs and not a comparison between you and someone else except in the most basic of fashion (such as salary research for your job description) to get a basis for what is reasonable.

Your salary and compensation is personal information and your company should never share without your permission. (Unless there is a public reporting requirement, of course).

However, I don't see why you can't choose to share your own salary information. My only concern would be that there could become some sort of pressure group so that everyone has to do so.

I think it is a bad idea to share salaries except in the most anonymous of manners. I don't mind someone knowing how much a person with my job title makes on average, but its a big deal if someone knows exactly what I make. There are lots of considerations that go into salary numbers, and those can't be adequately assessed by simply sharing the numbers.

Don't get confused by the maintainable code caveat. That was merely to suggest that there are alternate viewpoints to an absolute rule of "shorter is better".

Slightly longer programs may be better in some specific cases, but as a general rule I'd still avoid writing a paragraph where a line would do.

Do not underestimate the ability for certain cultures to cause species endangerment through some idea that it is fashionable or somehow medicinal. That's why rhinos and elephants have been facing critical existence failure.

I'd be more amused if it was an article decrying the current lack of proofreading for news outlets.

Typos are not grammar errors, really. They're errors in composition. No one who makes a typo is asserting that they properly spelled something they typo'ed and they would invariably correct the error upon noticing it. On board with no edit feature, or articles that were posted and not proofread, you will see more typos.
   

Well knowing answers is one level of learning. Analysis is another level of learning, and can be difficult to truly capture on a test.

More to the point, knowing answers that you just use to pass a tollbooth like a standardized test is not actually knowledge, because it generally does not sink in.

Yes, the students who know how to do those things will actually do well, but a test taking atmosphere is not always the most conducive to recollection of such information even for those people who do know the answers.

And I say this as someone who usually does fairly well on tests, enough so that I got into my first choice school for college. I think people with good knowledge, but poor test taking skills suffer from that atmosphere, and that same atmosphere encourages them to remember that knowledge as traumatic, rather than associate it with learning interesting things.