Totally agree that people should upgrade, but... they just don't.
And websites don't want to chance losing business because a potential customer hit their site and it didn't work.

It's amazing how far people will go to NOT upgrade. I remember going to a Ford plant once setting up favorites on a few people's machines pointing to an old IIS3 ASP app we wrote. They sent me over to one dark corner of the plant where the engineer had a PC running Windows 3.1 and an ancient version of Netscape.

If your website can survive without the IE6 consumers, you can get rid of them:
http://www.ie6nomore.com/

Must have been an old school side scrolling adventure.

Stupid forced scrolling.

Another geek marriage here, my wife and I are both CS IT professionals.

Good stuff:
- You have someone to talk to about similar subjects
- You don't fight over what TV and movies to watch (SCI-FI)
- A LOT less drama and fighting over stupid stuff

Not awesome stuff:
- You have to take turns on the computer or game system since your wife knows how to use it too
- After work if your spouse has the same job, he/she can ask you for help
- She doesn't read cosmo so she's not constantly trying to figure out what kind of sex you want

There really hasn't been any really "BAD" stuff, and funny how life works we have started to fall into more macho and girly roles over the years, especially after having kids.

Seriously talk about side discussions!
900+ posts about global economics and the merits or waste of college.
I'm guessing I'm the first person (including the poster) who actually read the whole article??

She is specifically suing the office of career advancement, she is not suing because they didn't educate her well enough.

She is only saying that the office actively works to employ graduates with higher GPAs, and basically ignores those with lower GPAs.

I still think the lawsuit is ridiculous, and will probably be thrown out since discrimination based on your GPA is not illegal.

It could be that the career office is a bunch of jerks who laugh and throw away any resume they get that is under 3.9, but that doesn't make it illegal.

That's similar to some of the key points my AI instructor had.

- Has Parts
(Knowledge that objects can be broken down into smaller parts)

- Classification to predict
(i.e. I know that lions are dangerous. That tiger looks sort of like a lion, it must be dangerous.)

Very basic concepts that could be applied to a tiger or a human.

Seriously, when I was a kid all the books said by the year 2000 we'd all be flying around in jet packs and be living on the moon.

It'd be nice if ISS wasn't the only space station out there, maybe we could set up a trailer park on the moon?

Sounds like the old Dancing Bunnies problem.

The user wants to see the dancing bunnies, so they click there. It doesn't matter how much you try to disuade them, if they want to see the dancing bunnies, then by gum, they're going to see the dancing bunnies. It doesn't matter how many technical hurdles you put in their way, if they stop the user from seeing the dancing bunny, then they're going to go and see the dancing bunny.

But did the original research follow the 3 second rule? And did it take into account what happens with rude drivers and the 3 second rule?

People might follow the rule and leave some space between them and the car in front of them,
but if there is another car trying to pass, they'll probably speed up and tailgate so that person can't get in, right?

I'm not a subscriber to APS and I'm not paying $25 for the article so I can't really look,
but it sounds like they had specific rules about interaction between agents:
An agent steps to the right with probability q or to the left with 1-q when encountering other agents. ...
traffic-rule abiders (q=1) and traffic-rule ignorers (q=1/2)

Odds are they didn't take into account the change in behavior of a rule abider when a rule ignorer comes around?

FTA: The Mississipi delta, where the freshwater river pours into the salty Gulf of Mexico, would be an enormous source of energy if we could tap it.

It would be a HUGE bad idea to try to tap into the Great Lakes and try to cart all that water over to the ocean or something.
Tons of water is already being diverted to dry states like Arizona, and being used on farms and bottled water.

Seriously though, even though the Mississippi dumps a bunch of freshwater into the gulf, you've gotta think that changing the chemical balance has got to have repercussions.

Day After Tomorrow anyone?

Seriously, people forget so soon...

The "bailouts" were the free money given to banks who screwed themselves.
$20 billion to Bank of America
$45 billion to Citigroup

Overall, $700 billion in TARP money set aside for banks who are in trouble, with no restructuring.

GM got a few billion in federal loans, the government is buying about $50 billion in shares, and they have to restructure their organization.

GM Chapter 11 Reorg

Seriously though, we shell out almost a trillion in bailout TARP money in 2008 to save the banks and everybody says "whew!"
We shell out less than 10% of that and everybody spits on the auto industry.

GM's filing ($82b) was not even close to the record for the largest bankruptcy filing.
Last year Lehman Brothers and WaMu declared bankruptcy for $649 billion and $333 billion.

Chapter 11 bankruptcies

I'm not trying to say that GM wasn't mismanaged, any company that goes bankrupt obviously wasn't run right.

I'm just getting sick of everybody spitting on the auto companies, pretending like they are the only reason we are in this mess of an economy.

Part of the reason GM had to get bankruptcy protection from the government was because the banks wouldn't loan them any of the TARP money they were given. Too busy giving bonuses to their executives I guess!