Studying why people are unhappy in their jobs is worthwhile so that people can learn how to find jobs that they are happier in as happier workers tend to be more productive.

I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion though. Personally I find that my best managers were the ones that had little or no technical ability in the realm of what their staff did. They also happened to be the ones that actually understood the role of a manager and managed the team/projects on the whole rather than trying to get into the details. All the "knowledgeable" managers I've had fall into two equally bad (to me) categories. The first really doesn't know as much as they think and make life more difficult by injecting bad or wrong information into the process which (at best) drags things out or (at worst) makes the whole team look like a bunch of idiots that can't get their stories straight. The other group is those that actually do know their stuff, but they fall back to just doing it themselves rather than managing their team to get things done.

The real key is that the staff has to trust the manager to stay out of the low level details and the manager has to trust his staff to actually be competent at their jobs (and if not, do something proactive about it). Without the trust and everyone sticking to their actual role it all falls apart and people are miserable.

Just where will that be experienced in the real world? All I see is a mile or more of blocked lanes for two guys sitting on the tailgate of a pickup...

Or are they testing how the computers can deal with something that just doesn't compute?

My first real job saw me grow through the company over 14 years. Since then I've done a 2 year contracting position and a 3 year stint at a 3rd company. I will personally always keep an open ear in case that "perfect" job comes along, but I go into any new position with the intention of being there long term (ideally the rest of my career). My average at given position is about 2.75 years which seems to appeal to prospective employers as they see a lot of resumes with 6-12 month jobs and they get concerned about their ROI.

I'm now looking at a new position in a different company where the SVP has been there for 21 years and the Lead that I'd be working with has been there 15 years. As a prospective employee I find that a bonus as it suggests that A) the company is worth being at long term and B) it's probably not a meat grinder.

I made no such argument and I made no argument for closed source. My argument was/is purely against the myth of OSS being better/safer than closed source just by the virtue that it can be looked at. That isn't true both because smart people miss bugs (especially they they occur due to separate parts of a large project interacting with each other) all the time and it makes the assumption that people are actively looking at it for flaws.

What is true is that the end user has the ability to review it themselves, fix it if they find problems, and support/modify it beyond what the developer(s) does as they see fit. OSS is a good thing and it has many advantages over closed options, but people trying to spread the "belief" that OSS is somehow safer is no better than those that used to talk about how Macs were more secure than any other platform.

Are you seriously arguing that this one developer is the only person that ever looked at the code? That goes counter to your original implied assertion that because it's OSS then "many skilled eyes DO converge on the code". You can't have it both ways, either there are lots of people looking at the code or there aren't.

How many people actually looked at the code is irrelevant though. Your original assertion was that OSS is somehow magically safer/better because "many skilled eyes" look at it. The reality, however, is that in complex projects there will always be bugs that even the most skilled will miss unless they know exactly what they are looking for. The source being open or closed makes no difference in that regard.

Did you even read the summary? They believe that this flaw has existed since 1998. You have a very strange definition of "quickly" if 16 years falls into that category.

I'm all for OSS, but people like you that continue to trot out this tripe aren't helping it. The benefit isn't that there all these mythical "skilled eyes" looking at the code, it's that you can look at the code.

There is no such requirement. They are just granted the power to do so.

Furthermore this is about trade/sales within the state. None of these laws prevent you from buying a Tesla in another state and then taking it back to and registering it in your home state. This is about how the cars can be sold within a given state. So yes it does have a State's rights aspect and is in the State's rights to pass such laws as they see fit until such a time as it is contested and ruled on by the state's supreme court and/or SCOTUS.

The only port I've found blocked is SMTP. I ran servers on 22, 80, and 443 plus others for a long time before I just got tired of my logs filling up with people trying to break in. I still run the servers but just moved them all to different ports to cut down the noise.

No problems there either. I frequently actually get higher rates than I'm actually paying for and have been seeing that on all the various plans I've had over the years. I'll see sustained rates (30+ seconds) about 2-5Mb higher than my "limit", but I'll see spikes (2-5s) 10-15Mb over.

I have a lot of complaints about Verizon and FiOS, but the Internet portion of the service has always been top notch for me and is the only reason they keep getting my money (no one else that serves my neighborhood can compete with the speeds/price Verizon offers).

Technically that fad was pushing them into rivers/canals.

I'll be the contrarian here and state the belief that this ruling isn't so good.

The major issue, of course, is that there is massive abuse to the system, but if you look at what the system is supposed to do I think this ruling turns things more decidedly in the favor of large companies.

The idea of the patent system was that anyone could patent their grand idea and then have legal backing to protect it in court from someone that uses the idea without consent. The filing fees were also designed to be low to keep the barrier of entry low enough that "the little guy" could get the same protection as the big corporations.

Prior to this ruling (ignoring the shake downs by trolls) an individual or small company had a chance of winning a patent case against much larger entities (motions and legal wrangling aside) as the process of discovery forces the defendant to show their cards and prove they aren't infringing with no upfront cost to the plaintiff.

With this ruling, if you come up with the next great search algorithm (software patent absurdity aside) and Bing/Google/Yahoo steals it you now have to foot the bill for the discovery. Without the court order you also aren't going to get very far in that process as they aren't exactly going to welcome you into their office, sit you down at a console, and give you access to their code.

So what this ruling does, in my opinion, is give the larger companies the right to violate patents from smaller entities with near impunity. It also (as someone suggested further down regarding OSS projects) gives rise to a whole new possible "reverse-patent" trolling business scheme.

Basically this ruling, I think, has made things worse.

Very little information on the web that the average person would access (e.g. not something really obscure) is only going to be found on one site. There are other places to get the same information. More specifically, most of the worst offenders of javascript and ad garbage are just blogs regurgitating information from more reputable sites. So you as the user are not getting boned at all by moving on to better places.

If enough people get fed up with a sites practices (formatting, 1 paragraph per page click throughs, javascript crap, ads, etc..) then either the site will resolve the problems that keep people away or they will disappear into the cruft of the internet like so many crappy sites before them.

The real problem is that "we" want everything on the internet to be free to "us", but it costs someone time and resources to put it there. The paywall model failed a long time ago for average sites (yes there are still some around, but not nearly like it was in the late 90s) and ads are what sprung up to try to fill the revenue void. The site owners have every bit as much of a right to want to recover their costs (and hopefully make a bit of a profit) for their work as anyone else does for the work they do. How long do you think the company you work for would keep going if none of it's customers paid for it's product/services?

All true, but at least we'd be paying the Fed employee less to screw us over. I did a stint as a DoD contractor and was paid a little more than twice what a Fed doing the same work (in the same group) was getting paid. And I was getting about a quarter of what was going to my contracting company for the position. Hell, given that math I'd be more worried about disgruntled Feds than contractors

In principle I agree with everything you said except that. If you are doing a burnout that means power is already going to the wheels and therefore the clutch is already engaged.

What you are thinking of there is what launch control systems help with (engaging the transmission at the optimal time for the best off the line start) and all of the cars I'm familiar with that have such an option also use transmission and drive line components that can handle torque values much greater than the engine (from the factory) can provide. I expect constant use, however, would shorten the lifespan of wear components (clutch, transmission fluid, etc..) considerably though.

I don't think that's really true, at least not in the near term.

Years ago I had something simple made out of steel at a local machine shop and it cost be a bloody fortune for something simple. That's the kind of stuff this will be replacing for the near term. The one off relatively simple things is where something like this printer comes into play and (good) machine shops don't live off of that type of work. What you are talking about is the higher volume and higher skill machining and that will not be replaced anytime soon by a ~$1500 machine. Hell it already hasn't been replaced by the $300,000 machines. Just look at the RepRap itself. We've had that for a few years now and I remember some of the same claims about plastic items, but people still buy all kinds of plastic crap because it can be made quicker, cheaper, and better by the places that specialize in it.

Besides all that, are your ready to trust a DIY printer to build you the barrel of a gun, a new head for your engine, or any other item that has to deal with high stress loads? If so, please stay away from me when you use them

Over time the technology will improve (assuming IP law doesn't get in the way) and of course there will come a time when there is a shift away from manual labor (as is the case with all technology), but my point is that even those machinists that are starting their apprenticeships now don't need to give it up and go learn CAD as there is going to be plenty of work for them for quite some time yet.

The GT-R (at least the original, I haven't continued to follow it) limited itself unless the GPS told it you were at a known race track and if I recall correctly one of the recent Mustangs required an extra or special key to enable it's full abilities. So it is possible to limit it's functionality in some way (read: limit their liability when you do something stupid).