Seinfeld had this figured out. Wow, was the laugh track always that obnoxious, or is it this just a problem with that video...

Jesus died for your sins. The least you can do is die for a TV. /sarc.

Excellent! Up until 3rd grade, I couldn't read my mother's notes. Now I'll be the old dude who knows how to make this ancient writing that only the other old people can read. They'll take it to somebody down at the bingo hall for a decode. It'll be my buddy and he'll say, "Why do you want me to read this? What are you up to?". Then he'll kick the kid's ass. I can't wait.

Didn't anyone ever do the simple math to figure how many rides it would require to break even ?

They did. It was based on financing the medallion. I bet very few holders have 100% equity in them. An $800k loan financed at 4% is available for mortgages. If medallions were being regarded as comparable collateral by lenders, the cost of this loan is about $3800/mo.

I figure few holders have 100% equity, but I also figure few holders are close to zero. Thuys, the $3800 figure is an upper limit on the monthly finance cost of a medallion for current holders. Actual cost is most likely quite lower due to them having some equity and having purchased years ago..

I'm thinking of the opposite problem--Google's too smart for your own good parsing.

It's been a while since I googled my own userid. The last time I did that Google seemed very intent on parsing it out. It was returning all the "i started" links and it was a PiTA to get rid of them. Of course since I've said that, I just tried and it wasn't as bad as I recalled.

Google desperately needs a "yes, just like I typed it" button. It also needs a way to exclude the almost entirely pointless "this page links to another page with your keywords in it" results. It also needs a way to detect that the search terms no longer appear in the linked page because it's a dynamically generated page and... do the PhDs at Google know what "dynamic" means?

In short, Google has lots of weaknesses in something that's supposed to be its core competency. We just need the right start-up to disrupt them.

No, you don't need to point that out because I'm not part of the anti-MS block on Slashdot. Of course I don't expect random ACs to dig into my past and pull up posts from 10 years ago. I'm just pointing it out. Not everything on this site is about setting M$ equal to $atan and condemning it.

They're ending support when it literally annoys just a handful of developers. That might optimize the benefit of dropping support. Any later and they're expending too much effort for the hold-outs. Any earlier and they're shoving too much burden on an active legacy community. They gave plenty of warning too.

I'm not some Google fan-boy. There are plenty of things they do wrong; but credit where due.

First in what? What's the prize?

If the prize is just throwing money down a hole on hardware that will be obsolete the moment it's deployed, then let the other guys win.

If the prize is getting accurate weather forecasts at the lowest cost, then maybe we'd be better off contracting from those countries, using spare cycles from other government agencies that are wasteful and counterproductive (cough, NSA, cough), or writing better software to run on the other guy's hardware and licensing it to them.

The second approach won't allow us to thump our chest and say, "computer that required 10 new hydro-electric dams! BOOYAH! fastest in the WORLD!!!" but it'll accomplish a meaningful goal.

Oh no! An anorexic harlot from nazi Germany has failed us as a role model. Again.

I bet you even want to make water available at no charge. You probably think it should just gush freely at the push of a button for anybody. You probably think government funded agencies should install such devices at locations where people are likely to be thirsty. Communist. /sarc.

Knowing the geology is good; but I'd like to see us work on effective ways to use that knowledge.

It always comes down to money, especially when the area is already built.

Yes, if they are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, they're less likely to stab you in the back.

When theory conflicts with observation, You have two choices. You can modify your theory to fit the observation, or your observations to fit your theory. The first choice is what we generally regard as science. The second choice occurs in a number of circumstances including, but by no means limited to: religion, politics, mental illness, and general stupidity.

Note, checking to make sure that your observations are accurate is not the same thing as modifying them. "Did I fail to see the gorilla?" is valid when theory indicates gorillas should be present. "I saw a gorilla because my guru said I should" isn't.

Call HR. The candidates are not liars anymore.