you could fit the resulting tome on a 3x5 card and still have 15 square inches of white space...

\

Well, an economist did invent Marxism...

and fails to realize there are many differences between the '80's computer industry and the automotive industry. The computer industry suffered a massive shift because the computer was redefined from big iron to box on a desk. Standardization on one dominant OS changed the structure of the industry and what was important to a consumer. As long as your box ran Windows you didn't care who made it, beyond basic things such as cost, reliability, and perhaps upgradability. The hardware became a commodity and the manufacturers became less important. Cars, OTOH, are more than an OS in the dashboard and the manufacturers control the dashboard. Unlike computer manufactures they can still dictate what goes in their and sell the car on things beside "it runs CarPlay!!! OMG!!!" No one buys a Mustang, Camaro or Corvette for what is in the dash; nor do they buy a minivan for the dash either (beyond perhaps the ability to play videos to keep the rugrats quit on trips). manufacturers can and will differentiate their products, unlike computer manufacturers. They can even offer a choice of dashOS or put in what ever becomes the standard. Even industry attempts to standardize components , such as the DIN for radio size, have largely failed to drive standardization as a number manufacturers have gone to proprietary busses and dash cutouts in their cars. Computer manufacturers had to run Windows (says he who has used Apple products since the old Apple ][) and once they did that their box was very little different form anyone else's in the same price / spec range.

A better comparison would be to look at what is standardized on cars and vital to the car being useful, much as an OS is to a computer; i.e the fuel. Right now, hydrocarbon based rules is the one common denominator between most cars on the road. If Tesla could spark a movement to electrics and offer the same or better convince as current rules then the comparison to the 80's computer industry would make some sense; in that manufacturers who fail to find a way to differentiate their product will face significant challenges remaining relevant. Given that car manufacturers have a large number of years of experience doing just that I doubt even a shift to electric power will cause major upheavals in who actually builds cars, and something as trivial as an in dash OS will not even cause much of a hiccup. All the dashOS will do is decide who gets some royalty payments.

Exactly. They are operating under beliefs that are not correct in a different context, not getting into Harvard means you are stuck in a second tier future. Personally, I'd hire someone who graduated in top 20% of a state school over someone in the bottom half of Harvard.

If web sites can't find a way to pay for the content and hosting then they eventually will go away. The consensus on /. seems to be "paywalls and ads are bad and screw those that use them I have a right to ad free and free access to content..." The problem isn't so much ads as the intrusive nature of some and their increasing use as malware delivery mechanisms. pop ups, self starting, animated ads are a real nuisance and worthy of blocking, as are tracking cookies etc. The advertising industry needs to find a way around that that doesn't annoy users because, while ad blocking users are probably a small fraction of all users currently, as things get worse more and more users will block ads. Whisk they are at it, they need to fix the problem that if I do see an ad I am interested in if I leave the page and come back the ad is no longer there.

You have pointe out the fundamental flaw with their argument; namely grades and test scores alone do not the student, nor college, make. If that were the case all schools would have to do is rank students based on their test score and grades and start going down the list until they fill up the class. SATs are important to schools because it impacts rankings, and thus applications; Harvard doesn't have to worry about it as much since they're well, Harvard. Getting a diverse class adds more to the college experience than having all the top scorers. Students bring their experiences with them and you learn from each other as well as form the professors. Thus, a whole person approach is a better one than grades and SATs alone.

That means some folks will get in with less impressive academic credentials but offer something more in another area; and thus were a better admissions choice. Of course, some people think grades aSAT alone should be the determinant. When I was in grad school we'd have admissions events for prospective applicants and I'd always hear "I got a near perfect GMAT and have a 4.0 undergrad so I should be a shoo-in for admission, right?" Sorry, but we have 600 GMATs and 2.0 undergrads who are great classmates because they are interesting and bring things to the table that you won't, based on their experiences. Guess what, they do fine in the class room as well. You, OTOH, don't pass the airline seat test so I'll be sure to remember your name when I see your application and simply toss it into the ding pile.

I wonder how much of the SAT / grades is a cultural thing; when people come from countries where grades and entrance exam scores pretty much dictate what school you will attend and thus expect the same principles to apply in US college admissions?

Certainly, as when civilization arrive she frontier gets pushed farther and farther away.

Also not when I say internet I don't mean it in the strict technical sense of the backbone that the web and other services use, but the vast ecosystem that has grown up around it.

I didn't say the internet died, I said That internet died - the one where companies weren't trying to get your information to market to you, where you could still advertising something for sale on USENET, send it off and actually get a check in the mail in payment. It was a different internet because gaining access wasn't as easy as signing up with an ISP, except in September when the newbies would get trolled until they caught on. Once there was money to be made a whole new group of people began using the net and its character changed forever. I'm not saying it's better or worse, just different an the old, original intent dies just like the wild west died once the ranchers and farmers and merchants arrived to stake their claims.

Much like the second and subsequent waves of settles in the US west changed it, the arrival of AOL and eternal September marked the beginning of significant changes in the internet.

As time went on, things that use to be ubiquitous, such as USENET, have been replaced to a large extent by the web. The terms hacker and trolling have taken on far more sinister meanings than their original ones.

So in the end, the explosive growth and arrival of commerce change dates internet into a far different place than it was even twenty years ago.

Hope that helps. HAND

Net neutrality is only good when it does what we want, not when it prevents someone from doing what we want, such as blocking ads. It's like copyright, bad when used to prevent freely copying copyrighted works, good when it forces someone to comply with the GPL.

Seriously, that is a common behavior. Just look at the small government Republicans that want the government to step in to force others to do things they view as right but to bug roff when someone wants it to stop them from dong what they want. Swap small government Republicans for liberal Democrats or any other group and you get the same result.

That internet died long ago. Just as with anything, the pioneers are pushed out once civilization arrives and starts paving streets, building stores and throwing up billboards.

They've never been in the dumb pipe business, and never will be, at least not as long as they can avoid that. They're in the business of making money off of whatever data flows through their pipe and will always look for ways to increase that revenue; wether it's charging for faster delivery of content or getting a cut of ad revenue. That becomes more critical as content companies seek to find ways to sell content to consumers beyond the traditional cable model and start competing more directly with cable subscriptions. If they ever truly became a dumb pipe they'd either jack up rates or simply let that business wither or simply exit it as it becomes a low margin business.

Anything is easy if you've never done it.

are targeted to a specific audience. What is best depends on the audience. A manual aimed at a programmer may be written differently than one targeted at an end user, for example. While the basic content may be the same (examples, definitions, explanation of menus, etc.) how they are presented and in what detail may be very different. the main problem I see with manuals is they are often written by someone who may be a good programmer but has no idea who the audience is or what they need; which results in an end product that fails to meet the needs of the audience.

Most of the non-solicits I've seen prevent you from pursuing current customers, although not from them contacting you. As for not soliciting current employees, a recruiter can insulate you from that problem pretty easily.

Exactly. It's called employment at will. Revenue down? Layoff staff? Can't pay your bills? Sorry, not my problem. Better job offer? Leave company. Can't complete important projects? Sorry, not my problem. Absent an enforceable non-compete it works both ways.

Joking about the 51st state aside, IIRC international flights pre-clear coming in and are subject to the 1500 mile rule as well. Since you go from LGA to YYZ you do Canadian customs. If you go the other way, unless things have changed, you would clear US Customs in Canada. So I was incorrect to state domestic only, a more correct statement would be domestic within 1500 mile rule except for special exceptions and international outbound with the 1500 mile rule and international inbound that pre-clear.