First, is training included? If not, well, make it worth your while. Generally when I've done (much smaller) projects, I generally make sure that the contract I sign lays out that the payment is for the code, and specifically covered training regarding the operation/implementation of the project. Bringing a fresh person up to speed on the code that I provide is not part of the contract, but can be for the right amount of money.

Since I also work full-time at my "real" job, are you sure that this isn't just them wanting to bring the project in-house, more under their control? It might not be about the money, specifically, which means that this might open other opportunities with them on other projects, or even a full-time job with them (if you want it.) Looking at it from the point of view of my real job, there are times when I want ta project done by a contractor/temp, and there are times when I want it done/supported in house. It's usually more about the strategic vs. tactical value of the project than the pure "how much am I paying the guy" number. Make sure that you understand the motivation of the client, so you can better position your next move...

As long as there are Pastafarians in the world, his Noodley Goodness shall keep the strainers always full, but never running over.

Math has nothing on His Noodleyness.

In the case of AEGIS and related defenses, the goal is not necessarily to be able to absorb/defend against anything and everything that the enemy throws against you. The goal is to survive long enough to turn the attacking launch site into a glass parking lot (or a steaming hole in the water) before they can destroy your offensive assets. In the mentioned case of Iran, I expect the goal would be to absorb one or two 'provocative' attacks. If there was full out attack, though, I'm pretty sure they would not have the opportunity to launch all the missiles...

Why so many of these stupid questions on /. over the last few days? I feel like I'm reading Digg. And not the good Digg.

..."At the moment there’s very little information about VSV"... ..."there should be working demonstrations of VSV within the next three to six months"... ..."Performance is awful"...

Yeah, this is DEFINATELY the kind of thing that will cause all current digital cameras and monitors to be obsolete within 5 years.

Or, it may get them an investment from some gullible investors that will then disappear into 'continued research due to unanticipated complications" for a few years, followed by "the pixel industry establishment is suppressing us!"

Personally, I am (ahem) quite a bit more than I was 15 years ago.

[Self: Put down the donut and walk away...]

They can spend lots and lots of $$$, effort, and time trying to make it harder to get access to content that people want... ... or, they could just make the content available for a reasonable price in a timely manner. But I guess that takes too many brain cells.

And why is MSFT so interested in making their platforms less useful for consumers? As a stockholder, I'd like to see them quietly funding 'legitimate' sharing sites to make the Windows OS the preferred content consumption platform, rather than keeping me from getting what I want.

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones

Came here to say this.

I went for four years in the mid '80's, and had a great time every year. Everything from model rocketry, to robotics (building Hero), to Pascal. (Mid '80's, remember...). And the games of Capture The Flag that were held in the forest are still some of my best memories...

I'm OK with that too... the sooner everyone realizes that all cell phone patents are "obvious" derivatives of Maxwell Smart's shoe phone, the sooner the lawyers will join the ranks of the unemployed. Flying cars will follow shortly thereafter, I'm told.

I wonder how many iPhone patents this provides prior art against?