We moved from subversion to git and I would not look back. I liked subversion, but there is nothing in subversion that I can't also do in git, plus I can do a lot more in git. Branches and branch merging is much cleaner in git than subversion. In addition, the fact that everyone has a copy of the repository means that (a) all operations can be done offline (yay!), and (b) you have automatic backup copies of everything. I can look through all commits (using gitk) straight off of my machine whether I'm connected or disconnected. It's wonderful.

"Yes, those documents have been securely destroyed". It's good to know that it isn't just IT that does security theater.

The real way to compute cybercrime numbers:

1) number of copies of Norton sold * price
2) number of copies of McAfee sold * price
3) number of copies of Windows sold * price
4) number of copies of MS Office sold * price

Adding up 1-4 will give a good estimate of cybercrime. We should probably add in an additional $10 million to also cover phishing scams.

Objective-C has 90% of the power of Ruby, with 90% of the static-compile-time checking of C++. I actually started an objective-c implementation of Rails (called Newm), but haven't had time to do a lot of work on it. Ruby developers waste half their lives writing tests for things a compiler could catch automatically. About 80% of Rails application bugs could be caught just by having decent compile-time type checking, which Objective-C provides.

The real question is why is pseudo-reporting taking over for real reporting. The report by Nature is misleading at best. There has been *no* removal of evolution, just a removal of outdated evolutionary ideas. Many of the textbooks are simply replacing outdated evolutionary examples with more modern ones. What should be news is that it took a group of creationists to convince the education establishment to modernize their textbooks. Don't take the Nature report at face value - if you prod further, you'll find that *what* they are being asked to do is not problematic, they are just mad because creationists are the ones asking them to do it. I put more detail here.

The bigger problem is the large barrier to entry for new treatments, and the crazy legal system we're in. If the barrier to entry were smaller, then it would be worthwhile to someone to make cures, even non-drug cures. But if it takes $40 million to do it, what individual doctor can do that? Therefore, only the large corporations who only know the dollar sign can get in. And, with the legal system, doctors are pretty much confined to industry BS in their treatments. We have to prepare for the ability for doctors to make educated guesses *and* be wrong. This means two things - (1) patients should be more involved, and (2) doctors should be less liable.

If we put those two things in place, we could get more cures and less "treatment"s.

That doesn't actually prevent people from getting the patent, and, if they have the patent, they will still sue. If you have a patent you can threaten to sue back, otherwise you have to hire lawyers. Do you know how much IP lawyers cost? If you are at a company making any amount of money you have a target painted on your back.

I think you are just looking at a selective sample. My wife and son have health issues, so nearly everything we eat is home-cooked from fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats. I'm still pretty large.

I disagree about the time spent debugging - usually it is pretty straightforward. However, the problem is that users wind up hitting code paths that your tests missed and compilers could have warned you about. Either that, or you actually spend 10x writing tests than writing code, which means that using the language is no longer a help but a waste of time.

I've found that Objective C is one of the best languages that has an intermediate between the dynamicism of Ruby and the type-checking of Java. It allows you to go uber-meta when you want to, but it does a lot of the static checking that is left out elsewhere.

I'm the opposite. I can have video on while cooking breakfast, but I can't very well read and code at the same time.

Yes, this usually happens when the employees have been milking the companies. That's actually what is happening now. This is why people are willing to go to cheap labor. If your current work crew isn't performing well, you might as well hire out for cheaper. If your workers are good at what they do and work hard, then the employer won't hire to the cheap pool, because the cheap pool isn't equivalent.

Where I work, we sometimes bid a job for 4x what other firms bid it out for. But many companies still hire us. Why? Because they know that it will cost more in the long run if they go with people who aren't as competent to do the work.

Middle class wages are stagnant because (a) middle class workers are slacking, and (b) the government is eating up any possible extra money, and (c) inflating the currency enough to make savings worthless.

If the well-paid workers aren't any better than the cheaper pool, why *should* they be earning more money? Also remember that the split between a "worker" and an "owner" is purely voluntary - any of those workers could themselves be owners, but have chosen not to be. Money is not a right. You must work to earn your keep.

If I recall correctly, another reason why many construction workers were mohawks is that there is a distinct instinct in them that allowed them to work in high buildings on beams without problems - both lack of fear and an incredible sense of balance. This is pervasive throughout their society, so the easiest way to find someone who can do construction on a skyscraper was to hire out among the Mohawk tribes.

Interestingly, there is a conference this summer dealing with humans and their abilities to perform computation. It's titled Engineering and Metaphysics, and deals with the relationship between humans, physics, and reality.

Quite true - you might be interested in my article Why Food is NOT a Basic Human Right

Well, the problem is that landfills are actually *made* to handle toxic substances, so filling them up with things that don't belong there wastes *lots* of money and time. They usually put landfills in empty rock quarries, so that the waste doesn't leach into the soil and water system. In addition, they are usually treated in such a way as to encourage it *not* to break down, and therefore it is less of a hazard. If you spend all of that landfill area on stuff that *could* be composted away, you are just wasting valuable space.