Honestly give me the $578M... I'll burn through it in a matter of days.

Of course what I'd be spending it on is probably quite different than what they did (if they spent it at all... could be scam)

Just an off the top of my head guess:

Get large, lucrative, long term contract with Apple to deliver a component. Get large advance to get production up to speed. Spend all of it (or more... high tech factories are expensive) ramping up said production only to have your first expected large order get pushed to "undefined future". Realize you didn't budget for that and file bankruptcy.

I've seen posted that this isn't the biggest part of this company's business plan but I could easily see a company like this 'betting the farm' on this deal and screwing themselves in the process. Happens a lot. Bankruptcy is also a variety of different things so this isn't them being broke or going out of business necessarily but an acknowledgement that they are unable to fulfill their current level of liabilities. Apple may lose a bit or a lot on their investment but not really a big deal due to a combination of A) They more than anyone else in the world right now can afford it. B) They probably haven't lost as much as you think. Apple made the choice to not include this component in the '6. I'm sure they were aware of such an issue when they made such a decision. Just beans being counted.

Sorry couldn't shrink the sharks...

SO we got you ill-tempered minnows instead! Really ferocious little things...

Incorrect. Your average criminal may be less moral BUT to lead a successful criminal life requires a level of intelligence the law abiding citizen does not require. It's easy to follow the rules laid out before you. Society has created a reality for you in which you choose to reside unaltered. The perpetual criminal chooses to reject that reality and so must not only create the one they choose to live in but constantly maintain the battlements between theirs and the rest of society's in order to not find themselves in a small locked room. An intelligent person may even be more likely to become a criminal to some degree in the respect that they see better than most the gray-scale of the world. Right and Wrong as taught to us as children is never so black and white in the harsh reality of adult life. Refining a complex moral code of your own creation and then holding yourself to it while living aside others is not for the simple minded.

As an aside, your presumption may be that the average criminal gets caught (ergo unsuccessful) but I'm afraid that is most likely an incorrect assumption. People break the law on a daily basis probably more than they think they do. The ones who knowingly do this would be your "criminal" but to assume they are well represented by the news-worthy ones being dragged off on TV is a bad assumption. Entire swaths of this society live their entire lives breaking law after law after law and dying peacefully in their old age comfortable that they lived their life the way they chose to.

Actually (from above post copying the FAA report)
" In addition, Boeing did an independent safety review and also determined that the DU blanking was a safety issue using its own risk assessment process."

Boeing thinks this is a problem too... it's the airlines that don't want to pay for the repair. (AKA it's *their lobbyists that aren't doing their jobs)

This. (Mod points lacking or I would).

The only reason I log into Google+ is for Hangouts because it's just that useful. Dismissing it because they named it poorly (if it is... don't mind the name myself aside from it's being a bit too 'friendly' for the workplace) is ignoring a very useful product.

The whole "don't want to be tracked" thing I find quite entertaining coming from all the cromags who have no clue what's actually going on. The whole don't install the Facebook App and Messenger App thing is pretty hilarious. Sorry people... you lost your privacy years ago so why cripple yourself now?? Privacy and Security are an illusion. The faster people realize this the better this world will become.

I actually use my FB account but have been fairly cranky with people who can't bother to create a dummy one to see something I've posted there. "So you *really want to see something on FB but creating an empty no-effort account is crossing a line? Sorry... if you really want to see that you have to get over it."

As for Google+? I've had an "account" forever just because it just sorta happened. I post to YouTube and had a gmail address (just a forward) but the "login" to that ecosystem turned into a Google+ account so it kind of stuck. More recently I actually started using it a *tiny bit because their remote conferencing is actually really well done so we use it here to tie our various offices together for free. It's also better than uStream for what they provide (and free) so I've started using it for streaming live shows.

"It" is relative... Google+ the social network? I basically don't use it. Gmail, Hangouts, IM, Maps, etc... all of those are tied into that ecosystem so peripherally I use it all the time.

You have provided us with an excellent example of the problem you describe. That being the Wiki link provided is to the wrong Wiki page. I'll go right ahead and presume my text is rife with flaws. I'm comfortable with that.

Muphrey's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

I've had numerous people ask me the question "Are you ever going to get your Masters?" to which most of the time I reply "Why would I?" Although there is legitimate knowledge I would gain by doing so and there are probably some jobs out there that may prefer me for it the Computer Science field as a paying field really doesn't need it! I can't even remember the last interview that even asked about the degree I have (aside from it getting me past the HR filters)

Our job is to be learning... *constantly. If you stop learning new skills, new methodologies, etc then you are immediately falling behind. Too many employers see time at school as learning what won't be practical to their needs (whether it makes you a better engineer or not). BS: Great to see but wish you had experience. MS: Cool you went the extra mile but now you want more money and have been out of the workplace longer. PHD: Have you even written any real world code? What were computers like the last time you wrote any?? ;-)

Someday, when I need a bit of a break from the workplace, I may decide to spend some money on an advanced degree but I'm in no hurry and more likely when that time comes I'll be looking for beach time not sitting behind a little desk. (Also when that time comes I'm more likely to find an MBA useful than an MS in CS.)

This is just advertising anyway... nVidia doesn't care either.

Can't speak for other countries either but yes here in the States we can deduct any non-reimbursed employment expenses. The better you get at 'doing' your taxes it's amazing how much you can deem deductible :-)

Pretty much This. If an employer sends you toa conference then they pay all costs just like any other work trip. If it's something you are opting to go to on your own (no matter how topical it may be) then it is completely in their discretion whether they want to cover any/all expenses *including whether it is PTO or not (Having to take vacation or not is a non-trivial difference here).

I've been paid to go to 3 conferences. The first, and most expensive, was specifically described as a "reward" for our little team getting a project done in 3 months that our parent company had budgeted 3+ years for. Expenses were just over $10K making it a nice reward unless you consider the 6-7 figures we saved them to get there. The other 2 conferences were for a consulting company I worked for and we were specifically there to whore ourselves out so paid for as sales/marketing expense.

Alternative frequent practice: at least one company I worked for would send you to conferences but you had to bring back 'proof' that is was valuable. (A write up of new information gleaned, some certification, etc) for which you would be reimbursed for some/maybe all of your expenses. Since as Above poster mentioned most conferences are fluff they want you to justify the, typically considerable, expense.

This comment just ain't quite right. There's gems in there but a whole lotta muck to dig through.

1) Getting a record deal isn't that hard... knowing that you don't actually *want one is the challenge. Todays world means I can create, promote and most importantly distribute my music *without some massive company stealing all of the profits. I might not go multi-platinum without a big marketing engine but I've had no problem at all selling enough albums (tracks actually) to pay for the work.

2) The '90s? Yeah... lets talk about history. In the 90s it was still expensive to produce a CD. Burners were just coming on the scene and were slow and expensive (and a lot of players couldn't play burned discs) so you still needed a big distribution company to produce them. Move to the late 90's into the Naughts and I could produce a saleable CD for pennies but the most important thing is we quickly were moving to the part where the physical CD didn't matter. I could now sell my music digitally with $0 physical production cost beyond the studio. Even the studio is less expensive! Unless you buy some expensive producer studio time / hr has dropped as the digital studio has taken off. Honestly I have all the gear to do it myself (and the ear and tech skill) so my studio cost is down to my time.

3) "Local bars don't have live music anymore." Are you kidding me?! I don't know where you live so I'm really sorry if your hometown has a depressing scene but where I live (and everywhere I travel to which is extensive) there is an exact opposite problem. Every single bar big enough to have a PA-on-a-stick in the corner has live music. The clubs are blowing up even bigger (not even looking at the stadium and big theater scene). Local bands are having trouble making music because on any given night of the week the people who choose to go out have SOOO much to choose from. Minneapolis is my home scene and we're just plan ridiculous on most nights (at least 5/wk if not 7) you have competition in every single major genre (including metal) so a great band is playing for dozens instead of hundreds of people (or the 'great' ones are playing for hundreds and the small ones are playing to the bar staff). You want a gig? I can get you a gig tomorrow. I just can't promise anyone will come to see you play.

4) "You can't pirate a live show": Actually people "pirate" live shows all the time. I'm a recording engineer and technically that's what I'm doing every time I record a show and put it up for free download. The difference is the bands *want me to do that because they understand that the exposure counts more than any $ they may make off that recording.

5) "Play some gigs U2": Um.. you are talking about the band that just played a 110 show *stadium tour spread over 2 years. They just released this album so I imagine we have another one coming. They *spent $1M per day on that tour and were in the red for some large percentage of that making $ only towards the end. Honestly U2 is one of very few bands that could have even pulled off that tour. Even the stadium market is saturated but they had the universal draw to sell out stadiums around the world else they certainly would have lost money on that tour.

So anyway... sorry your band didn't do well but don't blame the industry on that. It happens. A lot.
Back to the original article: Apple and Bono are being stupid... since I boycott Apple already (for other stupid stuff like this) and get my U2 through other channels this really won't affect me aside from reinforcing why I boycott Apple in the first place.

...and missing the point of the article. The article is saying that the average salary was higher by $10k/year. They didn't even say said salary was for a COBOL job! Not sure how salaries compare in the UK to here but GBP60K is about $100K and honestly that's pretty freaking sweet for a fresh grad in coding here.

Either way $10K difference in pay is probably not what a seasoned coder would refer to as "exciting" but for a fresh grad the difference between say $60K/year and $70K/year is pretty significant and maybe worth spending 3 credits on. Best if you don't have to even use it after graduation but knowing about it seems to be worth the pain.

I'm currently reading a lot of COBOL so if that bumps my next salary by 10K then I'll be pretty happy about it BUT I won't be taking any jobs writing COBOL any time soon :-)

That being said... your average (I'd go WAY farther) tech employee only needs to wear a suit in an interview and honestly I don't even do that. Wearing a suit to an interview implies a certain level of dress code following and i don't want to send the wrong message :-)

"Nice" suits cost in the arena of hundreds of dollars. Your average employee doesn't want to be spending 4 figures on a selection of suits so they don't have to wear the same thing everyday. Add to that dry cleaning costs too. Since I go into an office everyday (at the moment) I do have to rise to a certain dress code but that means: Shoes (first time in 15 years I haven't been able to wear my sandals to the office and that's just because some b!tch I never run into whined about it), Long pants (Jeans in good shape are acceptable) and a nice shift (I've worn as 'low' as a nice unbranded T but generally this involves some buttoned shirt of some variety / polo.). Aside from my $100 shoes that I wear everyday so don't need a selection of my average outfit is in the $100 range so I can afford to have a closet full. My last suit cost me $600 (and that was no where near as expensive as I could have gone). My cheapest suit was closer to $350. I make good money so I can afford to have a selection of those BUT that's a large number that my budget would prefer to put into something else.

SO.. long story short if you feel like requiring me to wear a suit to work then you are not going to be my employer.. ever. I can make similar remarks about needing to pee in a cup, etc... none of that is keeping me from being well employed. The world is a different place than it was 20 years ago.

This. ...but more:

First of all: In reality, when all factors are considered (give me variables... ALL the variables), equality is rarely the case. That person is .00000001m closer than the other so my choice is made. BUT, in the rare case where all of the vars balance out to perfect even, there is only the above solution or "random". I was severely pained by the description of "the robot wasted so much time fretting over its decision". Who da fuq coded that? Robots don't fret or at least don't have to. In absence of a clear determination (however subtle an advantage that may be as I already stated) the robot doesn't need to "fret". If the choice is a flip of a coin then you get busy flipping the damn coin and get to that first person randomly chosen. An algo that takes so much time deciding that both die is piss poor and this person doesn't belong in this research.