Agreed. USB audio is especially tedious to get to work reliably and, more importantly, easily. I use a Linux PC with Ubuntu Studio to record speeches and occasionally play some background music. Our mixing board has a built-in USB audio interface that should "just work" (at least it does in Windows). With the Linux PC, we have to jump through many hoops to get it to work. Basically, it never shows up in Pulseaudio, so we need to use JACK and link it up to PulseAudio. Which means that we have to start up the JACK daemon (yes, it can be automated, but it's USB audio and it might not always be connected when we turn on the PC), then go to the PulseAudio settings to tell it that the JACK sink should be used. And, of course, we need to do all that before we start any other program, or else we get no sound and we have to restart the application.

So, yes, sound works. But it's a pain and I wouldn't want to have to explain how to do all this to someone who's not very computer literate. They'd just tell me "why on earth can't we just use Windows". And they'll come away with the (justified) idea that Linux is really not user-friendly and definitely not for them.

Now, perhaps there are ways to solve these problems. Perhaps there's a guide somewhere that shows that I've been doing things wrong. But that's exactly the point: something as basic as sound should work out of the box and shouldn't require the user to do anything that a reasonably competent person could do.

Should there also be a tax on exports? Because, after all, every time an American company sells a car overseas, it's one car that is not available to US consumers. Foreigners are competing with the US for the goods that they produce and we need to stop sending our stuff overseas!

Notice how ridiculous this argument is? Everyone realizes that exports are good. Even people who really, really hate free trade (those just complain about imports).

Well, this is in effect what you're saying. You're complaining about one of the most successful export industries in the US, one that sells services worth billions of dollars annually. And it's even better than selling cars and other widgets to foreign consumers because these people actually pay to come spend money in the US. For a few years, they'll be paying tuition AND buying food, clothes, beer, etc.

Next thing you know, you'll be complaining about the tourism industry too?

You have absolutely no idea what these doctors are doing with their money. Perhaps they're sending thousands of dollars back home each month, which is much, much more valuable than an extra pair of hands. If they come from genuinely poor countries, the number one thing that people need is money. They're at a level of development where the main constraint on improving life expectancy and life in general is not whether there are a few more doctors but whether there is basic infrastructure in place (e.g. proper water sanitation), there is enough money to afford basic medications when needed, there is money to buy nets or get your house sprayed, etc. A few more doctors might improve things at the margin but what good is it to know what problem you have if you have no money to purchase the drugs to treat your condition?

At any rate, it's simply not true that letting foreign doctors work in the USA has a negative effect on their "own" communities (with scare quotes because, after all, perhaps these people now consider the USA their home). If people know that there is an opportunity to go to the US if you study medicine, they medical studies will attract more and better students. However, not all of these students will eventually go through with it. There are lots of regulatory barriers, some people simply decide that, after all, they'd rather stay with their parents/family/friends, etc. So, even though some people go abroad, there might still at the end of the day be more doctors than there would have been if immigration was impossible. This is what studies have found with nurses in the Philippines for instance.

Also, you have no idea what it is to live in a low-income country and should be careful before telling people from there that they are 'greedy' if all they want is what you apparently take for granted as an inhabitant of the first world.

Cross-subsidies are routine in telecommunications. We don't hear industry representatives arguing that the fact that you can't subscribe to individual TV channels but have to make do with bundles. This means that some people (i.e. those who watch a broad range of channels) benefit, while others might get a better deal with à la carte bundles if the could just get the one or two channels that they actually watch. If we're concerned that some TWC customers might get a worse deal because they don't watch Netflix and have to pay for it, then we should be just as concerned that these same customers have to pay $16 to go from the basic package to the one with 200+ channels even if they're only interested in one or two extra channels.

In fact, such arrangements are ubiquitous in all sectors of the economy. We're not outraged that a restaurant that offers free valet parking is spreading the cost over all patrons, including those that came by taxi. We're don't think it's unfair for malls to offer free bathrooms even if we never visit them but still pay for them. We're not mad at McDonald's because they give away free refills and we never use that opportunity because we're not as thirsty as other people. Etc. Etc.

The author is a shining example of all that is wrong with lobbying and the regulatory process in the developed world. According to his bio on the website, he was "Wireless Bureau Chief" and "Wireless Legal Advisor" at the FCC. So he was responsible for developing and implementing policies that directly impact wireless telecommunication companies. Then, in 2008, he resigned and immediately became CEO of a trade organisation representing the interests of... wireless telecommunication companies. And I mean "immediately" as in there is no gap whatsoever in his resumé. According to his LinkedIn, he resigned in August 2008 and began working for the other side that very same month (http://www.linkedin.com/pub/fred-campbell/11/524/862).

Now, I don't know Fred Campbell and I'm not suggesting that he did not always act in a professional manner. But is it not disturbing that an industry would be allowed to recruit high-ranking government officials whose daily decisions could have great impact on their profitability? This gives FCC staffers very bad incentives, as you might not want to alienate the people who can give you your next, much more lucrative, job. Why do we turn a blind eye to the blatant conflicts of interests that it creates. And it is pervasive in all heavily regulated areas (another example from the FCC: Meredith Attwell Baker). The revolving door is an all too common reality and we're doing nothing to stop it.

If you're unable to express disapproval clearly without being rude and telling people to "shut the fuck up", then maybe you're not qualified to manage people? Also, it sounds a lot like what Linus criticized this guy for doing, blaming the other party for your own failings. What's the difference between breaking the kernel and blaming userspace apps, and failing to communicate your point clearly and blaming the other person for misunderstanding? As an employee, I don't have to suffer the consequences of your not being able to express a simple point clearly.

You can be "nice" (or even simply not a total ass) to people AND tell them that what they're doing is wrong. For instance, tell them "I don't think this is the right way to do it because of Y and Z, and I'd rather you do X instead. We will not be able to accept this contribution unless you make these changes". How on earth could anyone construe this as an encouragement to continue in this direction? No need for profanities, no need for personal attacks. State the facts clearly and calmly. And perhaps people won't be looking for another job because of the hostile work environment that you're creating.

But you can also decide to forego this return on investment for the good of mankind. Which, arguably, is what universities should be pursuing in the first place, not trying to maximize their ROI, as private companies do very well.

Profits are very useful because you get valuable information about what you're doing and it allows resources to be put to the most valuable use. But it doesn't really apply to basic research. That kind of research is not meant to create products that can be sold for a profit, but to increase our collective knowledge. This may or may not give rise to new applications, technologies, and products, but that's not main point. And if something does prove valuable, wouldn't it be better if it were freely licensed to all interested parties to allow for cheap production, for other people to freely improve upon it, etc.?

That's the whole point behind endowments. Give universities so much money that their survival doesn't depend on their monetizing their discoveries. CMU has a $1 billion endowment that makes it very unlikely that it'll have to stop innovating because they failed to secure a patent on everything they discover. Especially since much of the research conducted in universities is actually funded by the government, as a public good.

Easy. 100,000 cases of polio is much much worse. The kids didn't ask to be born to parents who have strange ideas and there are many aspects of the local culture (honor killings? Systematic and systemic discrimination against women?) that should disappear. Cultural eradication is a good thing if it means that mistaken beliefs about the world get rooted out, and especially if it causes active harm to others. I won't be shedding any tears if a "culture" that rejects something as innocuous as vaccination disappears.

That being said, I agree that imperialism is a bad idea, and much of the backlash against "the West" is due to real grievances. For instance, bombing weddings and killing children is not a good way to show how great Western civilization is. Neither can you shove your values down people's throats and expect them to embrace them. But if some cultural practices (genital mutilation for instance) were to be abandoned, I'd be very happy. And, when it involves children whose only mistake was to be born in the wrong part of the world, cultural relativism doesn't seem very appropriate to me.

Not to forget that appealing to "culture" is often a way for the powerful to cement their privileges and continue to exploit marginalized groups. Thus the various dictators who explain that human rights are a Western construct and that authoritarianism is part of the local culture. Or people who want to keep girls ignorant and submissive because their culture/religion says women are inferior to men.

Communication is challenging because Chinese and English are completely different. Why do we expect him to do a better job learning Chinese than the Chinese developers did of learning English, even though they had a lot more incentive to do so? Maybe, occasionally, it might help him if he can clarify things in Chinese. But you have to weigh it against the risk that what he'll be misunderstood because his Chinese is too poor. When things go wrong, do you want him or the Chinese developers to be blamed? If he communicates something very clearly in English, they're at fault if they mess up. If he tries to speak Chinese, there's a good chance that he'll eventually get blamed.

In IT, there's little need for foreign-language skills, unless you happen to live in bilingual country (and even there, it's mostly used as a filter by HR departments). Everyone speaks English and there's a reason why he's a mid-career developer and never had to speak a foreign language.

That being said, learning another language can be a valuable experience. Just don't expect it to be useful on the job.

That's a bit misleading. I'd rather be in the bottom 20% in a high-income country such as the United States or Sweden, than in the top 10% in a Sub-Saharan country. Even with substantially more money than the average person, quality of life is much lower. Which means that you can't just look at income inequality. Median income and living standards, as well as their absolute range also matters. Even if wealth is more and more concentrated (which is not exactly accurate, the Gini coefficient is about the same as it was in the 1860s, and fluctuated a lot throughout the 20th century), living standards have improved a lot, which is what really matters. Money is only the green stuff that we need to buy what we really want.

I agree, they don't. The yellow light has to be on for at least three seconds under 50 kph (31 mph), 3s to 4s between 50 kph and 70 kph (43 mph), and 4s-5s above 70. The Flemish region, where the vast majority of the red light cameras are, always uses the largest of these values. And 4 seconds is a long time in a car. With a 4 second yellow light, there really is no way to run a red light unless you were able to stop safely and chose not to. Impossible.

Why raises the question. If it's so profitable for the private contractor and is a big loss for the city, why don't cities in the US do what most other places do and get rid of the middleman? Especially when I see that the company referenced in the article actually touts "maximizing prosecutions" as a benefit of the system, when the only reason for red-light cameras would be improving safety. A well-designed system is one that results in as few prosecutions as possible. The ideal number of prosecutions is close to zero because that would mean the camera is doing its job of preventing people from doing dangerous things and that only the worst offenders are prosecuted. Here (European country), it's all done in-house by the police, with stringent legislation (minimum yellow time based on the speed limit for the road, safety margin) that ensures that only people who deliberately run the red light get caught. I've never been in a situation where I *had* to run the red light because the yellow phase lasts long enough for everyone to either be able to stop safely or to cross the stop line before the light turns red.

Note that I'm not against outsourcing if it's really more cost effective. But if it ends up wasting money, it's not a good idea.

But that's true for every traffic violation. The only way to make sure that the owner is the driver would be to stop every single vehicle that is seen breaking the law, which might very well be much more dangerous (high-speed chases don't always end so well and people sometimes react bizarrely when they feel threatened and/or are intoxicated).

I think it makes sense to say that the owner of the car is presumed to be the driver. It'd be too easy to claim that a friend happened to borrow your car but that, of course, they won't say they were the ones driving. The way is see it is this:
- You were driving the car: no problem if you got a ticket
- Your spouse was driving the car: then, figure it out amongst yourselves. I mean, they'll really let you get a fine and a bad driving record when they were driving? If so, you got bigger problems that a ticket.
- Your child was driving the car: see above.
- A friend was driving the car: just write down their name on the form. Or don't lend your car to friends you can't trust.

Then, perhaps it's the rule that you have to clear the intersection before the light turns red that needs to be changed. Just introduce a slight delay before the other lights go green (all-ways left) to allow people to turn left, problem solved. That's how virtually all lights work in European countries that I've visited. You stop in the intersection and you wait until there's an opening. No opening? You just wait for the red light and you exit the intersection before the light turns green in the other direction. You can't? Then you probably shouldn't have entered the intersection in the first place. You should have realized that there were already too many cars for all of them to clear the intersection in time and that it was ok to wait at the stop line for the next cycle. Plus, red-light cameras in these countries only capture people who cross the stop line on red, not people who are already in the intersection.

Of course, it doesn't mean that it can work in the US. But it reflects poorly on US governance that something that works pretty well in advanced democracies is impossible there. And that the main concern is corrupt local authorities taking advantage of drivers, which sounds more like what happens in a third-world country ("you broke this traffic law, please pay a 'fine' to me in cash or you'll be taken down to the station").

Have you encountered many 18-year-olds with such a cunning plan? I'm afraid that you're ascribing sinister designs to people just because they happen to disagree with you. It sounds a bit like the fundamentalists who think that they have to make students sign an über-detailed statement of faith, because we all know that atheists have nothing better to do than pretend to be Christians to ruin a seminary.

Perhaps some people come up with such schemes. But, then, once they get their PhD (assuming they weren't found out or gave up before), they find a job with a creationist organization and never produce real research anymore. They'll just be a nobody with a PhD, and there are many of those around. It only impresses the gullible who don't know that a PhD is not meant to be the end of the journey but the beginning.

Isn't it much more likely that young people from a religious background might develop an interest in science, despite the greatly warped education that they might have received? In college, they learn about real evolutionary biology for the first time but, unwilling to let go of the bad ideas that they still have, they begin to compartmentalize their thinking. As you say, they'll write the right things on the exam but they'll still be conflicted about it. Fortunately, soon enough, they're able to specialize in a sub-field where the cognitive dissonance is not as great, and they might even be competent researchers.

Most of the these people will never publish a creationist book or be involved in the creationist movement. I'm sure there are more creationists in research labs than we think. They've just learned not to talk about it (not this one apparently).