Big surprise.. tech hirer not valuing fields they do not hire from.

Though given how laborious and difficult an actual english degree is and how high the failure rate is, saying that CS has more 'rigor in thinking' and 'challenging' is laughable. Those upper level english courses require a lot of rigors thinking and are quite challenging, even if they do not get the same respect as the more profitable CS degree.

And this is coming from someone with a Computer Engineering degree. However I wish there were more english majors in tech since they can bring some pretty useful skills and thought patterns to the table and can provide, esp if your department is aspie-culture heavy.

The high cost used to be offset by the status associated with the game, but it just isn:t the symbol of wealth and refinement that it used to be. Thus I suspect giant holes will not help much.

That being said, are we sure this is not some kind of joke or hoax? This reads like something from The Onion....

Those cameras were built like tanks.....

This really strikes me as the type of problem that will never have a good solution. There will always be competing interests and some of them will be mutually exclusive while still being valid concerns.

I think one of the big bonuses of the SSDs hitting the mainstream is people (and manufacturers) are re-examining how much capacity people actually need. For a while there was a trend of just throwing the biggest drives possible at every machine made since a bigger number looks better then a smaller number on marketing material, but it meant a lot of people bought computers with drives that far exceeded their actual use cases.

For most people 256GB is more then enough, depending on how they are using it. Though it is no where near enough for other uses.

Personally for my use case, I have both. a 128GB drive for OS and applications, and 1TB HDD for data. If I kept my data on the SSD it would fill up rapidly, so it is not enough for this 'anybody' at least, and I know people who burn through space a lot faster then I do.

The problem with 'belong to the people' is that when it actually does, we end up with situations like this were some people want to profit off something public and get up in arms if the people decide differently.

Seriously, did they pay slashdot to run this garbage? "IT consulting company produces colourful but unattributed info-graphic saying developers are important but IT is to slow." would be a better summary.

I think most people think of 'millionaire' as having over a million in potentially liquid assets at any given time. So neither 'cumulative pay' nor '401k' would count.

It is only revisionism if one claims unilateral victory and wants to shut down the other side. Even at the time there was debate and disagreement about the scope and specifics of the various Bill of Rights amendments. One of the big reasons they were not included in the constitution is there was so much debate over the topics among the delegates that they feared it would derail the drafting.

"The Founders" meant a lot of things, and their intent varied from person to person, and they disagreed with each other a lot.

Which is a scary thought since the lesson of the Nevada event is that if you have good PR and enough armed people, officials who do not want bloodshed will back down and allow you to continue. Since this is only a tool that can be utilized by the wealthy and well connected, even if it was just, it does not actually help average citizens but does mean that it is less likely the state will actually protect them from other citizens.

I guess Waco and such did accomplish their goals. They wanted blood to make a point, other groups used it for anti-government propeganda, and now officals are wary about standing up to these groups. I suspect we will see a rise in sovereign citizens and others who hope that if they are more willing to kill then officals then they will not have to follow laws they do not like.

The line between butchering and fixing is pretty blurry. While people like to say that it 'clearly' states the scope of protection, given that people have been arguing about it for over a century indicates that it is not all that clear. Changing the wording to make it explicit would help, but that would mean deciding which interoperation is correct once and for all, meaning whichever direction it went the other camp would consider it butchering.

While that would indeed have a psychological impact, the actual body count would likely be zero. It is not to say such things can not be dangerous, but for them to be deadly you generally need a LOT of the material and a poorly ventilated/enclosed space. In a school, opening up the window would be enough to nullify any attack a student could manage.

It was recorded in the classroom. Which actually does not help since schools are such strange constitutional ground and thus public expectations may or may not apply based on the whim of the judge.

Let us not forget the 3rd common thing authorities bring up, "well, you are acting XYZ so it is your own fault".

When a school is involved, minor's rights are generally suspended.