I don't have a need/desire/ability to hire coders, but I do hire people for other jobs. I honestly don't give a damn if they have "passion" for doing what I need them to do. What I do is try to be open about what is expected, which is to complete projects correctly and on time, while not bringing personal drama into the work place. I am friendly enough (I think) and I want them all to succeed and have a good time, and if work is enjoyable, so much the better, but what it comes down to is if you do quality work, you continue to be paid for doing it, period.

I don't need employees who double as cheerleaders, just competent people who take their jobs seriously and come to work ready and willing to work. After all, it is work and most of us won't do it without reasonable compensation. If my dad taught me one useful lesson about work it is that your employment need not (perhaps should not) define you as a person, and it should certainly not run your life. I suppose if you are passionate about painting or something and can support yourself solely via that, then passion is in order, but if you are working for someone else it is a little crazy to have a 24x7, job-first mentality.

I use IE exactly one time a week, because I am required to. My company uses a vendor whose B2B website is straight out of 1997 and freaks out if you don't use IE. Once in a great while I submit an order from home, in which case I use Firefox with the User Agent Switcher extension on Linux to trick the vendor's site into believing I am using IE, which actually works fine. I don't do this at work because the machine I use to access this particular vendor's site is shared and I am not permitted to install Firefox (LOL). A few times I have forgotten about this and used current versions of Firefox and Chrome, causing the vendor's site to suggest (demand, really, since it is supposedly optimized for IE and won't allow me to use anything else) that I "upgrade" to a more recent browser, like IE 6. That always cracks me up.

Before you accept anything from bitcointalk, make sure you punch yourself in the face (and maybe read news ANYWHERE else when you are done). That site is a joke, still, is it always has been.

Racist. Not all Romanians are gypsies, and "gypsy" is a term with negative connotations anyway. I don't think they even self-iedntify as Romanian. Way to post anonymously, coward. And I wouldn't worry about OpenBSD being tainted by bitcoins. Bitcoins are fine, and OpenBSD is better alive than dead, no?

It's like the disclaimers that vitamin and supplement sellers use to disclaim a bunch of claims they just made. If you say a bunch of stuff then claim you weren't actually saying anything, you have zero credibility in my book. "It is still unclear whether there are safe levels of use for cannabis" is a pretty curious statement coming from someone who isn't even studying whether there are safe levels for cannabis use. She's right, but that declaration in this context is misleading, at best. It would have been just as relevant to say that the first piano-playing, pink African elephant may or may not be discovered by elderly New Jersey construction workers within the next decade.

The vast majority of pot smokers never develop any measurable, diagnosed psychosis.

I won't whine about the difference between a weak correlation and causation, but it must be acknowledged that there is a possibility that people who experience psychosis are more likely than the general, healthy population to use drugs and, specifically, smoke marijuana daily.

There are signs that weed may exacerbate the symptoms of psychoses in some people, but that is about the only definite conclusion we can draw that links the two. That is, unless you choose to ignore science when it does not fit your agenda (we're looking at you ONDCP, DARE, and DEA).

So many supposed nudists here, and I don't believe any of them. Better all post pics to prove you are what you say. Er, wait... I believe the guys, but if any female nudists responded to the survey, you need to post pics to prove your answer was not chosen at random.

If they use the stock (or other DOT-approved) reflector and housing, they are indeed legal, for the most part. Active aiming is over rated and not necessary - you just need to aim them correctly, which plenty of people can't seem to do with conventional headlights, either.

For the same reason they put spoilers on RWD cars - to keep the back end down at high speeds! Just because the drive wheels are at the front doesn't mean FWD cars have reversed aerodynamic properties!

By an large though, spoilers are for looks, as the street cars they find their ways onto don't need additional downforce, whether FWD, RWD, or AWD, since they don't corner at 100+ MPH very often. And of course most of the ones on street cars (factory-installed or aftermarket) are not even tuned to produce downforce.

I don't think we are that far from a major evolutionary advance: cats developing the ability to shoot lasers from their mouths. The galaxy will soon be at peace.

You must be new. The point of the obligatory asinine choices included at the bottom of the polls is to interject a bit of humor. But there are always a bunch of idiots who think it is funny to select that choice. They are wrong, and they should be ignored.

Yes, their user agreement might say you own your data, and it probably says a lot of other things. But honestly, what did you expect? Did you really think you could give them your data and expect them not to use it? Do you really trust social websites to look out for you? Such sites basically have two ways to make money, by showing you paid ads and selling/renting/"sharing" your data. Sorry, but if you're paying attention you must know that you can't trust any of them with anything you don't want to be public forever - and I mean all social sites. Even if they have a friendly EULA/TOS and actually abide by and don't change it, can you trust that your info is secure? Hackers and corporate buyouts are threats, as well.

And if he's smart, which he clearly seems to be, he has already given copies of the documents to a few people he trusts, with the threat of mass releases ensuring his safety. Surely the NSA has thought of this possibility. And any amnesty deal would have to be contingent upon him keeping a low profile, likely outside of the US, and be subject to revocation should anyone else release related documents that are believed to have been stolen by Snowden.

If it were me, I'd have divided copies up among multiple recipients, with multiple recipients for each document but without all documents to anyone. Of course this assumes that there are people he thinks he can trust, which may not be the case. Or maybe he doesn't have much more that is interesting? Either way, I would not be quick to trust his word enough to offer amnesty, nor should he be trusting enough to accept a deal from a government he clearly does not (and probably should not) trust.

Okay, Anonymous Coward, so 7500 cubic metres of highly radioactive waste is not a concern to you? Then what of the other problems associated with LFTRs, such as the need for a bunch of U-233 (a little hard to come by) and the fact that know one is experienced at building them, especially at the scale needed for commercially viable power generation? Just small details I am also wrong about?

Too bad you posted anonymously and will probably not keep up with this, as I'd love to see your answers. Great job figuring out that LFTRs are the holy grail of power generation, even though no one else seems to think so.

So you're saying he wasn't arrested for committing a crime at all? I thought he was arrested for committing the crime of theft (amounting to something like three cents), not for being a dick, which is not a crime.