Please tell me it's not screenshot compatible, because that's the ugliest freaking mess of a horrid GUI editor that I've encountered. Otherwise, no wonder I've seen so many Windows devs with multiple huge monitors: they'd need them to be able to see a useful amount of code at one time. Seriously, those screenshots dedicate, what, 20% of the window to actual content?

Strange to me that I do not recall writing this, but it's an almost perfect description of my upbringing and later re-evaluation.

I assure you you're not alone in your experience.

How would that be? Dams don't make the water go away. Over time, the amount of water going into the reservoir equals the amount leaving, or else the water levels would either drop or overflow the dam. The only significant change I'd see is that dams increase the surface area of the water and would therefore raise evaporation, so some of the water that would normally go downstream would turn into atmospheric moisture instead. For global warming purposes, that's probably not a good thing. But would it actually have a non-negligible effect on ocean levels?

1) "LOL I'M WAY SMARTER THAN TEH CHIP DESIGNERS". 2) So don't use those instructions when you need IEEE 754 math. 3) But do use them in your video decoder when you can sacrifice accuracy in the 5th digital of a float for 1/15th (.06668) the power consumption.

That seems much more reasonable. But also consider that half of all users are above average. I'd be more interested to know what the standard deviation is (if it even follows a Gaussian, which seems at least possible).

That was from three years ago, which I believe to be before Netflix even offered streaming service. A lot has changed since that now-obsolete report came out.

I hate you for that.

Then I think those accountants are inappropriately insulated from the pain of their decisions. If decade-old software is good enough for other employees, then Office 2000 should be good enough for them.

IE6 is very, very broken. Fortunately for us (and unfortunately for people who have to use it), it's also almost completely dead. The day is coming when it will be literally impossible to run an IE6-compatible system without buying expensive legacy-compatible hardware or hosting it inside an emulator.

Consider that IE6 on Windows XP was released in 2001. Two years from now, this will be as ancient as using IE5 (released in 1999) on Windows 98 would be today. Can you imagine how fun it'd be to have to support that combination in your IT department? Can you even buy new hardware that would boot Windows 98 outside of specialty orders? Would you really want to host VMWare, etc. on the desktop of every user who needed it? Well, we're within not-so-many months of that being the same situation for IE6 on XP. Yeah, I can see why someone might want to "upgrade what isn't broken", even if you miss the Good Old Days.

GOOD! Those same groups didn't want to listen when we told them that writing to a single browser with it's non-standard quirks and single-platform pathogen vector of a plugin architecture was a bad idea. I'm going to use this as a warning to my clients: "you don't want to write this to run on IE-only. Remember what happened with IE6 and how much it cost to fix that boondoggle?"