For years I've noticed that any article even remotely associated with anything sexual gets loaded up with photographs. Search topics in many other area for which you'd expect photos and illustrations and you're luck to get anything. I don't have any inherent problem with an explicit photo if it's relevant and constructive. The problem is that a lot of the stuff on there is pointless and gratuitous. It's people thinking they're taking a stand for free speech or some asshole getting some kicks.

And it isn't just that... It's the absurd granularity of these articles. There will be legitimate articles flagged for review as irrelevant or redundant but then you've got article after article on every little sexual quirk, stuff that could be lumped under a single parent article.

I mean, at the end of the day, it's not all that surprising people expend so much energy on this stuff. And the fact is that I've never stumbled onto it without specifically seeking it out. At that point only a fool wouldn't just go to a proper porn site. So at the end of the day it's a bit of a tempest in a tea cup.

I use gas for heat and the stove. Everything else is electricity, including the water heater. I have individual A/C units. Every bulb in the house, except for a handful of dimmable bulbs is CFL. My monthly bill, being in an expensive part of the country, is always within spitting distance of $200 and fairly consistent regardless of season. My gas bill, however, goes from roughly $120 in the winter to $30 in the summer.

A year or two ago I looked at energy consumption on most of my appliances and electronics. I found that energy consumption for those items was small enough that any improvement in efficiency would result in insignificant savings. Even the old refrigerator didn't consume as much as I had expected.

Anything that uses electricity to heat, however, is a massive hog. That means dryers and the like. And my electric water heater is long overdue for replacement. Beyond that, I've found that the only way to make a meaningful impact on your utility bills is to be frugal to the point of discomfort. This means almost never running the A/C in summer, setting it at something like 80 degrees. And even then the savings wont necessarily be huge; you'll save more going with a bagged lunch for work instead of eating out.

I have a friend who cuts back on A/C use to that extreme and it isn't fun being there in the summer. People like him manage to save a lot not because they single out any one thing, like electricity, to cut. They apply that mindset to everything they do. That's where the savings add up. But unless you've got everything in your house running all the time, or you're especially concerned about the environment, there are a lot better places to cut.

Just because you can't be bothered to get every pixel just right doesn't mean it's not important. Those differences you consider irrelevant often make the difference between having a site that looks professional and intuitive and one that doesn't.

Being on the other side of this, as a designer, it's immensely frustrating to deal with developers who can't get things right. I'm not just talking about being pixel perfect, I mean being in the general ballpark. I'm not one to harass developers about every last pixel, but it's outrageous how sloppy these guys sometimes are.

I mean, I do a bit of my own development occasionally, and trying to follow best practices and keeping my code clean I can reproduce what I had in Photoshop almost exactly. So someone who's expertise this is can't do the same. And the fact is that I have worked with developers who are meticulous and do get things right. But those guys are few and far between. The rest, like most people, do just enough to get by, but then bitch when being given a hard time.

I will also agree that many, if not most, designers have no sensitivity towards the web. They produce work that is impractical and have unrealistic expectations for development. So it does go both ways. But then that's what education is for, inform the designer what works and what doesn't. It's something I try to do, although I admit it encounter a lot of stubbornness.

The IE limitation is for the backend, not the site itself. The actual site looks like they took something off the shelf and put minimal effort into customizing. So this is not a case of a demanding designer, by any stretch of the imagination. Judging from the design I don't expect much from this startup. Looks like a me-too kind of site.

It could be argued that making money as a musician has been a short-lived thing. Outside of top-tier composers producing music for nobility no one could earn a living. But over the last century, with the advent of various technologies being a musician became a viable career. Now, because of the commoditization of music and easy access to entertainment the opportunity to make money is evaporating for a lot of people.

Of course, it will never go back to that. Independents will flock to whatever service offers the best deal, or find their own methods of distribution. Music as a big business will always exist. Most consumers, especially youth, are not picky. Their music selections are based on what conforms to their lifestyle identities. And that's all based around conforming to whatever group they've pigeonholed themselves into. So they will continue to lap up whatever garbage the studios produce. Those catering to that demand, supported by the studios, will continue making a lot of money. It's every one else beneath them, who haven't reached that level of celebrity, who will struggle. This is all firmly intrenched in celebrity culture. Complain all we want but that, unfortunately, is not going to change.

If this had happened in the US how long would it have been before we'd have seen lawyers on TV advertising legal action? I'm sure findings from independent agencies would have been completely irrelevant to the case.

If only things were so black and white.

Immigration is extremely beneficial for a nation. When immigrants come here to study and work; when they thrive essentially. But if you've got a significant percentage of the immigrant population segregating themselves into closed communities or becoming a burden on social systems then there is a problem. The host nation benefits from immigration when there is integration because it opens channels for communication, understanding and embracing new ideas.

What happens when, for whatever reason, they are not productive and instead use our social programs without paying into them? Insensitive or not questions need to be addressed because we don't have the money to throw around. Even if we withdraw from all foreign occupation that doesn't mean we should be throwing money at this sort of thing instead of devoting it towards more beneficial programs like science and infrastructure. These are the things which in the long-term will produce more jobs instead of merely creating dependence. Certainly, there are a lot of Americans already in this situation. But why aggravate the problem before properly addressing it?

There's the constant claim that Americans are terrible towards immigrants, ironically perpetuated Americans themselves. The fact of the matter is that the US continues to be one of the friendliest towards immigrants. It's still relatively easy to immigrate to the US, compared to pretty much any other country. The requirements to come here are much lower and it's relatively easy to get established. In a lot of countries you can't even buy property without some kind of permanent residency status, in the US you don't even need a green card.

And I haven't even touched on illegal immigration. Perhaps granting these people legal status would be beneficial. But that's not a guarantee and it raises questions of fairness. Is it fair that people who couldn't be bothered to follow the rules deserve instant citizenship when legal immigrants are not? And doesn't that encourage increased illegal immigration when those people know it's only a matter of time before they're awarded the same status?

The situation is never clear cut. And even though some people take things too far it doesn't mean there isn't a legitimate concern buried in there.

You seem to believe that the stock market is a zero-sum game. While I agree that there are plenty of people gaming the system it doesn't mean you lose if you're not one of them. If you know what you're doing you can make money, you simply wont make quite as much as those guys.

"Without a doubt, Mr. Ballmer is the worst CEO of a large publicly traded American company today."

Who's the fucking dolt who wrote this article?

People seem to forget that 10 years ago Microsoft was beset by several challenges; there were the investigations into monopolistic practices in addition to the bad press they were enduring. That negative perception fed directly into the rise of Apple. Certainly Microsoft's decline wasn't the sole factor in Apple's success, but if definitely helped feed it. Apple was smart enough to strike out in their own direction instead of simply responding to whatever Microsoft was doing at the time. No company will ever be successful by merely being reactive.

Microsoft may have gotten too complacent with their success. Microsoft has done a lot of very compelling R&D over the years, I'd argue far more innovative than anything Apple has done, but Apple is able to take existing technology and refine it into a compelling user experience. They think things through more fully than anyone else out there. But a fundamental difference between the two is that MS is a software company first and foremost; they're dependent on others to produce the hardware. That's always going to be a big limitation. But regardless of how good Microsoft's products may actually be, they now are always fighting an uphill battle to win the hearts and minds of consumers.

Through the 90s Microsoft operated in a very different environment than we have today. If it wasn't Microsoft acquiring a monopolistic position it likely would have been someone else. And the fact is that consumers wanted a unified user experience and Microsoft gave them that. They really laid the groundwork for everyone else. Of course, in the process they drew everyone's ire.

In the interim, Microsoft has grown into a stable, conservative corporation. They could have flared out and died like so many others, but they're still reasonably successful. I don't see how anyone could fault them for that. There was a concerted push to unseat them from their position of dominance. Now that it has come to fruition, and MS has survived the process quite well, so-called experts are faulting them for that. Ballmer probably deserves a lot of credit for not turning Microsoft into a Yahoo.

It's incredible that Apple has managed to retain the perception of being a cool company somehow still maintaining an anti-establishment appeal. It goes to show how important good product design can be.

This comes off as another one of these "Europeans are great and Americans suck" articles. I know plenty of Americans, who are averse to throwing away old stuff. And if we're going to start comparing societies and their inclination to throw away perfectly good stuff I suggest visiting Asia.

It's also really easy to promote social cohesion when 95% of the population is of a single nationality. Institute a program like this and the odds are high people will participate. It's easy to conduct social engineering when you know how the population will respond. The United States, with a considerably larger variety of ethnic groups is far more unpredictable. Chances are high that a program like this would flop on a national or even regional level. This is the sort of thing that would only work at a community level, and even then it's not a guarantee.

Sometimes I wonder why it takes researchers so long to discover attributes in animals that any pet owner has observed countless times.

Here's one incident that comes to mind:
A couple of years ago my father picked up my cat, as he's done many a time. But this time he took him over to another cat who, for whatever reason, he hated with passion. He patiently let my father hold him and return him to the other room. The instant my father released him the cat turned and bit him with all his strength.

Instead of freaking out while in a compromised position he patiently waited to exact his revenge when he was reasonably safe. That sounds fairly good control of emotion and planning to me. It's not collecting rocks, but I think it's compelling nonetheless.

How about pets training owners into performing desired actions?