Because Windows 8 desktop is better than Windows 7 desktop. The file dialogs are better, file copying is handled better. customizations are better. It's just better and in a lot of nice and subtle ways. If MS had just not done the tile thing, and added the store as an icon on the desk, windows 8 would have been a nice upgrade.

Because anyone good enough to convince you to buy a car is someone who is by definition entreprenuial and doesn't want to be a schmoe in a chain.

If TEA Party members and people who belong to groups with "Patriot" in the name were statistically more apt to apply for tax exempt status where it is not justified, then you would have a point. So you can't claim profiling. Remember, this was not an audit. This was an application for tax exempt status, all of which were granted, by the way, AFTER THE ELECTION. Hell, the IRS didn't even follow their own guidelines:

See, these groups can't operate until they receive the blessing from the IRS. What the IRS did was use the power of the federal government to effectively shut down political opposition until after Obama's reelection.

How does "Patriot" make you think of tax dodgers?

Also, if the IRS were looking for tax dodgers, they wouldn't have been asking for information like family member names and their political affiliation. This was not about taxes. This was about shutting down conservative groups until AFTER the election. This was a delaying tactic, not an audit. I should also add that NONE of the targeted groups, over 300 lost their tax exempt status.

From The AP:

I'm a libertarian and I can tell you that if the federal government does not have explicit permission from the Constitution to do something, than it is supposed to be unconstitutional for them to do so. At least that's what the 10th Amendment says. It also says that those powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states. The 10th Amendment is in the Constitution, by the way.

So, in using your Bangladesh example, it would be up to the state and local governments to handle the regulation of the business listed in your example. If the building collapsed, then it's your governor's fault, not the president's. That's the beauty of how it's SUPPOSED to work. If your state has lax regulations and you don't feel safe at your job, you are free to move to a state that has stricter regulations. Same thing goes for health care, speed limits, education system... everything that the federal government is not given permission to regulate.

(Of course, there is some wiggle room with the Commerce Clause, but if a company exists entirely within a single state and does all their business in that same state, the feds have no Constitutional authority to regulate them until the Constitution is amended giving them that right.)

You said to ask a libertarian. I answered.

Well someone sic'ed the IRS on Obama's enemies list. Tell me, who's in charge of the IRS? Where does the buck stop?

What's today? You will notice that damaging stories are always released on Friday when they want something forgotten. The press gets a pass because they can claim to cover it, but it will be forgotten by Monday and we'll be back to the American Idol judges getting fired.

Sorry, but when the IRS starts asking for the names and political affiliations of family members and a list of donors, it starts to get a bit creepy.

Also the "TEA Party" is not really a party at all, at least not on the national level. Mitt Romney was the nominee for the Republican Party. Barack Obama was the nominee for the Democrat Party. Who was the nominee for the TEA Party? No one! Why, because it's not really a party. See, TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. The rallies were called TEA Parties because it sounded cute and exemplified a tax revolt. The name stuck. But it's not an official political party and yes, they are legally tax exempt.

You seriously believe this was an innocent mistake? Tell me again why they were asking for the names and political affiliations of family members?

Java, Javascript, JSTL, EL, JSP, regular expressions, Spring, Hibernate, SQL, etc. And, you know what? I did. I'm not an expert, of course, but I'm really interested in continuing to learn. Is my new-born career a dead end

Programming isn't a dead end. You can move into management, or if you're happy programming you can still program. If you can't find a job, you can freelance. It's not the type of skill that you need a lot of fancy equipment for (i.e.- you aren't flying planes).

, or do I have a chance of becoming good at programming?"

Being good is subjective. If you want to be good at programming simply reading the right websites, books and learning new things will put you ahead of 50% of the programmers out there. If your idea of good is "Employable as a web developer" you should be fine. If your idea of good is John Carmack, then you're probably not going to end up being "good" by that definition.

Also to most employers, especially ones who don't delver software as their main business function the idea of a good programmer is someone who can deliver on deadlines, adapt to changes in specs, and get along with their coworkers. If you're going to work for a company that makes software as their main business practice, their standards will be higher. Their idea of a good programer is probably someone who has read TAOCP, knows design patters, knows whatever framework is currently trendy and can read the mind of their interviewer and know what books/blogs they like/respect.

Good luck. My dad was a programmer, just as I am. He was laid off when he was in his late 50s, and the only thing that kept getting him jobs were his contacts he built up over his long career. Another piece of advice: Make "friends" who appreciate your skills.

Why not a choice? What's wrong with a button that says, "Unmask Password"?

And, sorry, but when developers decide what's best for me, that absolutely IS something to get up in arms about. Maybe I do install my OS in front of a crowd. Maybe I'm installing a real world system at a company that with a policy that says all systems must have the same password in front of people as part of a training course or at a cubicle next to someone who has not business knowing the password.

My point is, the people who make these decisions have no idea where I'm going to be installing these systems or what my circumstances may be. If shadowing the password is a bad thing, then give me a damn button and let ME make the choice. Choice is good, right?

Actually, that "well regulated militia" part is proof that the Second Amendment was not to protect deer hunters, collectors or hobbyists. It was to protect the citizens from invaders and an abusive government. "Well regulated militia" is completely open to interpretation. My family can make up a "well regulated militia". Understand that at the time it was written, a "well regulated militia" meant farmers who could grab their gun and hit the streets to stand in a straight line and fire en masse. "Well regulated" meant that they all fired when someone said "FIRE!"

As for the national guard, that can no longer qualify since it is under the control of the federal government. I know, it's not "officially" under the federal government, but I know a lot of guardsmen who served in Iraq and Afghanistan who would disagree.

I have to admit I'm using Windows 8 right now and I just adore it. I love the Metro tiles and I also love the numerous improvements to the desktop. But I'll tell you, the reason that it works for me is because of the way I use it. I have Windows 8 on a Xeon box hooked to my family room TV. When you do that, suddenly, all those live tiles and the whole metro look makes perfect sense. The entire old desktop stuff feels antiquated and looks bad, but the newer metro stuff has transformed my PC into a workable media center. Granted, as a developer, I still spend a lot of time in the desktop, but, a lot of times that's only because I'm living with a lot of ugly applications being not-metro. I say this, of course, in total hypocrisy, because my soon to be released shareware app is certainly non-metro given the popularity of Windows 7 and that I just know the old school SDK.

Who doesn't save up at least a tiny bit of money (say 3 months salary) in case of a fucking emergency?

Most of America, it turns out.

Nearly half of America has less than $500 saved. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/americans-savings-500_n_2003285.html

The average American - including all those billionaires - has less than $6000. http://finance.zacks.com/much-money-average-american-family-savings-7304.html

What the fuck would you have fucking done if your fucking roof had fucking leaked?

There's no need for this level of rage. Take it down several notches, please; we can be civil in disagreement.

Yeah, the more expensive fingerprint readers have done this since the late 1980s. They can also tell if a retina was in a removed eye, et cetera.

I'm generally pro-gun but there are some items on both sides that I find absolutely ridiculous when it comes to debating guns:

a) The 2nd Amendment / Constitutional Miscast -

The 2nd amendment has to be taken in conjunction with Section 8 of the Constitution itself. The intent, and the mythology of the American revolution was that an armed citizenry rose up and overthrew the mighty British Empire by pioneering guerilla warfare and turning America into a pro-VietNam or Iraq. The fact is, it was a regular, professional army, that did much of the job. But, be that as it may, the idea of turning America into an uber viet nam in case we are invaded could certainly work in this day and age, and so to that end, it follows, in the minds of the framers, that yes, we, the people, all of us, are the militia, and yes, we are all by the 2nd amendment allowed to have not just guns, but military style rifles if we are to judge the intent of the militia by the standard of the day. So on that point, liberals are dead wrong. But, on the flipside of the coin, having an armed citizenry also meant that there would be no standing army at all. No bases overseas. No invasions of sovereign nations. So, for both sides of the aisle, if we were going to be constitutional, we'd -eliminate- the standing army, let states control the tanks and heavy stuff, and then, the citizenry would be armed to deal with invaders. Liberals and Conservatives are both right, for pieces of the argument, but both lie as well.

b) The It's Not Fully Automatic Strawman

Has anyone who has ever made this argument every really tried to shoot an assault rifle on full auto - if they had one? Bottom line is, full auto fricking sucks. The barrel climbs, you waste rounds. You have to change magazines more often and you aren't as effective. So saying today's semi-auto assault rifles aren't as good as their military counterparts is a bit of a strawman - fully auto for a rifle in a 30 round mag simply isn't as good for many defensive purposes, except for suppression of enemy fire, and for that, chances are, that's probably not as good as a belt fed minigun or a .50 cal.

c) The gun deaths vs violent crime statistic

Gun control advocates like to show lower gun deaths in gun control countries. But violent crime rates also tend to soar in gun control countries. Home invasions, beatings, etc. The advantage is that, to the left, less people get killed is probably better than more people getting robbed or rate. Conservatives would be tempted to disagree, but their own stance on rape and abortion is so ridiculous ...

d) The "mentally ill" red herring.

The vast majority of gun deaths are not caused by some crazy guy going postal. For the most part, gun deaths are usually caused by a guy whose poor, in a relationship breakup, and is looking at child support, losing his kids, and what not, and he flips his shit. Or, he's in a gang fighting over turf. Most of the time, drugs or alcohol are involved. Screening for mental illness, saying say that, bipolar people should not have guns, isn't going to make a statistical dent in anything. There's no reliable test that can say "hey, are you going to gun down a movie theater".

e) The "we can actually ban them" argument.

The USA cannot even ban fricking illegal drugs. If people want them, people will get them. You only need to buy a gun once, and then hide it. Heck, they are easy enough to make.