No. The propaganda is that continuous use of drugs can lead to a dead end. The presidents you mentioned, as far as anyone can tell, stopped using them. So you have built a straw man to tear down.

As for being hypocritical, they have to enforce the law. They cannot realistically take a position contrary to the laws they have to enforce.

Bring up Congress members all you want, because they control what's illegal. Or mention the FDA's response to re-scheduling controlled substances, while keeping in mind that the president does not control the FDA directly. There are lots of other ways to make your point, but you missed them all.

How about Natalie Portman eating Hot Grits naked? Wanting to get on this before the offer expires.

Obvious issues are obvious because you are not thinking about simplifying the problem sufficiently to make it possible. Think about the complexity of an audio fingerprint to match a performer, song, and album, even with background noise and crappy microphone. But Shazam and Picard and others do it already.

Think about the patterns on a numeric keyboard - 9713 followed by 9856. They could show up as the same, due to differences in scale. But now you only need to try a few numeric passwords. There are 3 more. What about 4582? Maybe 6 combinations.

Extend this idea across the keyboard, where you have a better spatial distribution, and the only safe passwords would be purely horizontal or use only two rows of the keyboard. Anyone limiting themselves to two rows is almost certainly using the top two, for the ultimate compromise between brute-force and spatial attacks.

For the average password, you will have a 3-D space that can pattern match in the same way auto-correct for phones already works. A password with letter substitution that spans 3-4 rows of the keyboard is probably matchable with one try, knowing the language of the typer (from samples on the page, URL, or other clues available from JavaScript).

It's not a hard problem, and just reducing the password possibilities means greater chance of success. If you lock out 75% of the accounts, you have 25% success, and that's pretty good if you can infect more than 3 machines.

I wouldn't say the upper reaches of its capabilities, because it is limited by the age of the universe and the speed of light. 13.3 out of an estimated 13.6 Billion is pretty damned capable, and it could possibly be more if they spend more than 100 hours on the same spot.

We have the hugely huge deep field visible light, and now a deep field in IR. Perhaps it would be good to point out the reason for enthusiasm, since IR seems better at seeing back in time, and JWST is tuned for IR. Aside from the larger mirror, of course.

If there is an issue, simply ask at that point to turn them off.

Not all devices can simply be turned off. Do you want to circle around while waiting for some jackass who never reboots to click "shut down", see "Windows is configuring updates..." and just stare at each other?

I'm not saying your point has no merit, but I don't think you considered it thoroughly.

And, what does off mean? On my Kindle DX, with wireless disabled, it is inert while displaying a page due to e-ink. There is no difference between on and off, yet the stewardess insisted I turn it off. Fine, I'll just pretend I have a hand on the steering wheel and one on the stickshift while we're taking off. Your seat mate will give you all the room you want after pulling that one. Is my phone in airplane mode? Do I think it is but really just turned off the wifi?

So there was an actual problem, and you were actually circling until the problem was found. And you're okay with hoping you can find the right person in time to land?

Planes use fuel, which they carry with them, and takes more fuel to lift. They don't take off full, they only get what they need plus a bit for weather and a bit for emergencies. They can easily divert to a closer airport, or thanks to FDR choose a piece of highway. But if you're already at the airport, you're hoping to find the technologically illiterate fool who believes his device couldn't possibly be the problem. Exactly like your scenario.

In C# if you have no idea which exceptions to catch, you can always log or report the actual type, as in ex.GetType() and then do what you need to with that information. It is much more useful for me to run in debug mode, let the debugger stop on all thrown exceptions, and examine the type. You can either add that type to the types you catch, or fix the code so it doesn't happen.

Every catch block should have a generic Exception, which can do something with the specific exception type. If you know to look for specific ones, like timeout or network related ones, you have the option of adding those.

But I still don't understand the problem. If you want to know how to properly use a method, you should read the documentation. Go to msdn, type the class and method name, and at the bottom is a reasonable list of exceptions to expect. That isn't a waste of time.

If you write enough C#, you will learn which methods need specific handling for certain scenarios, and which ones halt all processing. "What's best to do" is always halt processing and clean up, unless you have a specific reason to take an alternate path, such as auto-retry.

Just one page at random, in case you haven't seen the exception list at the bottom of the page. Really simple to find.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms584311.aspx

Without debug symbols, it makes no sense to display any more information than that. If you are catching exceptions, you should have a logging function (preferably to persistent storage with a fallback to text file, and fallback to a simple dialog). This can capture exception information and stack trace, which will tell you roughly where to look. With debug symbols, it will tell you exactly where to look.

What you seem to be complaining about is different. If you have piles of objects on one line, and chain things like repository.GetSomething()[0].ToString() then you are doing it wrong. Add tests, add local variables to isolate the line number, or suck it up and just keep guessing.

In other words, the code you are working with does not match the recommended coding styles from the language creator(s). That can hardly be blamed on anyone but sample websites like CodeProject where any unchecked random junk gets puked up by someone who thinks they are clever, or as a proof of concept without intermediate steps. Then the code gets spread like a virus.

I was thinking more along the lines of the Windows error messages, where something very specific gets bubbled up to a less and less specific error message until it makes no sense in the current context. That is a typical Microsoft screw-up, and exists in .NET, especially in some of the code which has been around since 1.x. You can't cure the runtime, but you sure as hell can fix your code.

Rep Marsha Blackburn, whose district abuts Nashville and who received more money from the music industry than any other Republican congressional candidate, apparently had the author of the study, Derek Khanna, fired.

Sounds like she is representing the people she is supposed to represent. If you want a candidate who supports your industry, and your industry has a geographical central location like Silicon Valley, Nashville, Hollywood, or any number of other examples, it makes sense to support the candidate who will best represent you.

As such, Rep Marsha Blackburn is a terrible example of the problems money causes.

The article lists many different industries - Automotive, Intellectual Property, Accommodation and Transport, Telecom. The summary focus only on IP, and only on an example which seems like the way things are supposed to work (in the current system, not an optimal system). The other examples are more clear abuses of the system.

We are to the point where officials spend more time campaigning than working (at times, and it's only a handful, but we've broken that barrier). And it is causing problems, but so much more than just what hype7 pointed out.

Adding to that, they are missing the top wage earners, who have retired, and are now including the n00bs who are earning entry level (for their position) wages.

If we went through a recession, and the several bubbles which have burst, and you only track individuals, there are some people who have lost jobs but average earnings are up. This is not a debate about how much people earn, which is where most people above gp were talking about.

The topic at hand is this - if IT is important to the world, why are they not paying IT people more?

The assumptions in the questions are beyond idiotic. As a whole, should everyone in IT be paid more just because we are important to the economy? Or are we just displacing people and earning their salaries?

How many people worked in tech, multiplied by their salaries? And compare that to now?

The still sluggish U.S. economy gets most of the blame for this wage stagnation, but factors such as outsourcing and automation also contribute to the problem, say analysts.

"IT salaries have not really kept pace with inflation," said Victor Janulaitis, the CEO of Janco Associates, which reports on IT wage compensation.

In 2000, the average hourly wage was $37.27 in computer and math occupations for workers with at least a bachelor's degree. In 2011, it was $39.24, adjusted for inflation, according to a new report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

Adjusted for inflation, we are $2 ahead. How does Victor's quote mean anything when placed directly next to a quote disputing it? Adjusted, we are ahead.

Why Are IT Wages Flat? First paragraph - outsourcing, automation, and economy. WTF are the rest of you babbling on about?

That translates to an average wage increase of less than 0.5% a year.

Including all of the people who took retirement or quit for other industries, and all of the n00bs. The rest is explained in the article, leading to b4dc0d3r's law: NEVER read an article with a headline posed in the form of a question.

The real story is the EPI report, second link. Microsoft wants more H1-B visas, which is not new in the least. Microsoft wants to pay people from lower wage countries less money to work in the US. If you spot the conclusion, good for you. Microsoft wants to keep wages flat.

As a large tech employer, and someone who is lobbying for cheap labor, it's kinda obvious to me that dcblogs (submitter) is intentionally misusing statistics, and a poorly written CNET article, to prattle on about H1-B visas.

You're asking the wrong question.

The only question is, will MS stick to their guns and force this paradigm shift, or will they relent like they did with Vista and make Windows 8 a short-lived intermediate OS for whatever comes next?

MS has already announced plans to merge the desktop and phone SDKs (with little detail on exactly what that means). And, plans to do yearly releases like Apple does, for a minor upgrade fee.

If developers refuse to make Metro versions of their apps, the desktop will stay around. I can think of only a handful of apps that require a desktop mode - development environments being the biggest. Possibly finance related apps like QuickBooks and Excel. And if it's still available in the background, a gesture-interfaced Photoshop Metro is entirely plausible. Difficult due to the huge number of menu options available, but it could be done well.

So the question becomes, how many app developers will see the need for desktop mode for themselves, but make Metro apps? And then, will Microsoft branch an SDK OS for development, and a user OS for the general public?

Tablets and netbooks are all the rage, and Apple has changed course to supporting it. General usage of tablets and smart phones will make Surface/Metro make sense to most people, eventually.

Bork's records were a direct result - largely because Bork wanted to expand executive power, and claimed that people had limited privacy rights.

The timing in this case does make it look suspiciously related, but you missed the point. It was not related to Petreaus. This is fear of their own mails being released and searched.

In the Bork case, it was probably an employee who handed over a hand written list to a reporter, to prove a point. And the punishment was only $2500. In this case, it is the DOJ who thinks they can just ask for whatever they want, and frequently get it.

Any high profile case would have resulted in the same legislation, not just someone in power, because this is all about protecting the Legislative branch from the Executive power grab. This is the system of checks and balances at work, slowly.

And the VPAA is not getting dismantled - it just requires asking permission first, with an amendment to require that every 2 years. I assume that will be opt-out, but at least you will have the option.

Didn't bother to read?

Service providers would be prohibited from handing over e-mail, and Mr. Leahy would get rid of the strange 180-day rule that the government can now use to compel disclosure. To access any e-mail content, law enforcement officers would be required to obtain a search warrant from a judge after demonstrating probable cause. The amendments would also oblige officials to give those whose e-mail they are reading a copy of the search warrant.

NSL are optional, as optional as strong-arm tactics can be, and typically require a lawsuit to fight back. If providers are prohibited, NSL carries no weight - they simply respond "I can't, that's illegal."

For the reading impaired: It doesn't mean providers *will not* hand over info with just a letter, it means the ones who care will point out that it's not that simple.

how certain are you that it wasn't a false positive?

I would moderate you positively, but you started your post with "Um..." Therefore you are a gobshite who shan't post any more until you have joined a civilised society and learned proper communication skills. That said, your abuse of the word "hypocritical" makes me wonder if you are primarily an English typer. Allow me to elucidate.

âoeTo promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;â
(Article I, Section 8, Clause 8)
Thus, according to the Constitution, the overriding purpose of the copyright system is to âoepromote the progress of science and useful arts.â In todayâ(TM)s terminology we may say that the purpose is to lead to maximum productivity and innovation

The flaw is as follows : The purpose of copyright is to compensate the creator of the content. We have seen RIAA accounting which clearly shows the business intent is not to further the useful arts and sciences, but to pad the corporate bottom line. While it is important to individuals to protect their works, abuse on the part of corporations nullifies the intent. This is why reform is required. Not just important, significant, or any other word, but required.

Bullet point 2, "Copyright is free market capitalism at work" - that is clearly a myth. I spoke one time about a website, with a furniture salesman. He gave me candid ideas. I said, roughly, you should be careful with whom you share your ideas. His reply was, paraphrased, if you can do it better, you are welcome to the idea. He identified himself as a Libertarian as explanation.

Myth 3, "The current copyright legal regime leads to the greatest innovation and productivity" deserves no rebuttal. It is there in the PDF, if anyone would bother to read anything but a bad summary these days.

• 
  
• Original Copyright Law: 14 years, plus 14 year renewal if author is alive.
  
• Current Copyright Law: Life of author plus 70 years; and for corporate authors 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication

Bottom line: in what world does that make sense? You can't know if a work is in the public domain until you know the author, whether it was a work for hire owned by a corporation, and when/if the author died. The innate ambiguity does the very opposite of promoting anything but the corporate bottom line.

I think that is what you meant to say, but were inadequate to express it. I give this report credit for supporting popular opinion. Until this shitstain gets enough people to stand behind it and pass a law, it means nothing.

It's not about music taste. "Zero Tolerance For Silence" speaks for itself by the title alone. You can describe it as a direct rebuttal of John Cage's 4â33â - and possibly evidence that Cage did not suffer tinnitus, and Metheny to some extent does. But that last bit is only as an example of what one might learn.

I have "Secret Story" (1992) among others. To know that he did this just 2 years later is just mind-boggling. When a coworker plays Pat Metheny, I don't know what song or album it is, or if he's a guest on someone else's recording, like with Anna Maria Jopek. I can instantly recognize the sound. Through headphones, which are tinny, or an iPhone played at low volume.

"To me, it is a 2-D view of a world in which I am usually functioning in a more 3-D way. It is entirely flat music, and that was exactly what it was intended to be."

He had a certain mindset when recording this, especially since it is overdubbed so he had to do multiple takes. If he heard something on the first track he didn't like, he would have overdubbed. But he didn't.

To watch Metheny improvise is like watching a Rembrandt being painted, if you know about jazz. To some, maybe Van Gogh, to others maybe Dali is more appropriate. In the context of his career, this is like watching Rembrandt invent pointillism, and then abandon it. Even his characteristic sound isn't there. It is much like he decided to take something and dissect it, live, with everyone allowed to watch.

Certainly it is not the same as Schoenberg, since Schoenberg allowed an element of restriction into his music. In fact, if you take Schoenberg's idea of the tone-row, this is completely the opposite. I have not analyzed it to be sure, but I don't sense the rigor of that limiting factor.

Pat Metheny was playing to something he heard, or felt, as an affront to silence. You can appreciate it for what it is, without musical taste being involved. As a statement against silence, it certainly doesn't specify what it is for