easy. even though nothing requires congress to exercise the power to create post offices and establish post roads granted to it by the constitution, everybody knows that if you give congress the power to do something, they will exercise it.

anyone in the twin cities in minnesota is familiar with larpenteur avenue dividing st. paul and maplewood, little canada, and roseville depending on where you are on the road. over the course of a four mile stretch, this road changes speed limits in the range of 30-45 no fewer than 4 times. it's a straight, four-lane, undivided road for most of its length west of lake phalen. why the speed limit changes? revenue generation.

metric eye colors, eh?

publicly owned roadways.

privately owned steel mill.

can you see the problem now?

here's a hint. one of these things is owned by private individuals for their own private use. the other is owned by the government for the use of everyone.

please. go back and read the definition of reckless endangerment. no one is forcing anyone to be there, and once there, if there is a traffic jam preventing either party from "safely" escaping an unsafe scene to which both parties willfully entered, both would, then each party is as guilty as the other of reckless endangerment.

we're not talking about a situation where a locks b in a building and subsequently sets the building ablaze. we're not even talking about a situation where a, through his desire to enter a burning building from which b is trying to escape and in the process prevents b from escaping. we're talking about a and b entering that burning building and both getting stuck in the doorway trying to escape.

the only reckless endangerment here is the driver of a vehicle driving into a storm where there are others, not in control of that vehicle, also inside of that vehicle. from a purely technical and legal perspective, that meets the definition of reckless endangerment and in this case the real guilty parties are the scientists.

except for in the middle of a trailer park going to a common shelter, has anyone ever seen a tornado escape route? of course not. mostly because we're talking about short-term phenomena, which are on the extreme lower end of mesoscale meteorology at best.

as for blocking emergency vehicles, if traffic is so bad that drivers are going the same direction in both lanes of a 2 lane road, preventing an emergency vehicle from using that lane (whether with the direction of that lane or against it), there are already laws against that. that a science entourage can't get from point a to point b in a "reasonable" amount of time because "amateurs" are also following that same path and traffic is crawling along at 5 mph, is something i have absolutely no sympathy for.

dc has the capital, arizona has the grand canyon, nevada has las vegas, oklahoma has tornadoes.

of course not. but your analogy breaks down somewhere in the neighborhood of the words "invading steel mills". i'll leave it to you to figure out how.

mad max got his ass reamed by channel 11 for it too (and if i remember right the faa), well more like a good stern hand slapping, mostly because he was in the news chopper owned by the station, which was probably what gannett was more concerned about. not that they didn't (and don't continue to, to this day) exploit the footage.

kickass footage indeed.

agreed. it takes a lot of discipline to keep things separate. at the same time, ib knows what class corresponds to the underlying controller so double clicking a button in ib to get at the event handler shouldn't be a problem. that's just mho though.

definitely. and it doesn't take a terribly long time for it either. i was looking at it from the perspective that apple has traditionally concentrated on ease of use in its entire environment. having to manually set up outlets and actions in the code so that they can be referenced by ib seems counterintuitive to that history. with vs on the other hand, it "just happens". i.e., double click on a button in the ui view and you get its onclick event handler. if it doesn't exist, it gets created.

you ain't kidding on that. even compared to mfc, apple wins. how microsoft managed to promote mfc for years without registry and security attribute classes representing critical aspects of the underlying operating system is beyond me.

that'd make a hell of an experiment.

exactly. its hard to complain about a free product, and i doubt there will be many mac os/iphone/ipad developers who will rush out to spend several hundred dollars on vs for the mac to replace the xcode that apple gives away for free in their development environment.

more likely, microsoft sees the app store for what it is, a cash cow for apple. its thinking may well be that by moving vs to the mac, it can capitalize on developers' existing code bases necessitating only a build step for those developers to target windows mobile and its own app store. is microsoft ever going to divulge this to apple? hell no, but i wouldn't be surprised if that's what they were thinking with this.

having used apple's developer tools after spending years using microsoft's, let me assure you that apple's ease of use advantage ends when you open up xcode. sure you get used to gui design in interface builder, but vs is still orders of magnitude easier. therefore, the only developers who would rather stick needles in their eyes than use microsoft tools are those who have never used microsoft tools to begin with.

this, of course, makes no commentary on the quality of code that ultimately results from the use of the respective tools, just the ease of use of the tools themselves.