Yeah, very nice how anyone that bothers to follow your damn link sees how you cherry picked just what would support your stupid self-righteous blabber.

Even if you don't like the wiki links, any half-way decent widely available dictionary (like m-w or oed) accepts religion to encompass a very wide degree of beliefs. Not to mention that the denotational concept of "God" is very wide as well.

But many important contributors in science (scientists), those that produced good work in science and advanced humanity's understanding held religious beliefs.

I'm sure many scientists suffer or have suffered from mental illness, too. That really makes no difference to how I would judge their scientific contributions.

So, yes I would dare take seriously these scientists. I would take a scientist seriously who was also an astrologist if the quality of their science was top notch.

Idiot.

How do you extrapolate that 60% figure for IE to just IE9? In fact how do you know that that 60% doesn't include Windows CE IE variants? (this is obviously fundamental to the GPs point).

Not really. You're post is asinine, but you'd never admit it.

And I've hacked a few CDMA phones in my day.

A SIM card consists of an IMSI, some keys, service access data, PIN, PUK and some room for crappy phone book storage, basically.

But it is basically just data. The thing that makes the SIM card concept unique is the physical smartcard use itself.

CDMA phones being cell phones have to have similar data, but there is actually no standardized storage mechanism in the phone. It simply has to comply with the CDMA standards for air interface use, how it is stored in the phone precisely doesn't matter and there is not cohesive standardized "SIM card equivalent". Sorry.

(And this has nothing to do with working with the Market, you could use any generic identifier system.

Your logical deduction may not be faulty, so I'll at least admit that I can't find fault with it and concede.

But I'll go on to say that a number of your premises are dubious or detached from reality and you are a dilettante and without clue about economic realities and the complexity of the real world outside your inane logic puzzles, and even if you are allowed to use Windows, I don't hold Microsoft responsible. Sorry.

God you must be quite sheltered, as I have seen such claims numerous times from such companies.

They still market how many miles the car can go before scheduled maintenance. And lock manufacturers that add another pin use that wording almost verbatim. Besides, "more secure than ever" is a relative measure, and arguably true even if the security is still poor.

Do you eat paint chips?

Okay, what if you were patronized with a hand job or a blow job every 5 minutes for something insignificant. Would you complain then?

Ah. Reminded once again why I always want to see: Slashdot. The Stupid. It Burns.

It seems like its possible. I do like that they are upfront with their salary/stock options. (Stock options that *may* be worth something if this company of geniuses manages to come up with something that could be marketable to a buyout). Pure statistics alone, they will not.

And I can buy that the management is very technically able (as has been cited here), but not so realistic about hiring.

Probably read too much Joel on Software. Remember that tripe? He's implicitly and explicitly telling you to go about insisting on hiring future Nobel prize laureates and programmers that have their consciousness tuned for a power-conserving compact bytecode, so their skills can be applied to a recently web-enabled bugtracker in a job that will probably pay slightly better than the mean (this is essentially what the part about giving them better benefits/pay means) for similar work (ie not that much for that labor pool).

As a data point, I consider myself slightly above average, but not quite Turing or Dijkstra, and I was making their Engineer II level pay in a region of the East Coast with far lower cost of living (but not in the deep sticks either) a few years after high school. I can't imagine those smarter than me are so cavalier about the risk/benefit ratio of jumping to a startup with no product ready to go.

I point out my case, because I think if they really believe they are going to impress people with simply the salary quote, they are only going to attract people below my capabilities, which would be well below what they seem to "want". Sorry, but if those SV salaries look good to you (mind you this is a startup and not Google with fringes galore and other things), you are either underpaid and unaware or you just are not as good as you think (Dunning-Krueger, ahem).

A startup is far better off being upfront about exactly where they stand, what they do, and be prefectly frank with the risks involved and not blow smoke up your ass. The idiots will go batshit with your pie-in-the-sky, the *brightest* not so much. Don't try to PR style market to the brightest, they'll see though it and not like it.

And it might just be that those smart enough to know what they don't know, are not so quick to rush to a place where the website sounds like they have all the answers to DB problems. I, for one, took pause at their job postings. They see "visionary," I read into and between the lines and see "dogmatic adherence to our superior view"

That's another thing, you don't generally hire the best and brightest (the real best and brightest--in more than just code monkey) into "staff" positions, they usually don't fit well.

You have to have a little irrationality to go on the startup ride and it helps if the founders realize they are not *all* geniuses and smartness is multifaceted. If they can't find people in a market as liquid as Silicon Valley, they apparently can't pay the price and have to make their expectations more realistic, or simply wait longer and let probability do its thing.

There are bright people willing to work for low-pay (high short-term risk) if they feel the other benefits (thrill of doing something worthwhile) are worth it, or they like/believe in the reward. It's not all about base, of course, but that is something too.

Was it really just because of a few comp.lang.c++ posts? Aren't you somewhat (in)famous for a couple interesting things in hackerdom?

I've seen some of your posts, and while I don't agree with everything I have seen, on matters of technical issues it seems you're pretty solid, to say the least.

I'd say the only mark against you (in the unlikely event I would be on the other side of an interviewing table with you) is that you continue to hang out in this cesspool*.

* Note to idiots: there is no hypocrisy in this statement, since I never claimed to hold myself to a higher standard. An anal-rapist telling you anal-rape is illegal and can cause you problems is not a hypocrite.

Wow, you should read the last sentence of the second paragraph of the link you posted you fuckwit douchebag.

Fucking where are my mod points fucking shit.

You're quite ignorant of some basic facts it seems, in ways I didn't know were possible. Regardless of launch dates of specific products with specific names and marketing release terms. The "DR" in DR-DOS comes from Digital Research, which is a company that was founded by a guy named Gary Kildall, who created something called CP/M. You may now want to dig a little bit into the technical history of MS-DOS (in the early 1980s) and relation to CP/M, the dealings of IBM with Microsoft and with Gary Kildall and the genesis of Digital Research.

It's really quite disingenuous and dumb to imply that DR-DOS is just something that popped out of nowhere in 1989 to ripoff Microsoft, and MS-DOS was some incredible original creative work.

Did DR-DOS "rip-off" Microsoft? Maybe. Was Gary Kildall a lily white and virgin pure victim as some like to say? Probably not. But the relationship is far more long, complex and incestuous than you seem to realize.

Finally you should really read about the "AARD code" issue in the early 90s.

Well I never claimed you were anti-science. But yes, I opined that what you said is fairly anti-scientific and I stand by that.

But just so you know, citing an journal article is not science, and it is precisely the thing that the media has done for years everytime we have some fad alarmist bullshit about nutrition or health.

Citing a journal article is "doing science" or being "scientific" just about as much as using an oscilloscope or a geiger counter to find and justify paranormal activity is.

Most practicing research scientists do cite articles. But that is not the primary thing that makes them scientists and citing an article is not the scientific method.

I have no reason to believe at this point that the article you cited is at all relevant to the far-reaching health claims you're making let alone its results well accepted in the field at this point and their methods unflawed.
Oddly enough I have done research work in a field not so far removed from this one (visual sensory research), and all I'll say is that I know enough to know what I don't know but I can say with quite a bit of confidence that using this article to support your assumptions about sleep health and autism based on other assumptions about environmental light exposure takes quite a bit of hand-waving.

Well anti-science bullshit can get promoted just about anywhere on the Internet.

What I find slightly amusing is that if he had blamed his problems on WiFi he would have been pretty much universally been called an idiot.