This will differ per person.

I'm an auditory learner, so when I learn best when listening and hearing. Even when I read silently, I imagine the narrator or character's voice speaking the words with the appropriate pauses and inflections. I also don't speed read. ;)

I take copious notes in lectures if there's something new to me. I hear it, analyze it, compress it (abbr.), and write it. For me, that's TWICE I've gone over whatever fact and that's usually plenty for me. Get me to talk about what I wrote in a conversation and that stuff will be in my brain at least until my next bender. ;)

I know this will turn into a "chicken or the egg" conversation...

"We shouldn't build games for Linux unless there's a proven market!"
"There can't be a market if there are no games to buy!"

But, there's an obvious "egg" here. There must first be a venturing company with a solid history of great games (*cough* half-life, portal, TF2, etc.) that's willing to take the risk. Forging new markets it ALL ABOUT RISK. If you're stunted by your fear of risk, then you're probably not a good entrepreneur.

Work it Valve. I hope it works out for the best. And if it doesn't, then EVERYONE will still thank you for giving it the ol' Orange Box try!

I disagree. If you had a horrible time at a previous job because of horrible bosses and horrible co-workers, don't BS about it. Be honest. If your old workplace is ever going to change for the better, they need to know where they screwed up.

Think you're burning bridges? You might be. But so long as you are honest and tactful in your evaluation, your integrity will be in tact and you will have a clearer mind going into your next position.

Stop coddling bad workplaces. You may be looking for a place to work, but if you are good enough in your field, employers are looking for you, too. You have power and influence. Use it.

And I made mine in cargo shorts, but what we wear while we type is neither here nor there.

And yet the sentence following your quote said "If they reported unfairly toward one team or the next, then that would be bias." which completes the metaphor.

Sweet! I've read in Slashdot comments time and time again that people are modded down as a method of disagreement, but hadn't experienced it until today. I don't know if I should be happy that I now understand it with my above post being marked as a "troll" or if I should be dismayed that the complaints have grounds.

Either way, the above post is not a troll.

I don't think you understand the difference between "bias" in news/reporting and "targeting" in entertainment. ESPN is not "biased" toward a lowbrow audience because focus on ball-sports. That's their entertainment niche. If they reported unfairly toward one team or the next, then that would be bias.

And what does "pro-environmental" mean? That they would like the natural environment to continue to exist?

They're also not anti-business. Never does PBS say anything like, "We should not organize into consolidated sales or service providers to create a streamlined delivery and accounting process." They're against corrupt business. They're bearish investors. They prefer honest and safe investment. But when corrupt business is the means to a new bubble and the myth of perpetual growth, anyone who speaks against such irrational buying will be said to be "anti-business".

They're also not "pro-welfare state", they're pro-healthy-people. Check out the Frontline (I think it was Frontline) episode "Sick Around the World". The reporter goes to different countries finding out how other nations keep their people healthy (Britain, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, etc.). They show faults with all their systems and constantly show contrast with our system which is globally acknowledges to have some of the lowest value of care for the highest cost.

What you may need to acknowledge is that, in balanced investigation and reporting, if some things seem to consistently come out to be favorable, that might not be bias... but reality.

The desktop computer is less disposable than it used to be. Average software resource requirements are not increasing so quickly relative to hardware capabilities as compared to 1995-2005. A computer purchased today with a modern (non-budget) processor, 6+GB of RAM, a $25 low-power discrete video card, and a Blu-ray drive will carry you for multiple years now.

Just like refrigerators, desktop computers are approaching "appliance" lifespan. This is a good thing for consumers and a secure thing for bearish investors.

It's all a cover up. Start buying your canned food, ham radios, solar panels, guns, shields, melee weapons, and buy a bug-out cabin because we're about to hit the zombie apocalypse, people!

At the very least, Florida will be the first to go. Anyone wanna go down there and prevent the destruction of wang of America?

Ya... didn't think so.

I don't know why, but I get the distinct feeling that what Ballmer means is that he wants Microsoft to make competing products better than Apple does. That means faster, more reliable, prettier, and able to do more stuff at once. That requires that Microsoft plays the same game

But that's not innovation. That's improvement.

Innovation is doing things differently. If Microsoft wants to do things differently than Apple, then they can create competing products that actually offer different services and options.

Let's take MP3/Media players for example. The MS Zune bombed because it tried to be an iPod with different styling and different proprietary programs. What Microsoft should do instead is create an MP3/Media player that sheds the playpen style of the iPod. Instead of competing for the same "I just want something pretty that I don't have to think about" audience, Microsoft should target the "I want to make it look exactly how I want it... and then customize how battery power is prioritized... and then share those settings with a bunch of other people" crowd.

Most people who stick to Windows machines do so because of the greater immediate control over the system that the OS offers as compared to MacOS. Fight for that population. Fight for those that want to have it their way. Offer developer tools with the launch of a new device to, at the very least, modify user interface and file handling. "Oh, the player didn't ship with an equalizer? Let me see if I can make one!"

Innovate for something different. Stop chasing the same audience. Target those who want to do a little work on their own (or just use other peoples' work!) to make a product vastly superior to what iOS offers.

We all know that the desktop computer is not dying. It's large screen, superior processing and graphics power, peripherals, connectivity options, and multitude of input devices are irreplaceable in the world of content and product creation.

What Bill is talking about is that *tablet devices* (thin, portable, touchscreen computers with crippled OSes) have such quick consumer turn-over, that they are the future of big-freakin-PROFIT.

The computer workstation is here to stay with those who need to do more than consume digital media, type out emails, or draw things with their fingertips. In fact, most people with tablets have a laptop or a PC. The difference is that people are more likely to buy new tablets when new ones come out because end-users cannot upgrade components. No adding RAM. No swapping processors. No getting a new USB dongle for the newest Wi-Fi standard. Just buy new!

They're the future... of profit.

I agree. This is seen as a compromise between the money interests and the person interests but is still not "Good". It's better, but not good.

A single-payer government healthy union would mean that the US Gov't would negotiate prices for services on behalf of the citizen users and would remove the massively redundant billing and collections overhead that every single insurance company has.

Insurers who don't want to play ball will not be eligible to receive public patients.

You don't understand what a tax is. Here is a comparison:

Tax: "Hi. I want to help take care of you but it costs money. Give me money to take care of you. No, you will not have a say on the type of care you receive nor from whom you receive it."

Mandatory Service: "Hi. You should really take care of yourself because we're all sick and tired of paying for you. Yes, that means that you're going to have to start paying for a service, but at least you get choose how and who you pay."

Then, of course, there is the best of both worlds:
Single Payer Tax: "Hi, I want to help you take care of yourself for as little cost as possible. Give me money and you can choose your service provider. We are the middleman, but we're non-profit so it will actually be cheaper than how it works right now."

Note that this assessment is the latest evolution of his general education assessment. He's finally coming around to understand what any 2nd year public school teacher could have told him at the creation of the Gates Foundation: Teachers, class sizes, and access to good information matter.

Now if only he would understand that low-cost PCs are more of a distraction at that age than a tool. But hey, when all he has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!

There are two types of leadership: Institutional, and Behavioral.

Institutional leadership is what we imagine normally when we think of the concepts of "leaders" or "leadership". These institutional leaders (officially) affect the actions of others directly and assume responsibility/accountability for the decisions of those under their influence. This may happen to varying degrees bases on competencies. One needn't be in a "leadership position" to be this kind of leader, but there must be some organization within a group (even if unspoken).

Behavioral leadership acts in such a way so as to encourage others to emulate him/her. This is also referred to as "leading by example". No organization is needed to be a behavioral leader.

The people most frequently recognized as leaders are those who exhibit the characteristics of both categories. Of course, actually good leaders from either category are hard to come by. But why?

First, people don't typically aspire to be "leaders". Many aspire to be in control, own a business, or be revered, but that's just ambition-- which is only very loosely related to leadership. Few understand the burdens involved and thus never learn to shoulder them. Be it living the virtuous life (or "walking the walk") or being able to admit without concern "yep, that error came from my team", people assume that either is too difficult.

Similarly, there are everyday leaders that exemplify the institutional and behavioral leader but refuse to take on the title because they assume it requires position and rank.

Today, we're kind of mixed up in the realm of leadership because the ambitious have retooled the term to their own cause while the actual leaders frequently attempt to evade visibility. Still, we would be better off if we could more consistently shine the light on real, everyday leaders and use them as role models for leaders of every type in the future.