This is not strictly always true. If the company you are working for is doing well and isn't in the business of cutting for the sake of cutting, then you CAN get a raise if you can articulate the accomplishments and value you add AND (this is important so pay attention) you _ask_ for a raise.

If any one piece of that chain isn't true, your chance of getting a raise is slim. You actually have to accomplish some things and add value. You DO need to be able to explain them and why they add value. Example: "I added new automation which saves us 20 man hours per week. This has allowed us to be more productive and save the company money." You must remember that this isn't a game where everyone gets a trophy just for competing. This is the real world where if you want to be shown you are valued more, you need to add more value. Just showing up isn't enough.

The whole asking part is an art that few possess. You need to be prepared for what happens if they say no and how you will react both immediately and in the days afterwards. It wouldn't hurt to have other job opportunities you're pursuing in mind. If you can have an offer in hand, then that's even better because you're negotiating from a position of power.

This is a game of chess, so don't play checkers. Changing jobs for raises is not a good long term plan to do frequently.

The world today is so far removed from anything the Founding Fathers knew that it is absurdly silly to try to weight their intentions on current situations and necessities. Moreover, the moment the Constitution was inked, arguments about what it meant began and have never ceased. Even when they were still alive debates persisted.

But most importantly -- the fact that they created a framework of amendments means that they NEVER intended the Constitution to be a static document. So whether you agree with current interpretations of the Constitution as it is written or not, you should probably avoid saying "The Founding Fathers never would have ...". Totally irrelevant. They built the document knowing full well (or should have known) that one day it could be changed and morphed into something they would NEVER have wanted.

This assumes that the clothes are generally correct in their sizes and uniform across brands. I've found this not to be true. Seems like I read articles about that recently that some brands were making large sizes smaller in name only to make consumers feel better about buying their products.

You've never had clothes fit so comfortably than those literally custom made for your body. If you've never had a nice dress shirt custom made/fit, it's a whole new experience.

Are we really that far away from a device in your home that you can stand in front of and it take your measurements? Something kind of like Kinect (if not Kinect itself).

Then you can get size suggestions based on your preferences -- like you clothes to be a perfect fit or a little loose? Would you prefer clothes custom made to your exact measurements for a premium?

Actually I'd be pretty shocked if someone isn't working on that right now.

Not necessarily. It really depends on how they do the integration. If they set the application default behavior to always open docs with QuickOffice, then maybe. But if they leave it as an option and you have to manually select to always use QuickOffice then I would venture to guess there's virtually no chance a suit would be filed and even less of a chance of it being successful if someone does.

Easy.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-10343601-263.html

Sure, if you were willing to fork out some money they'd fix a problem caused by faulty design, but not otherwise.

Your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what JIT manufacturing (i.e. lean) is and what it tries to accomplish. Hint: it's not about doing more with less. Further, you either willingly fail to mention Kaizen (continuous improvement) or just aren't aware that THIS is the heart and soul of the true Toyota Way.

Whatever the reasons they failed in software engineering, neither JIT nor Kaizen would be to blame because neither of those try to nor should they translate to "engineer badly".

We Kentuckians aren't all ass-backwards anymore than all Californians are LA gangsters or all New Yorkers are mobsters.

If you want to say "an economically depressed state with generally fewer technological resources than others beat you" then fine. But try to avoid stereotypes mmmkay?

Yes -- premium economy (Kayak and Expedia offer this search) and by selecting your own seats to get exit rows and such.

My experience is that seats that offer legroom in the economy cabin go very fast including the premium economy seats on transcontinental flights. Seems people are willing to pay a 300 to 500 extra for that comfort if they're going to be stuck in that seat for a while. Business class adds just too much cost to be as attractive.

It's not rocket science. Rightly or wrongly Canonical has decided that the future of general computing is in the mobile space and they are working on getting Ubuntu there and bridging the gap between the mobile computing experience and the desktop computing experience.

In simplest of terms, they're trying to make a distro that can be both a phone and a desktop all in the same device. Again -- rightly or wrongly -- they have decided that they needed to move certain things in house to best accomplish that goal (Mir) and needed a specific interface they were in control of to scale between display form factors (Unity).

If you are a person that thinks this direction is wrong and will hurt Linux in the long run, then you belong in the "bad for Linux" category. I'm a person that thinks this is absolutely the best way for Linux to finally have its "year of the desktop" similar to how Apple made their comeback but with a twist -- by providing a compelling mobile experience with a device that just so happens to be able to double as someone's desktop when they want a bigger screen.

Pay attention to plunging desktop sales numbers. As people find ways to make mobile devices and tablets their only computing devices, this strategy will start to look smarter and smarter. Whatever else you think of Canonical (and by extension Ubuntu), this will either make them or break them.

Having the batteries centralized like in the Tesla is a GOOD thing. They keep the center of gravity low on the car making it almost impossible to roll (seriously, the NHTSA had to specially design a scenario to get it to roll) and they make it possible to swap batteries for a quick charge which is going to be necessary unless the capacity of batteries can be increased by a factor of 10 with charge speeds doubled or tripled.

This is a step backwards in many ways not to mention the least of which is to necessarily increase the cost of mild accidents to replace the battery integrated pieces.

I've _never_ seen a mid-sized business using that kind of a model. Not even close. Not saying there might not be some out there, but all the ones I've seen have requirements for most of their employees that just wouldn't work with all Chromebooks.

This is a bit of an overblown notion.

The need for system admins isn't going away anytime soon. The only thing that might go away are heavily specialized admins that don't diversify. Hint: if your resume title is "Notes Admin" then yeah, you are working on borrowed time.

There is still longevity in system admins for those that have diverse skill sets. Just browse job listings and you'll see it -- qualification listings are getting longer and longer. This DOES mean, however, that the number of admin positions that could be open at any one particular time is probably not growing as fast as other jobs.

What I personally have noticed is that the mid-range jobs have just about dried up. Companies either want someone fresh out of college that will work long hours for peanuts or they want seasoned experts that are worth the money. Maybe it was this way before the dot com era, but that's when I hit the workforce, so I only know how things were from then to now.

Canonical is making the gamble that the future of Linux desktop computing as a major platform, if there is one, will be in the mobile space via convergence (i.e. use your phone as a desktop on occasion by hooking it to a keyboard/mouse/monitor). If they can pull off a great phone experience that offers a compelling Android/iPhone alternative, it's a win for them. Even if not a single user decides to use it as a desktop and only as a phone, it's a win for them. It will offer Canonical a potentially sizable revenue stream they've never had before.

That being said, their intent, as I understand it, is to make neither mobile nor desktop second class citizens -- to put them on the same level playing field. Whether they achieve this lofty goal remains to be seen.