developer1

Have you ever worked closely with upper management? I have personally worked with 3 CTO's at medium-to-large companies who have taken advantage of external relationships with partners to personally profit. I mean cash and benefits deposited in their individual hands, not the company's coffers. It's amazing how far executives in power will go to pad their pockets with extra dollars. Perhaps more incredible is how much you observe when you gain the trust of such people - I've never really understood why I find myself in a position to see these events taking place.

So yes, my personal observations over the years have made me extremely critical of any "business deal" wherein there is supposedly no "deal".

My only thought is that the airline is going to regret crumbling under the pressure from developers who wanted node.js. Allowing developers to choose whatever language they want for such a massive system is a mistake. node.js has not proven itself beyond being the latest fad. The developers wanted to use something cool and modern, while clearly ignoring concerns over the long-term viability of the system.

Oh well, that isn't a problem for anyone other than the airline. It's possible that in a matter of a few years (instead of decades), the entire system will have to be reimplemented at the airline's cost. You don't use the latest trendy language for systems which are expected to remain in operation for 20-30 years.

There's a reason nobody believe there is no money exchanging hands: if there is no profit for Mozilla in including Pocket, then there is no explanation as to why it is included. It's useless bloatware. I could "understand" if Mozilla was selling us out and being paid to do this. If they are not, nobody is benefiting, and it should be removed.

Even if there is no actual money being funnelled to Mozilla itself, that does not mean there isn't a financial kickback behind the scenes to upper executives that is not on the books, or other incentives not being handed over in cold cash.

Just because the Mozilla Foundation itself is a non-profit, does not mean that the people at the top of the food chain are not the same scummy types you find in any for-profit corporation.

No, it doesn't. Udemy would fall apart as a company without illegal content. Their entire business DEPENDS on pirated content. You really think they would be making any money with the very very few legitimate courses? The business knows the majority of courses are pirated, and they don't care. This is how they make their money.

That is normal here too, and it's more like 7-8 mph. So you can receive a ticket for impeding traffic even if the people you are supposedly obstructing would be exceeding the speed limit? Instead of ticketing the slow guy, set up a sting and ticket every person exceeding the limit by more than 6 mph. This whole thing sounds backwards.

The new CEO wants to collect evidence? The new CEO is a puppet for the board of directors. The CEO doesn't care, he's just there as a public face to play pretend that the company cares.

This "study" isn't a study at all. One week provides factually meaningless data. You'd need a minimum of 3 months just to register a new baseline, and another 6-12 months to see if those participants who originally found a higher baseline at 3 months maintain it or fall back to previous levels as the novelty of the situation wears off.

You want to know why people reported feeling better? Because they changed a habit. When you change anything in your life for a single week, you will feel better because you have pulled yourself out of your everyday routine and are experiencing something NEW. This is the result of a change; what changed - Facebook in this case - does not matter.

The novelty of a change in habit for a single week does not even begin to offer evidence of anything. This isn't even a case of "not enough evidence", but rather "no evidence whatsoever". This novelty is similar to the kind of high you get from buying a new expensive toy/gadget. A temporary boost of "happiness" that quickly fades as the new item just becomes another object in your day-to-day life.

Thank you for enlightening me as to why female public washrooms are disgusting places. I wonder how many women are honestly so germaphobic as to never touch their rear to the toilet seat. Which results in them trying and failing to perform these kinds of feats, which in turn makes the toilet and floor disgusting, which in turn makes other women not want to go near. Perpetual cycle.

I haven't had to clean public washrooms in over 10 years now, but I will never forget the incredibly disgusting sights I had to endure in the stalls of women's washrooms. While men's stalls aren't always spic 'n span either (if any man reading this has ever taken a piss without even lifting the seat, or have poured half your liquid onto the floor - fuck you), the number of occasions on which this is encountered is a tiny fraction compared to what women routinely do.

Yuck.

This is exactly it. Twitter should not have gone public, or at least nowhere near the valuation it received. You don't take in a lot of investor money without having a fully fleshed-out plan on how exactly you intend to put it to good use. Twitter's IPO was not based on logic and proven methods for growth. It was a bunch of people jumping on a bandwagon hoping that Twitter was going to be the next major player in the social media bubble.

Small and medium-sized businesses should be raking in investments to accomplish a single specific and realistically obtainable goal at a time. Large businesses who haven't yet found a way to be profitable aren't going to magically find a solution to all their problems by experimenting with dozens or hundreds of new ideas at high cost, with the desperate hope that one of the ideas will randomly catch and save the business. That approach is pure gambling, and so far the gamble does not appear to be paying off.

I honestly can't imagine what people who invested in Twitter expected to see happen. I figure that with Twitter being the next most recognized name in social media after Facebook, people simply imagined that nothing could go wrong. "Everyone knows about Twitter" does not translate as "everyone uses or will want to use Twitter".

I was bouncing between firefox and chrome, using them both more-or-less equally. The day the "hello" thing appeared, I uninstalled firefox. Too many useless and annoying things being added to firefox as core components where they do not belong. The fact that anybody can pay Mozilla to have their crappy addon forced onto all users is a problem.

Every technology company I have worked for claims and receives the SRED. None of them have deserved it - not even remotely close. Each of my companies have made millions in profit each year. We have never done anything innovative that required actual research or risking anything by developing new technologies. My teams have used linux, mysql, memcached, redis, and a couple of programming languages. 100% of the work is just writing normal code for web applications. How much of that $4 billion dollars being handed out is for fraudulent claims of R&D? I would bet more than $3 billion. There are supposed requirements to meet to be eligible for the benefit, but everyday programming work is being rephrased to sound innovative and difficult.

This benefit needs to be abolished, as the number of tax dollars being sunk into it is ridiculous. For the few percent of businesses that might actual merit such a benefit, oh well. Compete in the market like everyone else without assistance. The difference between a deserving business and a business that will lie and twist words to save 15-35% on salaries is impossible to determine accurately. Too many liars and fraudsters have destroyed the system, so kill the program and nobody benefits.

This is what citizens' tax dollars pay for. How nice that public funds can so easily be used to pay people to do nothing.

The pricing page for Glacier is horrifically misleading. That "learn more" link digs deep into their FAQ to the real costs. Retrieving a small amount of data in a rush can cost hundreds of dollars. Glacier is not a backup product, it's an archival product. There is an enormous difference between the terms "backup" and "archival", and anyone who thinks of using an archival solution for consumer backup needs is not understanding the differences and the related costs in the event of the need to retrieve data. Glacier is meant for corporations with deep pockets for disaster recovery, not for consumers.

A young audio engineer might know every possible fact about how Bluray, DVD, and CD formats work. Probably even cassette tapes and Long Play records (aka LPs). But I'm sure it's completely respectable for you to roll your eyes when an audio engineer gives you a blank stare when you bring up wow and flutter caused by a flattened pinch roller in an 8-track tape.

What would be the software equivalent? Insulting someone who starting developing on PHP 5 not knowing about the short_tags() global function which only existed in PHP 3? Someone proficient in Visual Basic .NET but doesn't know anything about VB 1-6? There is no reason to know how to develop in an ancient version of a language if every job you have had thus far has used exclusively modern versions.

Merely having been alive during the decade in which an obsolete technology was first introduced or was still popular means nothing. It may even have some relevance today when discussing the then-and-now similarities or differences, but frankly someone born decades after its obsolescence just will not care. There is already more knowledge than is possible to absorb about current technology. There is simply not enough time in a single lifetime to care about what came 20-40 years before. Perhaps if we ever push life expectancy to 1000 years, we'll spend the first 100 years of our lives reviewing every relevant detail of the past.