ibsulon

Well, that's how Expect became public domain...

I don't know about that. For a while, at least, people raved about DD's coffee.

It's human 1.0, really.

That's a saturated market too. :)

"Publish or perish."

The dirty secret of universities: the job of most faculty isn't to teach, it's to research and bring prestige to the university. In the sciences, research is a byproduct of bringing in money, so research grants are the most important part.

Thus, on top of those three classes (two at the university I live near) they're expected to put in full time work on their research.

From what I see, it's about a 60 hour average week in the social sciences. That dips to 35-40 in the summers.

Factory workers here would revolt if you limited them to 45 hours. Many regularly work 60.

These workers are taking it to the extreme: 12 months on, their kids have a shot at going to college rather than working in a factory.

Gur ceboyrz vfa'g cnenqvfr, gur ceboyrz vf gur ybff bs pbageby. Jura jr ybfr gur cbjre gb pubbfr bhe bja yvirf, naq rira jura gb raq gurz, vf vg ab ybatre cnenqvfr? Znal unir fhttrfgrq gur fnzr ceboyrz jvgu gur gurbergvpny urnira: ng jung cbvag qbrf rirelbar whfg trg oberq?

How many times was Marion Jones tested? He had BALCO-type money that could help evade the current state of the art in testing.

No, just Lance Armstrong. (Many allegations have followed him.) To be fair, he's accused of blood doping, not steroids.

Cycling seems to be governed by the phrase, "If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying."

Do you believe that Electronic Arts would use LUA if it produced an inferior result? Do you think it would harm their efficiency and portability if they weren't mystically "excepted" from the policy?

This assumes that a non-apple compiler will yield an inferior result. Unity3D is one example to the contrary. ActionScript may or may not be another, but efficiency is our secret sauce as developers. It is our inherent value.

If you need Lisp, Python, or Ruby to increase your productivity to cut corners on web development times, perhaps that means you're not charging enough for your services.

Java or bust! Level the playing field.

It makes more sense than it sounds.

Client-side: Punch tape goes in, results come out. The idea of a server doesn't make sense because there isn't enough power for time sharing.

Server-side: We have powerful enough computers to timeshare, but computers are too expensive to have less powerful ones for everyone.

Client-side: a computer for each person doing more elaborate things is cheaper than a mainframe. Bandwidth is expensive, so it doesn't make sense to deliver all but the most basic GUIs remotely. (How many people were using remote X applications across the world in 1989?)

Server-side. Maintaining application executables (upgrades on all machines, security rights, telecommuting and mobile computing) is more expensive than putting it all on a web server. However, interpreted languages are just a bit too slow to run on their own. (Java was a viable option, but applets never caught on for many reasons, one of which was that Sun didn't put the work in to make the GUIs pleasant to use.)

Now, we have client side computers and javascript interpreters powerful enough to develop client side utilities that can be dynamically loaded, giving developers the best of both worlds. The balance switched again in favor of client-side applications. I expect this to hold for a while, until bandwidth and centralized processing power overtakes individual client machines to make server-side applications more valuable again.