sdafdasdfasdf

I look out for myself. My salary is a lot better than my experience level for what I do.

I'm talking about guilt. I have done this for many years now and I see people that work harder than I do each day with more skill to make much less salarywise. And it isn't just me.

I think a lot of what we get paid for is the ability to adapt and endure not knowing how to do what we do when it changes all the time.

BTW- those running their own business often are in the lower income bracket, which is why I haven't made that jump yet. More power to ya.

> Software craftsmen should be egoless, humble, with a focus on the outcome rather than the code or the process.

That sounds good. But developers aren't like that. We are concerned about getting the job done in a way that promotes our career and/or keeps us from getting fired, well- most of the time.

> I also think there should be a way for passionate, skilled programmers to differentiate themselves from the mainstream commodity bodies, and also to recognise one another, and demonstrate their value to potential employers. What could that be, and how could we make it work?

These are called certifications, and their value has diminished. Here's why:

Many of us survive by Google searching, using stackoverflow and better documented frameworks. And, there still aren't enough of us. Many of us feel we are overpaid, but most would never admit it.

By deciding on a way to determine who is proficient and who isn't, you risk a lot of people not being able to find work, and for what goal? Right now programming is an art. If you make it into a trade with the federal, state, or county regulations saying that the developer must be qualified in X, and they have tests for X (that become irrelevant daily), then you are going to (1) eliminate a lot of developers from the workforce and (2) stagnate the art because right now it develops at a faster pace than any of us can keep up with.

Why did you pin this on Marissa instead of Yahoo? She signed her name to it, but if Bill Gates or Steve Jobs did that, you would have said Microsoft or Apple.

Granted, her name has a better brand than Yahoo still, but she's working on that. What you said sounded sexist, and I'm not even a feminist or a female.

It's too bad that I got a -3 for my post- I was just being honest. Thanks for asking.

I upload content, and used to listen to it, but now I don't. Some others have downloaded the content, but it wasn't critical. I don't use the site enough on my own to justify donation. I think it is a great service- really! But, I would bet many feel the same way. Unless it is really helping others that you care about, why donate? It has never significantly helped me personally, or any that I know. I would rather donate to a charity that helps those in need. But I'm glad others donate. It is preserving history. It is just a matter of priority.

The screenshots are horribly small with no way to resize, so I can't tell what is better than Gmail.

If it had 2 factor auth and a way to trust a particular machine or application (which I think it does?), SMTP and IMAP were free (are they? used to have to pay), there were no ads (even though GMail's aren't terrible), and it guaranteed it would not delete my account or email if unused for years, if it guaranteed a better uptime than GMail (which is already good enough), had contact dupe fixer as good as or better than GMail, had plugin for Thunderbird, etc. to keep contacts in sync so didn't have to use a 3rd party free plugin that breaks at times, and I could see that it was easier to use than GMail, and they guaranteed great security (better than GMail) and that they didn't ever look at the content of my mail or my contacts, that they would never sell me out to anyone, that they were as conspiracy-conscious as I was and apolitical, and if it allowed clutter-free integration with Facebook, etc. to mine them for email addresses when I connected to someone, and if they hated spam and would help me organize my life with easy calendar integration to every major smartphone and other devices, share calendar only with family or have other calendars to share with diff groups, get things done without integrating a tasklist, and ignore the stupid stuff, and guarantee email for life, then I might use it.

Am a user, but primarily as free storage for live show recordings. It's a great service and should be supported for all they do, but unfortunately I won't be a donor anytime soon.

Every futurist claim I've ever heard has overestimated human capability and underestimated the impact of other things they possibly should have seen coming.

This goes towards the space allotment given to each user right? If so, I'm going to limit the number of attachments I use. No memes for you.

"Marks of good science: ... It does not fly in the face of the broad existing body of scientific knowledge"

Um... that's not very progressive science. So, the sun revolves around us, right?

"Google today announced that it has 135 million active users checking their Google+ streams each month"

I usually check mine accidentally, one every few weeks. I have an account and lots of circles that are populated, but I don't post on it or look at others posts unless someone points me to something which happens once every month or two.

They should have stats on the number of hits G+ gets vs. FB. I know many of you use G+, but you are in a bubble. It isn't as big as FB and won't be anytime soon.

Lubuntu should be listed, not just in a comment.