5 minutes ago, Bass wrote

The whole idea of a "corporate income tax" is silly to begin with. Corporations should pay taxes on real assets (real estate, etc.) but the idea of income only really makes sense for natural persons.

I actually agree with this, but I think most people feel that "big evil corporations" need to "pay their fair share" which means if they make more than 1% profit they aren't being taxed enough

1 hour ago, davewill wrote

@Kental2: Atlanta traffic ROCKS! You don't need caffeine in the morning when you have formula one racing six lanes wide and no granny lane.

I actually DO prefer Atlanta traffic to many other places I've lived (Washington DC, Los Angeles), but compared to waking up, stretching, putting on a robe and going downstairs to start work... yeah  I can live without the morning "steering-wheel death grip."

At any rate, slightly more on topic, and in case it wasn't obvious, I'd be in favor of an automated vehicle ride, if for no other reason than the number of accidents mightly slowly decrease over time, and we can actually use our highways as they were intended, rather than having a 6 line highway brought to a halt by an accident in a single line.

Having said that, I think I'm a little too paranoid about letting my car drive itself.  Not for any "Minority Report" big brother reasons, but simply because all it takes is one screw-up and that's the ball game.  While I understand computers can react faster than any human, it's not the reflex I question.  It's the programming  

14 minutes ago, kettch wrote

@ScanIAm: Although, if you account for that fact that many of us spend the first half hour at work going through email, voicemail and other meta-work, then you could conceivably shift that to your drive-time and sleep in another half hour.

Not to mention some people with 1-2 hour long commutes.  If they could have internet access during the ride, conceivably a company might consider the commute part of their work day so they can work their 9-5 like the rest of humanity instead of doing a weird 7-7 thing  Obviously for some career fields that just wouldn't work, but then I don't think many people would commute an hour and a half as a telemarketer or something like that.

Telecommuting is finally starting to take hold in the US from what I can see, so maybe other hybrid workdays might gain some traction (such as an hour or two in your car and the rest in the office or something).

I think most of us here being overly experienced windows users cuts us out of the mainstream in two ways: Firstly, we're more technically savvy and therefore we can roll with changes easier than others.  That's frequently been touted as the reason we're all not really qualified to comment on Win 8, since we're not "normal users."  The second reason, however, is that we're so used to how windows works that we are VERY resistant to change (it seems to me).  So the very same reason we may feel we're having less trouble adapting to Win8 is the same reason we're resisting the change more than most, because it's "different."

I realize that as a statistical result set my opinion represents practically nothing, but considering all of my most computer illiterate family members picked up Win8 and loved it within an hour, I'm a believer.  My opinion almost doesn't matter, because I'm not the "average" user - they are.  And they've definitely spoken

From my personal experience/history, this is usually expressed by an incompetent manager asking why a feature can't be done in 2 hours instead of 2 weeks, because they have no fundamental understanding of what it takes to do the job.  

Sort of the reason I keep developing  I enjoy the work, it's more like fun-time than work time, but even when things get intense it still has a payout at the end of the day.  No other job like it imo, though I might be biased

Other than that, everything I've done has felt intuitive and straightforward.  It boots up super fast, and I don't have an SSD so that's saying something these days.  The store behaves as I would expect it to, and the search functionality from the "Start" screen is crazy fast and gives me what I expect.  I'm a fan

The funny thing is I was going into the purchase with no small amount of dread at what it would be like and how much I was going to have to figure out and re-learn.

Obviously, I'm one person and therefore as a statistical result set my experience is pretty much inconsequential, but that just says to me that it's subjective.  To me the perception of Apple as being "more solid" is pure rubbish, and the delusions of a company who honestly believe their marketing (which is amazing by the way; I'm pretty sure Apple could sell machine guns to old ladies without much trouble).

One man's opinion.

Not only that, but once we get it 95% of the way there, they tell us they want us to be compatible with browser versions 6 years old.  Web standards are already unbearable as it is; go back 6 years and it's like the dark ages.  That's why I'm not so surprised that bad browser checks are so prevalent in the "wild"; it's the only way to shut some people up who don't know better.  All they see is that 3 people hit their website in IE7 last year, and darn it they need to see content correctly too!

All the developers I know and myself would be very happy with more strict standards and something that we can rely on to be consistent across browsers.  The rest of the web who have the occasional WYSIWYG editors that are poorly made or websites done by people with 10 minutes reading a CSS for dummies want to be able to do the minimum amount of effort required to get their site to look good on the browser they use, and damn the rest of the browsers.

It's a double-edged sword.  It's good because the web is so open and pretty much anyone and their dog can have a website.  And they frequently do.  On the other hand, there's a million websites out there that are made incredibly poorly, but if someone wants to visit that site in their browser of choice and it doesn't look good, it's automatically the fault of the crappy browser.

And while I'm on this diatribe, I should point out that just because a web browser is using Webkit doesn't guarantee it'll look the same as another browser using Webkit.  Rarely a week goes by when I'm not having to put some hack in for Safari that doesn't exist in Chrome or vice-versa.  And I'm not talking about Chrome windows vs. Safari mac.  I'm talking about the same browser on the same platform.  They have completely different rendering problems.

That's all I'm asking Elmer spoke to that point, so I guess we'll just have to see.