Here's an idea for a practical use of the pressure sensitive keyboard, an idea which may put a team of contestants off to a good start. You know, most of the time you typo you know you are about to do it a split second before you actually do. Like while you are in the process of typoing, you can feel yourself hit the wrong key. It's like your brain screams YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG, but your body just can't stop pressing that wrong key.
This leads to a scenario where there is likely an abnormal amount of pressure on the "wrong" key press, like a light pressed keystroke (a 'checked swing' if you can deal with a baseball analogy), while at the same time there might be an even lighter pressed keystroke on the "right" key, or maybe a full on keystroke on the "right" key immediately following the checked swing on the wrong key.
This pressure sensitive technology might be useful after all. It may help develop a keyboard which aids humans in minimizing typos.
Just a hint contestants, just a hint.

Well, thank you for your input. Unfortunately, you have no clue on the subject you are talking about. To most readers of ./ I don't even have to point out your intellectual shortcomings, because they are pretty obvious. After all, you are the idiot who compared cost of living to a corporate move, as if they had any coincidence what so ever. I advise you actually read a book or two on the subject, figure out which way is up, and then get back to us. You just interjected a kindergarten equivalent of "Hey look at me!" into a somewhat serious discussion of adult nature.

The adults are talking now, and we aren't striken with any sort of lust for a particular politician. So why don't you come back and ask questions once reality sinks in, and you've developed some sort of clue. If you think every U.S. company who has the power to move out of the overbearing state has done so, and if you think that taxes, tariffs and mere U.S. Law is just some sort of impracticality, then I hope you stick around and follow the news as these formerly U.S. companies become foreign holdings en masse. Whenever you deal with the type of money our biggest corporations call pocket change, it's never relevant to brand those dealings as trivial. The world is a big place, and the world doesn't quite think like you. You need to abstract, way abstract your ideas, or you can continue to not understand anything someone else does. It's just kindof the way it goes. All 300 million people in this country have plans. However none of their plans will survive first contact with a force who will work agaist their plans. It's just the way of life, apparently you haven't picked upon that yet.

That would be a lot simpler than what we have, and I'm for anything simpler than what we have. I also wouldn't be opposed to a flat tax of some sort wherein only real-live individuals are taxpayers, and corporations may own no "profits". Meaning the CEO, the board and shareholds are taxed on the entire profits of the corporation, and the corporation itself can claim no profit or loss.

Whatever we do about the current issue in question, it won't solve the big problem. U.S. Taxes are too overbearing and too complex to be handled efficiently. That is the real problem. Current tax codes are so complex neither the IRS, tax law firms, the executive or even NASA can figure them out without a month of hearings on some item or another. That's no way to run a revenue stream, even for politicians.

What Obama's administration is trying to do is tackle one symptom of a defunct system, and I'm afraid it's going to break the system if it's attacked too harshly. Once the congress and the executive gets on the crazy train, they aren't very good at getting off until the train has derailed itself and landed on the The People.

Hey, I've got a better idea! Let's close all these loop holes, raise corporate taxes and lower individual taxes! Let's make the corporations support our entire overly extravagant government budget, the war state, the welfare state, and the credit market bailouts!

Now, just remember, no whining when you can't buy anything or find a job. Oh, wait! We could pass laws to *make* corporations hire you, and pay you very well!

But no whining when they go bankrupt because no one can afford their goods. Oh, Wait! We can pass laws to *make* people buy the goods.....

There are two sides to every extreme. My post was just a word of caution.

With the "free" (read "internationally managed") trade agreements we have with foreign nations, I don't think "fixing" these "loopholes" will have the effect this administration desires. "Fixing" these "loopholes" and thus increasing the over all tax burden of a corporation may have quite the opposite effect.

If it becomes more lucrative and less of a tax burden to be a foreign business inside one of these countries with managed trade agreements instead of a domestic one, what will happen? The business will move because tariffs and import taxes become cheaper than domestic ones. That means unemployment grows and tax revenues drop.

This administration would be well served to tread lightly, and ensure that conducting business withing the U.S. is cheaper than foreign alternatives, else the U.S. may find itself with very little businesses conducting any business at all.

I've done some doodling, nothing serious. The Eclipse plugin with emulator integration is very nice to work with.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't think this is a proper use of federal authority. National broadband, national healthcare, what's next, nationalized gasoline distribution? It just never stops.

The modern, knuckle dragging, federal government has 3 tools in it's toolbox when it comes to nationalizing any market. The ban, the subsidy, and heavy-handed regulation are the only tools it understands. They either ban it, like illegal drugs, or they subsidize and regulate it, like pharmacological industry. What ever happened to lazziez faire in this Country? The government has no interest in efficiency, or the bottom line. If national broadband costs too much, they'll subsidize the providers and tax the people on the back end, or increase public debts. Either way, the people will still pay the costs. The government has forgotten that the public does not own, and is not entitled to everything anyone else has in this country. The routers, switches, and cables are physical assets of the companies who own them, and it's certainly not up to Congress to decide how those assets are utilized, unless used in a crime.

I'm with the posters above me who would rather see government exercise it's authority properly and break up the monopolies who's anti-competitive practices cause the lack of consumer satisfaction. Instead, the government plans to lie in bed with the very same providers who are currently screwing over said government's constituents.

Every war ever won has been won on the backs of the boots on the ground. The assumption you are making is that rifles cannot compete with tanks and plans and missiles.

That assumption is simply wrong and anyone remotely familiar with tactics and military history would tell you the same. The insurgents in Iraq and the VC in Vietnam surely didn't agree with this line of thinking.

Q.) If the tanks, planes and rockets defend the country, who defends the fuel these tanks, planes and rockets rely on? The millions of gallons of fuels required to keep these things flying and driving isn't very mobile, yet these instruments are, so who defends, or can attack the fuel farm?

A.) Men with rifles.

Q.) Who finds targets for the planes and tanks and rockets? Sure satellites and P3's are good at narrowing them down, but there are good reasons reasons good reconnaissance units and forward observers are incredibly important in a modern military. Who then, could counteract the groups finding the targets for the planes and tanks, and how do these recon units and FO defend themselves while forward of the reach of the planes and tanks?

A.) Men with rilfes.

Q.) Who safeguards the maintenance and resupply of the planes and tanks and rockets? They break down, new ones need to be built, spare parts and munitions must be delivered from point A to point B in order for these things to be effective. Who can disrupt this supply line or defend it?

A.) Men with rifles.

These are just a few examples where properly executed maneuver warfare can completely break a technologically superior force, all accomplished with 'primitive' rifles. If one consistently masses their primitive rifles on the enemies weakest spots usually defended by men with rifles (fuel depots, logistical supply areas, etc), then the enemy must then use it's planes, tanks and missiles to defend it's supply lines. Who then is fighting in the front? Men with rifles.

The learning curve is *STEEP*, but it pays off in spades. Nothing comes close to the lockdownability of GRSec. www.grsecurity.net

It's time for MegaMaid. Get NASA started on that Spaceball-1 project STAT.

Why would they need to lean new syntax? We still use bash syntax when writing BPE scripts. They need only to learn the names, arguments, and returns of the function calls. Just like they would for any software product. It's not like the BPE implementation is restricting them from learning perl or python or anything else

Doing advanced things in bash is a personal hobby mine, and if it proves useful to other admins and the company as well, than that's just a bonus.