ah, the "man up" approach to life's problems. while i'm not going to attempt to defend the individual in question's choices, i will take issue with the notion that one person should suffer for the betterment of others. to begin with, that makes the assumption that the others in question will not or do not experience their own life pain. it's not as if this man's wife and children can only suffer through his actions. we each have ample opportunity to create our own corner in hell.

this is not to say that i don't get your point - a "man" doesn't go out of his way to inflict pain on his family. fair enough. but if the flip side of that is that a man must therefore endure misery then ours is a cruel existence indeed. as a society we seem compelled to foster the idea that once a choice is made, we have to stick with it, regardless of the personal cost because, by god, the choice was made and that's that. i'm not advocating whole hearted capriciousness, i'm simply trying to say that sometimes we make choices we perhaps shouldn't have but that shouldn't condem us. this man might have been better served to not get married and have kids. like most people, i'm sure he thought it was a good idea at the time. it's not as if we live in edith nesbit's world and once we wish for something we have to keep using it.

The 9/11 mantra has been used in every context imaginable, and some that weren't (at least to me). Now we truly begin to see the long-term effects of fear on our national moral fiber. That our president could admit, while in office, that he knowingly and willfully broke federal law and there be no repercussion is a failure of American values of epic proportion. That this admission comes as a part of what purports to be an effort to protect us from

more terrorist attacks should be no consolation. Our national hubris, our seemingly unfailing ability to profess one thing (America = freedom, justice, etc) and do the opposite (presidental lawbreaking, torture, suspension of habeas corpus and rightful legal representation) should be shaming to us all, regardless of polical stripe. If freedom means that the powerful are free to do as they please without constraint, then this is indeed a free nation. Somehow I doubt that this is the self-evident truth of equality we have held so dear for so long.

i simply do not understand the vitriol that this essay seems to have generated. i, personally, enjoyed it. it was well written with just the right slant. perhaps it is common amongst salon commenters to be negative in a mostly off the the point manner. i rarely read the comments, apparently with good reason.

don't like the story? fine. don't like tattoos? fine. don't try to tear down the woman as a parent and mother based on a two page essay. that is the height of presumption and foolishness.

sheesh.

raising standards by lowering the bar.

and leave the few women who don't want kids for those of us who don't want them either.

larry's girlfriend sounds perfect for me. beautiful, smart, talented, no urge to have kids - what's not to like? i'd be happy to trade her for any or all of the women i meet (of all ages) who won't consider dating someone who doesn't want kids.

don't get me wrong, breeders of the world. go forth and procreate. i, however, have never wished to do so. i just wish there were more women that didn't want them, as i know i don't. it puts me at a decided dating disadvantage.

then be one.

being a journalist isn't about asking impertinent questions - it's about studying a situation, getting information, and dispassionately disseminating that information.

if you find yourself unable to do that, then yes, you should seek another career. believe me, you are not alone in not wanting to deal with other people in your day to day life - i hate to answer the phone, i loath meetings, i refuse to attend "optional" work gatherings - yet i am good at my job, and i maintain a professional presence.

you are. you do. do what you are, and be happy with it. there is no mystery to what you should be doing. it is as self evident as your existence.

because the time frame for a given project rarely has anything to do with the actual work that needs to be done. Typically, the required end date will be determined before any of the analysis for said system has been undertaken. And I doubt I need to mention scope creep, and the effect it has on time lines.

There are thousands of reasons software projects fail (depending on who you ask, something like 50 to 90 percent of all software projects "fail") and most of them have little to do with the developers. Yes, as a developer I'm biased, but really the hard part of writing software is truly understanding what it needs to do. After that, writing the code is simple. The problem is that the "what it needs to do" part is usually found in the heads of 5 or 10 different people who have differing opinions about the "what". Tell me how I'm supposed to accurately forecast how long that's going to take to work out (and get management to agree to it) and I'll finish on time every time.

One thing I will completely disagree with Mr Rosenberg about - building a house is no more likely to finish on time that building a system. It would seem that construction would be a reasonably simply process to project, but having my own house built has proven to me that it just isn't so. And the reasons are approximately the same.