Most programmers I know (myself included) hate doing UI work. We feel that there are people far more qualified to do layouts and graphical design than we. Unfortunately, this usually falls on deaf ears for management, who feel that it's a lot cheaper to have one person do mediocre work, than two people do something that actually looks good/is usable.

why does a moon rock taste better than an Earth rock?

If you don't like that, try some Archduke Chocula. (P.S. It appears that you beat me to it. I tip my hat to you, Sir)

Baconated Grapefruit? Admiral Crunch?

Steven Spielberg's non-union Mexican equivalent.

And the majority of the software folk go "we need a language that's not stewarded by Beelzebub himself"

Or denies? Because there's a big difference between the two, and I believe it's the latter.

Exposing an internal ID in such fashion is not only foolish, but very much a beginner error. I would expect this from some half-assed forum software - not a bank. That said, I've worked for the government before, and seen the same stupid mistake repeated time and time again. A salted hash would have been a lot less idiotic. The fact that there was no authorization performed makes compounds the issue, however, and one wonder who these people hired to write their infrastructure.

Mango is the next iteration of Windows Phone

I see they're using Urectum's deprecated name.

Maybe so, but it's not like "yongzh" distributed the source code of his emulators, which _is_ required by the work derived from GPL. That said, while SNES9X doesn't use GPL, it does forbid commercial use of its source code.

Visual Basic (and all its variants, including .net) is an abortion of a language - they can keep it.

I seriously doubt this type of an idiotic patent would fly in court. On the other side, given that this affects smaller developers who would rather not become entangled in lawsuits, this issue will likely not be handled for a while - at least not until larger companies become involved.

... Thank you, Captain Obvious