Outside of your imagination, where did I state that the quote I provided was from Franklin? Go ahead and re-ready my post, read it three or four times if you must. All of your accusations are false and baseless.

In response to repeated false accusation and fabricated information, I find my ad hominem is not without basis. If you prefer people to be kind and proper holding dialogue, consider your input into the conversation first.

Your arguments are really quite poor. Let me expound on your two attempted examples. For posterity, "the Ocean" is at least close to the function of the Internet, where "New York" is not.

If a person runs a boat on the ocean are they not required to have gear to operate safely? If a boat owner had no lifeboats, no radar, no radio, not enough people to staff the boat would they not be held accountable if the boat had an accident?

If your job is to carry around cash for people and you live in New York, are you not required to do everything possible people's money safe? If an operator had no secure storage (locked briefcase, armored car, bodyguards, etc..) and just sent people walking down the street with wads of cash, they would not be held accountable when people's money ends up missing?

I'll even add one, using the always favorite car analogy. If a business is supposed to drive goods from point A to point B and has no insurance, no licensed drivers, trucks with no brakes, etc.. the company should face no civil or criminal action when an accident occurs? Are you trying to claim that accountability can only exist if they are on a highway and not a country road?

These are examples not dealing with critical infrastructure where you know damn well that people _should_ be held accountable for their poor decisions. They may simply be terminated from employment, or they may face criminal and or civil cases.

Why on Earth would the rules for critical infrastructure be any different than those examples? Hint: They should not be.

Forget Commander Keen... if only Tim Sweeney could find the ZZT source code! I first learned practical programming doing my own ZZT-OOP dungeons... much more fun that my CS class exercises.

Oh how I love false accusations by the ignorant who have refused to do the work to gain knowledge they claim others lack. Here is a good source for you, but I'm guessing that you won't do the work. With that in mind, the actual quote from Benjamin Franklin is "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." That said, there are numerous other quotes others have given paraphrasing that quote.

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

You are not knowledgeable nor are you special, no matter what mommy told you.

Did you actually read his whole post? I don't care if he would prefer not to employ people, although implying that anyone that would employ someone else for profit is pretty much Evil Capitalist Scum is a bit weird.

What I keyed off of was: " The only reason why I do not act violently against people like you is that I abhor violence even more than I abhor your ideals." The only thing stopping him from violently attacking perfectly normal employing business owners is disliking violence some small amount more?

The wrong kind of TDD leads to FDD of the type where you're afraid to break the build.

The problem with TDD that leads to this is that TDD is almost totally reactive; that is, you find a bug, you write a test for the bug so you can tell when it's gone; you get rid of the bug, and now you have this test which is going to be run on each build, as if you are not already hyperaware, having both experienced and fixed the bug, of the conditions leading up to the bug. The annoying part, of course, is when you start taking longer and longer amounts of time to get through the build to an acceptance of the build, for each test you add. Then to make things even worse, add to that the occasional false failure because the test is flakey, but it's someone's baby and it "usually works" and the failure is "timing related", and now you're testing the test, and rejecting a perfectly good build because you're unwilling to either rip out the test completely, or make it non-fatal and assign the bug on it back to the person who wrote the original test.

TDD with test cases written up front, and not added to without an associated specification change: Good.

TDD with test cases written to cover historical bugs identified through ad hoc testing: Project Cancer.

The second worst thing you can possibly do is write tests for no good reason because you're able to write tests, but unable to contribute to the core code, and you still want to contribute somehow. The worst thing is being the code reviewer and letting that type of mess into your source tree because you want the person submitting the tests to not feel bad about them not getting accepted.

Ask Slashdot: "Aren't most programming projects over-budget, behind-schedule, and eventual failures? Just like countless studies, textbooks, etc. have documented for as long as there has been IT?"

This isn't some new shocking trend. There was not, in the misty past, some sort of utopia where programmers regularly worked 40-hour weeks, never got laid off, were well-managed, and code shipped on-time, bug-free, and projects never got canceled because of screwups. I'm pretty sure every Software Engineering course ever touches on at least some of this.

Just about any complex project in any industry has a ludicrously high failure rate. Starting a new business, launching a new consumer product, designing and building massive complex machines, running governments, etc.

There's always a lot of ways for things to go wrong, and far fewer ways for everything to go right.

You sound a bit unhinged.

Did it ever occur to you that some people don't mind being employees? I'm not sure how you equate "working for somebody else" with inevitable serfdom. I show up for work for reasonable hours under reasonable working conditions, I do my job, they pay me for it, I go home. Nobody took rights away from me; if I don't like the arrangement, I tell my boss it's over and I go elsewhere. No violence necessary or wished-for.

Speaking for myself, I like working for the man! I get to spend my entire workday (consisting of reasonable work hours) doing something I enjoy (Enterprise IT architecture.) Yes, "The Man" makes more off me than they pay me (they are a profit-making company, after all!)

But in return for the 6% Net Profit they report annually, The Man does all the things I don't want to, like Sales, Marketing, Legal, Accounting, Administration, Management, Benefits, etc. I don't want to do those things myself, nor am I particularly interested in figuring out how to manage somebody else doing those things for me.

I do well enough... I'm on track to retire comfortably at 50 after years of doing work I enjoy and working with people I like (and don't have to manage!), and I have a lot less stress than a serial Entrepreneur.

If doing all that scut-work, or managing others to do it for you, is what floats your boat, more power to you! But it's certainly not for everyone.

I don't think those kids go out into the wide, wide, world to program COBOL. I suspect that the subset of CS majors that care enough about real-world jobs are the sort to take a COBOL class, just in case it comes in handy. You'd probably also see that these students are more likely to pursue computer-related summer and in-school part-time jobs, more likely to participate in open-source projects etc.

I know that when I was looking for jobs, I had a whole stack of job offers, despite a middling GPA. Some of the other students in my dept. struggled to find a job, despite better grades. The difference? Two computer-related summer jobs, four different tech-related work-study jobs, and a LOT of extra-curricular study in IT. If my school had a COBOL course, I probably would have taken it. (I did take a SQL course, which wasn't even offered by the CS dept.; it was in the business school, along with the other IT (vs. CS) classes.)

Then I would say that the management of the facility has been negligent in their duties and should all face criminal prosecution. The same would go for water treatment plants where someone could access a computer over the internet, or any other utility.

I think this depends on the damages. At best, I would say that civil liability would exist and the owners of the stock exchange should be liable to reimburse losses. If there are non recoverable damages, then we have a criminal case as well.

Why don't you hold people accountable for their actions instead of allowing them pass blame as they see fit? Anyone in any business that does not realize that the Internet is not a safe playground is an absolute idiot that has no right to work in an environment that touches the Internet.

As proven repeatedly, most citizens commit at least 3 felonies every day. If you want criminals off the street, please be the first to turn yourself in. Don't forget to turn yourself in for future crimes too, which the many so called "Progressive" regimes are pushing for (including the US, UK, Australia, etc...)

Funny how you won't admit that the system is broken because you are not currently the target of an investigation. Piss off the wrong people, and that will change really quickly won't it?

People in the US today are afraid to express opinions, knowing that they can be a target for all sorts of trouble. So not only do people far criminals, the Government that is supposed to defend our Freedoms elicits as much or more fear.

This is the exact reason so many quotes exist like "Those who give up Liberty for temporary security will get neither". It's really too bad that people refuse to learn the lessons history can teach, and just as much of a shame that our "public" education system refuses to provide the lessons.

And when they graft your face into photos that are not real you will do the same? This has already been done for political purposes (see Ross Perot) and used as blackmail.