As a self taught guy, people won't code review for free. People may use it, but they won't review it. The only time that people will review your code is if a bug through use is found, or they are trying to learn from it. After having my work taken and used over the years, I just tend to follow the silence is golden rule. And FYI, professors (at-least at my public state university) aren't there to do code review, and the TA graders are often underpaid and under qualified. They are there to check a box to make sure you did the assignment/project. Joining an OSS effort can be an inadvertent source of code review, but this often comes in the form of competing designs and if you're lucky, actual patches to your code. As an example, If my code was understood to the point that someone was able to write a patch, I would consider this an affirmative plus.

Everyone complains about an interest group until they become part of one. What you want is a different government.

He was such an atrociously bad leader _for the opposition party_. There, fixed that for you. I don't think there was an solution that Obama offered where he didn't have to pull Republican's along kicking and screaming, along with foaming at the mouth and wild accusations and so forth. I would like to be proven wrong however.

Arctic Wildcatters

Since parts of the python standard library can dramatically change every x.x release. I found learning to apply and maintain code written in the "standard library" to be cyclical hell in a hand basket. Much of the documentation these days is along the lines of: No, usage of this or that feature was deprecated. No, though not documented, it's done this way now. No your getting this error because.. well.. we don't know, its ether 2.5, 2.6, or 3.0, figure it out. Given this experience, I don't see how a dead tree covering a particular one is of all that much value. To me a selling proposition would be one which provides a continuity in documentation with fully explained use-cases of features after 2.5- for those of us who have had to pick up the language and deal with the mess of non-versioned code. A mess that whether the authors of the language like it or not, do have a hand in being responsible for.

The assumption that I've un-friended someone because I hate them is flat out wrong. To me, facebook is a tool to keep up on real life friends. I don't pretend to keep up or care what the other 50+ people that qualify as weak acquaintances are doing, I just don't have the cognitive overhead for it. Additionally, I prefer to avoid divulging who I am to weak acquaintances that walk the line of total strangers -it's an issue of trust, it has nothing to do with hate, and it is a function of time. Removal is forced because I don't want to maintain what is a dishonest relationship with someone.

And this is why it is still in use. It's about TV specials, movies, and instilling enough fear to protect government IT sector jobs -and thus necessitating the lumping of enough bad guys together to justify contractor expenditures.

Ever heard of US merchant marines getting plundered in the news? No? This is why. Cheap, Low Tech, Takes 5 minutes to train and use- resulting in a much more recognizable deterrence.

Is the whack a mole machine broken or something?

Wake me up when we have a viable option to Earth. Given Peak Oil, U.S. foreign policy, and global warming etc it seems we aren't learning from our mistakes and are going to need it.

So in summary- critical mass.

The problem with documentation is that everyone wants it but no one truly values it. When I think of an important project, do I think of the poor bastard that took the time to document it -usually not.

Wait, so it isn't God's vengeance for Bee homosexuality?