Because there are much more profitable patented drugs now.

They have already been well paid to maintain those lines in the form of tax breaks, and grants of big wads of cash and monopoly.

Also, he ripped off people richer than himself. Had he stuck to raiding retirement funds, he would still be a free man.

There's also the brain dead employers that are just sure their dollar store will be swamped with customers because they have a sale of pool floaties scheduled and so all employees are to report on time or be fired. Naturally, they don't report themselves, they plan to phone it in.

A ban protects all of those people from artificially adverse consequences of behaving reasonably.

If you'd not question Valve hiring the former Finance Minister of Greece to manage the economy of their market, why would you question the reverse?

The guy's an economist. That's what you want. Meritocracy and all that. And Valve are hardly suffering for his presence in their organisation from what I see, even though they haven't put out their blockbuster game promised nearly 10 years ago.

They're obviously doing SOMETHING right, attracting millions of people and tens of millions of item sales every day.

I never said it's a great thing for the peasants when it gets to that point. I said that when things get to that point, for better opr worse, the pitchforks come out.

But note that the Wikipedia list isn't the whole story. Sometimes the revolt isn't so much defeated as it is placated after it gets going. Sometimes, the well off align with the poor against the wealthy (for example, the American Revolution)

Shutting down the insolvent banks only solves the bank problems. It doesn't solve the country's and, as you rightly point out, the banks should not be that tied to the country policy.

In many ways, making the banks insolvent is a death warrant to future credit and investment. Who's going to start a bank in Greece now? And who's going to bail out Greece when they can't afford healthcare any more, get invaded, etc.?

The problem is bigger than the banks, hence focusing on the banks is erroneous. What they've done, however, is thrown out all the measures demanded by other countries and banks that would have saved them money enough to be solvent again some day. And tied those measures in with "greedy bankers". By throwing out the austerity measures, you've basically said "We don't care about saving money or what we spend on things we don't need", and that further destroys your credit as it stinks of mismanagement.

And, ultimately, a lot of these promises they won't be able to fulfil. What they are saying is that they'll default on loans, remove the money-saving measures already implemented and then SOMEHOW get back in the black. Nobody's quite worked out the somehow.

It's like a bankrupt telling you they'll go bankrupt, but keep drinking and gambling as before, and somehow they'll get back in the black if only those damn debtors would go away and stop helping them pay their debt off in easy monthly payments.

If you have 77K you are not all that likely to pick up the rest to be a millionaire. Sorry, it's just not all that likely.

If you are in the same boat as most others here, you mis-understand your place. Do you need an income to keep going or could you just up and quit tomorrow without worry?

I see you fell for the propaganda. You accepted a bogus definition of "Middle Class". If you need a paycheck to pay your bills, you are working class.

While many here are in a working class job that pays well, it is still working class.

There is nothing wrong with working class, but why would you align your politics to support those who could just stop doing anything right now and still never worry about income at the expense of yourself and your peers?

I disagree with your professor here, each tool you add to the toolbox carries a cost. Especially if you want to maintain the code on a long term basis or reuse code between projects. So you need to strike a balance between the number of tools in your toolbox and the appropriateness of the tool to the job.

It's pretty difficult to avoid C/C++, even if you don't actually code in it will find the interfaces to your operating system are defined in terms of C and possibly C++. If you are programming devices too small to run an OS you will often find a C (and maybe C++ if you are lucky) compiler is the only compiler available. So the question with a new language is not just "is this better for the application than C/C++" but "is this language sufficiently better than C/C++ to justify the costs of adding it to the toolbox and the cost of potential future problems if I want to port the application to a different target or reuse parts of it in an applicaiton for a different target".

And much as I like object pascal I have to say that I think the answer to that question is probablly no.