One major thing that you'll have to get accustomed to is being hands off with the technical implementation. Set your expectation of what needs to happen, bring your team about to help make decisions on what direction you want to go in, but when it comes to putting word into form... stay away. It's far too easy for past developers to turn into micro-managers at the implementation level, which will definitely cause issues for your team going forward.

On the plus side, you have a much greater foundation with which to make value judgments of how well your team is performing. You should be able to staff a great team, given what you know about the technical end of things. The worst of the worst, when it comes to managers, are the ones who allow themselves to trust anyone with anything... and end up getting hoodwinked by the vocal incompetent.

There's also the case to be made for risk takers applying their attitude toward their work. You probably won't get awesome innovation if you're incapable of adapting or fear change. I don't think that someone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet should be summarily rejected... but at the same time, I'd have a backup plan in case the eventuality of an accident finally meets up with them.

Those aren't "CS," though. There's a guy here who never would have survived standard CS, but got his degree in something like MIS or BIS... he insists his degree is more essential to business than CS. Sad to say, he talks up a storm, but is incapable of following through on what he's promising.

It's the "IT" specific degrees that will flood the market. The Information Systems, Business Systems, and so on, because those are where the math and logic requirements are minimal. They deal with people, and how people relate with computers. It isn't unimportant, but it also doesn't produce very good developers, either.

Fascinating! In one paragraph, you completely contradict another. Software developers are also your users. I'd suggest leaving the ego at home and provide what people need, instead of being a douche for no apparent reason.

I think this reflects a fundamental ignorance of how securities work.

Some things need government control. It isn't really a "leave it up to the free market to decide" sort of issue. When you're talking about running the pipes, so to speak, there's an enormous barrier to entry to the market. In fact, what we currently have is the result of government funding... why should some business be able to profit off of that which everyone else paid for? To me, that seems ass backward.

The other part of the jobs bill is that it's another way that the Executive Branch is trying to be involved in things it shouldn't be. They give the excuse of "It's not Executive, it's Legislative" when asked about patent reform, but they have absolutely no problems with trying to be legislative when it suits them.

I blame the American public and education for that mess. If the people knew that the Executive Office was more intended to behave like a police chief, and not like a king or dictator, then Obama might have been laughed at with all of his promises 3 years ago.

Flu symptoms are the response of a functioning immune system. If you get a vaccine, you are training your immune system to fight a specific microorganism. When your immune system is getting trained, it is going to be fairly active in response. This response takes the shape of mild symptoms.

In other words, a flu shot will make you feel like you have a mild case of the flu, even though you might never actually get infected. It's the same principle as how allergies work.

I get nearly nonstop calls from across the country for .NET related positions. I would most definitely recommend including .NET in the repertoire. Only someone that's pledged themselves to the religion of software philosophy would encourage another to purposely limit their potential. To do so is pretty insane.

It's actually pretty true. Madison is similar to the PCU depicted in the movie.

Error. Let's at least get the terminology correct, lest we mistakenly argue over false premises.

Atheism: The theory or belief that God does not exist.

There is no religion or foundation for atheism, it simply is a lack of belief. There is no belief. It isn't something that requires support.

Religion has a number of meanings, but it's root is in Latin, some point to "religare," which makes some sense. It means "to bind." Religion is a general set of rules / laws that governs a certain set of beliefs. Religion is not faith, nor is it belief. Religion can be corrupted or modified. It can also be argued that every living human has some sort of religion that they adhere to - be it the belief that morality is a child of human rationale, which then binds our behavior according... or that morality is a creation of a deity. To live in a world without religion is to live in a world that is incapable of civilization.

Faith operates upon a completely different level. Some of the various religions involve a faithfulness to a particular deity. Christianity to the trinity, Jews to YAHWEH or El, Muslims to Allah, etc. In these cases, the religion gives an outline for maintaining faithfulness.

So, let's not confuse these terms. They should not be used interchangeably. Religion is generally a human invention, which comes in many varieties, is corruptible, is abused, etc.

Medicare also doesn't pay very much, nor does it pay very often. There is a shortage of professionals that will entertain Medicare patients for this reason.

This is the same behavior that the US Federal Government has, with respect to providing states with funds for highway maintenance. This applies to the legal age to purchase alcohol, though.

CS doesn't exist as a job description in the US, either. The guy is trolling.

I do software development, data warehousing and analysis, and a myriad of other things... I work in IT. I say I work in IT. I don't particularly care if I get lumped in with help desk people - particularly because somebody has to do it, and I'm glad it's not me.