Whew, it's a good thing that COTS router/wifi vendors don't ever do things wrong.

Or NASA?
Or any place that writes database software (i.e. Oracle, pick any NoSQL company)?
Or any place that needs people who can do weather modelling?
Or any place that needs people who can do HPC (i.e. computational science; a little redundant from the question above)?
Or any place that needs software "architects", not developers?

With a Phd (not to be confused with Phb as they only get master's degrees) there's no need to slug it out in the trenches with us mere mortals who often find Knuth difficult to follow.

You hear that? That was the giant whoosh sound that just went over your head.

Let me put it this way. With such languages you can break in to the 36% Obama 2013 MFJ proposed tax bracket and you don't even have to be living in the greater Seattle, Washington area.

I think once you're at a certain level, you must be multi-disciplinarian in languages, libraries, and frameworks. You're also primarily getting paid well because you're a good software engineer and even better at solving the business's problems elegantly and with the least amount of effort.

Working in a smaller pool can be good because scarcity drives demand. If you're in the larger talent pool you have a lot more competition which actually drives down wages, especially when you're getting edged out by dirt cheap H-1Bs.

That dropping ACID is not hazardous to your health.

I'm surprised it took this many posts to see Ruby. Ruby developers often make above national average and higher than big tech companies like Google.

Looking at the website this seems more like a product Gates should be selling rather than something useful for the classroom.

I could be wrong, but I believe systemd came out of the Redhat camp where they continuously struggled with the inability to query and manage system state for total system automation (i.e. cloud). systemd was the answer for Redhat, yet somehow everyone else starting thinking it was the answer for them too.

Instrument your documentation pages if they're online. Put high priority focus on the most used pages for your initial roll-out if that makes sense. Have your Product/UX team talk to clients and see if they find the documentation useful and make sure they have a decent quality sample size. Talk to customer support to see if customers are calling in with questions that was available or not available in the documentation. Measure cost to customer benefit and client retention and if you don't know how to constructively do that, don't change how you're doing things until you do.

As much as I can appreciate the intent and the fact that this will solve 99.999% of people's problems for this type of spamming and create 00.0000000001% of problems for legitimate users, it still feels a little like Google is trying to be the thought police on this one; you know free speech and all.

I'm sorry, but the Lenovo Miix 2 is nowhere NEAR similarly speced to the Surface Pro 3. I'm having a hard time seeing any way in which they are similar rather than how they're different.

What made Microsoft so successful and ubiquitous was their cut-rate deals with OEMs to integration their OS and Office software in to every desktop on the planet. Now, when I walked in to the Microsoft Store to buy my wife a Surface Pro 3 i5 model, I discovered much to my dismay that they don't bundle Office in to their own product! Since she is a writer, Office was critical so we had to shell out an additional $150 on top of an already expensive device that doesn't even come with a keyboard you have to pay extra for, and things quickly add up. I think Microsoft is pricing themselves out of the market except for the rare people like me who is willing to pay a premium for performance and mind boggling light weight.

My explanation is that the public has ALWAYS suspected and we expect the CIA to do morally and legally questionable things, and now we don't really care that our suspicions have been confirmed.

What your CIO should be doing is bringing together two (or more) separate proposals to the executives who then mandate that all department heads provide cost estimation and risk analysis for each of the two scenarios. Once all those are compiled together, cost and risk can then be used to help the CIO and other executives make a choice. Then they can once again mandate a conformance of all departments to the chosen solution and give the department heads X amount of time to convert N percentage of their business processes to the chosen solution. Iterate until all legacy systems and processes are sunset.

Choosing one technical solution over another or choosing to pay a cost here versus there makes absolutely no sense until you completely understand the needs, resources, timelines, and risks.

The NSA is already proactively doing this for me.