Unfortunately, Certification is the only way the IT world has of "proving" that a given employee can do the job. A growing number of employers will pay for or reimburse the cost of taking them in the US.

At least certification is a more reliable indicator of actual job knowledge than a degree, these days.

I wouldn't say nothing. But, unfortunately, you still need to be able to play office politics, or you will end up with someone else taking the credit for all your hard work: And, unfortunately again, IT-types tend to be less good at politics at than the type of person who gets a degree in "Business Administration" in IT.

You cannot be both a geek and successful without leaving your comfort zone, sadly.

When was this posted, June 30 2004?
Sounds like the Dem line back during the Bush/Kerry Campaign.
Considering that Iraq is mostly peaceful now, and well on it's way to a stable democracy, with US troops transitioning to primarily training and support roles. (as dictated by the Status of Forces Agreement).

Not nearly surprised as I am. and the Post I was responding to was marked as "interesting", no less.

Not really.
It just shows that he hasn't made a detailed study of the middle east and Islamic Sects.
While the difference between Sunni and Shia, and the difference between most Sunni and Wahabi, is very important to an Islamic individual, from an outsiders point of view they are relatively minor differences.
It's not like he works for the State department or something.

How is Israel in it's current form criminal and cruel?
Because it is a Democratic society?
Because all of it's citizens are allowed to vote?
Because all people who stayed in Israel following it's War of Independence (when it was attacked by 5 nations without provocation) were given citizenship?
Because it attempts to protect it's people when thousands of mortars and/or rockets are launched upon their homes and schools, by launching a single guided missile at the launcher/mortar site?
Because it gave up, completely and freely, land which it had held for over 40 years? This land had been intended as a "buffer zone" to help defend against a fourth attack from Egypt, but Israel-Egyptian relations had improved enough that it was (hopefully) no longer needed as such, so they kicked thousands of Israelis out of their homes and gave them to the people who had been trying to kill Israelis for generations.
Because, every once and awhile, when the Israeli people demand that something be done about the rock/mortar/suicide-bomb attacks, they send in a surgical strike force to attempt to remove the leadership of those attacking the Israeli populace?
Because it will not guarantee the "right-of-return"? (Definition: All Palestinian refugees are given full Israeli Citizenship. "Palestinian Refugee" definition: A person "whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict". UNRWA's definition of a Palestinian refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948[2] regardless of whether they reside in areas designated as refugee camps or in established, permanent communities. "Refugee" definition: A refugee is a person who flees to escape conflict, persecution or natural disaster.) There is no Census of Palestinian Refugees, who now include many individuals who have moved to Palestine with the intend to fight Israel. Estimated number of "Palestinian Refugees": 4.66 million. Population of Israel: 7 million.

Perhaps you are referring to the failure of the "roadmap"s? It should be noted that while Israel has consistently done much of what was required in these agreements, the Palestinian Authority has never done so.
Or maybe the occasional destruction of WMD or WMD-production capacity of various nations surrounding nations which have loudly proclaimed their indention to destroy Israel?
Help me out here.

Individuals may boycott these companies if they wish.
The bill doesn't ban them from doing business IN the United States,
It bans them from doing WITH the United States Government.

In other words, as a unit, the Government would be boycotting these companies.

I do agree with the double-standard; however, The Chinese Communist Party has been far more accepting of gradual loosening and openness than has the Iranian Mullahs. Engagement does work, if the organization you are attempting to engage with is a rational actor.

No, you got it wrong. The joke is:

Personally, I think his memory would be better served if you pretend he died immediately after the "Thriller" Album came out. Everything after that was someone else.

Why should I pay them.
Cut out the regulations, and let them pay their own way: and they can keep the profit they make too.
Profit drives innovation far more effectively than government contracts.
Government Contracts seem to drive little more than cost overruns, these days anyway.

It would be just as easy to make autonomous operation for vehicles too, if everyone filed a Driving Plan at least 12 hours prior to leaving.
That goes for people walking, too.
I think the incidence of DogStrike would be a little higher than the incidence of BirdStrike, but not too much.

When you don't want to have to put a nuclear reactor in the tank that the supercomputer is going to be shoehorned into. (As a higher-up poster suggested).
I'm sure the Army would like all the IT/InfoWarfare abilities that comes with a prepared Command post in their field HQ, and still be able to run off of the truck mounted generators they use now.
Power is a BIG concern in field operations, as you can't count on being able to tap into the local grid, as it may be unstable due to fighting (like Iraq, though it wasn't stable to start with), or entirely nonexistant (like Afganastan).

No, Tax evasion just gets you a job.
Setting tax policy.

I was going to say DARPA already has a project working on this, but I was wrong.
They have three (or more).

DARPA's ongoing research is listed on their site. Have a look.
http://www.darpa.mil/off_programs.html

No, It probably won't.
For some reason, DoD always goes for a proprietary flavor of Unix.
And not the same flavor either. A wonderful mishmash of Solaris, HP-UX, and others.
What's really nice is that in tech school they give you a 3-day lecture on basic Unix commands, and tell you "You'll never use this".
Then you'll get on-station, and have to install one from scratch.

Not necessarily easy to program.
It just cannot require explicit knowledge of the system architecture in order to program, like the old mainframes did.
Of course, there is something to be said for explicitly managed systems. A mainframe with 512kbytes of memory ran the air defense of the United States from the 1970s until 2004 (well, three of them). Why wasn't it replaced earlier? Because they tried to, four times, with general purpose computers but, until 2004 (and a dozen-or-so Opterons), they couldn't handle the load.

But the military no longer trains many programmers. And hiring Contractors (or G.S.'s) to program for explicitly managed systems is very, very expensive.

Also, I think they want a total power of 50GFLOPS/W, including the power used for cooling.
If I was planning to put this rack in a tank or a ship, that's how I would write the spec.