I'm pretty sure a bank could say that. It wouldn't be a bank much longer after that, and your new bank a-la the FDIC you'd at least have your insured money back. I don't believe anyone's had any significant loss of funds under the FDIC umbrella. Only a few days separated from your cash as they part out the failed bank.

I don't like this subject because it tends to give my crazy libertarian bosses arguments a point of validity. Every time a contract comes up to bid the Minority Business Subsidies are used as a sticking point to force the admins, one of which is my boss, to bid lower on a contract then they would really want, or subcontract out to qualify for the contract. How you'd even account for this in any psudo "study" like this one is beyond me. The data's not easily accessible, and most people don't want to expose the back end of their bidding process to avoid a competitor figuring out how to undercut them. Personally I'd try to look at revenue by source per employee since Government contracts tend to lean more to the Minority Business Subsidies side of the equation, but even then that's not going to expose the White Men who had to bid lower just to get the contract. Unless you accept this study as such evidence, but that's why I don't particularly like these psudo "studies". You can always twist them to whatever you want them to be.

Or did the admin mess up the config files, and he's more than happy to let Lizard-Squad-we-claim-responsibility-more-often-than-North-Korea take the credit.

You're right. I focused on what he's actually done for Valve which is make a gamblers economy which is eerily similar to what John Law did.

I don't really want to compare Yanis to a gambling murderer, but I am anyways. This sounds a bit too much like John Law getting appointed to fix the French Economy. That turned out great for everyone didn't it. Appointing someone to run your economy who's primary job in economics was to make a bunch of gambling addicts to improve steams revenue doesn't sound like the kind of person who should be fixing an economy. But who knows, maybe he'll do something good and be crowned a genius.

Clearly my English Language Compiler is based off of VB and auto corrected my syntax to rigid in my head. Hence the problem with "human" readable programming languages. We can be very vague, and still garner meaning from it. As if C weren't readable by humans. I swear I pass the Turing test, but someone thinks that just because I recognize logical blocks with braces, and understand case sensitivity that somehow I must be a machine to understand C. An example of a VB related problem is that they have a nasty habit of not ending lines with a semicolon. This is fine in VB, but languages like C, and java require them. It doesn't sound like too much of an issue, but it's easier to have the habit of ending your lines correctly in the beginning then to learn it after you've already learned to build competent programs. This make it so that a VB programmer will have a difficult time moving to OS level coding. The local college has this problem because they don't teach C to start, and the first time any of their CS majors see C is when they start down the OS path. They get confused because they've never seen pointers, or been forced to do even basic debugging of minor errors. Kinda explains whey they only had ONE CS graduate one year.

VB has always been a horrible place to start. Any programming language that doesn't have a ridged syntax structure like C is a bad place to start. It teaches sloppy habits, and makes it so you have to get rid of those habits if you want to move up into a more ridged language. C is an excellent place to start. Python is ok as a language, but makes the same sin as VB by trying to make things more "human" readable thus I believe it would have a similar effect. However, since my experience with this is limited to when VB as the idiots intro to programming I've never seen what happens when someone learns Python first. Again, C is an excellent place to start.

The bugs, and people glossing over the basic info on homeless made them much more of a problem. Homeless only really became a problem with going up to the largest cities. Traffic would snarl resulting in people not getting enough work resulting in homeless. Homeless would build up in that scenario until traffic got under control. Getting rid of homeless was only an issue if you recklessly upgraded everything. Homeless need a level 1 business that needs workers to get out of becoming homeless. If you have too many people and not enough jobs these jobs will be filled by people with homes. I've yet to see a scenario where I changed the economy to level 1 businesses with a surplus of jobs that didn't slowly remove the homeless without going all Machiavellian. Though Machiavellian is a much faster route.

Can you really call any code of ethics that permits this an actual code of ethics. Lets start with Informed Consent. You have to inform the entire world since it would be involving everyone and not just the one country you want to help. For example, just because we want to stop hurricanes from hitting Florida sounds good, up until you find out that it'll negatively affect the rain fall in another country like Mexico. So we have to inform everyone of the risks, and benefits. Then where do we draw the line at consent. Is it half the countries agree, or half the population. Is it at half, or is it at two thirds. I'd give the option for unanimous, but that's never happening. Then what if it will benefit 90% of the world, but really screw over one country?

Only 5% of the excellent programmers are in the US if you assume that all the factors that contribute to excellent programmers are randomly distributed. It's a statistically fallacy. I wouldn't expect most of Africa to produce many excellent programmers due to the large uneducated population. I also wouldn't expect China, or India to produce a directly proportional ratio of excellent programmers ether due to the massive illiteracy rate in their populations. I also wouldn't expect Middle Eastern countries with massive uneducated female populations to be able to produce the same ratio to their populations. I would expect the US, Japan, South Korea, and Europe to produce most of the worlds 5% of assumed excellent programmers due to the higher rate of educated citizens. There are a lot of assumptions, and unless you know all the variables involved, or made the necessary measurements you could also assume that 90% of the worlds top programmers were born and raised the any random country you pick, including the USA.

Sorry, but when has anyone in the field been "good" at documentation? I'd say the best "history" we got is probably just to pull all the comments off of the Linux code, or the dev groups, but that wouldn't be safe for work. If someone were to look at the comments in any major program you'd probably come to the conclusion that we're all mental patients, and criminals being hired out of some asylum. Best to leave the history as Lovelace, then Tuning, and then nothing, but Chaos.

Would you rather spend 10 for each family member?

The top 5 chains constitute over 90% of the market, and 100% in many areas. That's pretty close to ALL by most definitions.

US Theaters pulled the plug, not Sony. I also believe there's some weird defense Alliance from some War Japan was in requiring us to do something if they're attacked. I'm all for Japan arming themselves to the teeth as long as we realize it will send South Korea, and China into a panic.

Being able to explain that when it rains the line goes static is one thing. It's another to say every day around 3 oclock the line gets static when there is no rain. All the line tests would say the line was wet, but no indication of where, or why. Arizona doesn't really get a lot of rain ether. We found out when the customer looked out at the pedestal during one of the trouble shooting calls, and saw a kid on his way home from school peeing into pedestal. The older models are ok for rain, but if someone's deliberately spraying liquid at the doors cracks it's going to get wet inside.