...when every programmer (and tech support person, and manufacturing person) in the US can get a job, that's the time for US operations to be looking for foreign help.

But since age, health, formal schooling, in-country location, and credit score are widely and consistently used to deny highly skilled US programmers jobs -- I am very confident in saying that Mr. Graham has not even come close to identifying the "programmer problem" from the POV of actual US programmers. All he's trying to do here is save a buck, while screwing US programmers in the process.

Do it his way, and the US economy will suffer even further at the middle class level as decent jobs go directly over our heads overseas, while, as per usual, corporations thrive.

This is exactly the kind of corporate perfidy that's been going on for some time. Graham should be ashamed. He represents our problem. Not any imaginary lack of US based skills.

Not on a 1:1 basis, they're not, not unless you're slamming on the brakes.

Instead if replacing comparatively-cheap programmers with cheaper overseas programmers, why not replace expensive middle and upper management with cheaper overseas middle and upper management? For what our CEO makes, I could hire a couple hundred engineers. But I bet I could find a guy from India who'd be happy to be our CEO for about what one engineer makes. And he'd be every bit as effective at it as our CEO is!

I'd guess they probably tried to dump several gigabytes of comments into one gigantic XML document, and their... lessee 18 years... I'm going to say, DG/UX system couldn't handle a file of that size. Is that about right? I don't even want to know what hokey solution they duct-taped to their system to get it to spit out XML.

If only there were some sort of magical agency that knew how to deal with communications and could actually design a decent transfer format for these guys. I bet that very same agency might know why it would be important that the people who provide access to the Internet should not be allowed to constrain those channels based on who you decide to talk to.

If the main text of a religion isn't a reliable guidebook to that religion, how can we determine if anything is?

Obviously, we can't.

What made you think we could?

All major (and most minor) religions present huge diversity. Within Christianity, the bible is taken as everything from vague metaphor to the "inerrant word of God." The Koran for Islam, the same. Buddhist practice ranges from meditative to non, from vegetarian to non, from rigidly scientific to the most laughable crystal-gazing nonsense you've ever heard of. New agers.... that's a basket so broad I don't even have a clue as to what it really means, although I have to say, I've rarely come away from someone's description of their new age ideas thinking "wow, that made sense." OK, actually, never. But I figure it could happen. :)

In addition to actual sect differences, there are practitioner differences, and they range all the way from non-believers who are there for the social aspect, to rigid adherents to every jot and tittle in every book (and some, like the Catholics, have quite a few books.)

For my part, I figure, if I want to know what someone thinks, just ask them. Unless I have specific relevant evidence, I don't assume people fit into standardized boxes. I have found that to very rarely be true.

Since the mid 2000s I feel like I've been seeing a lot more BFI solutions, BAD BFI solutions, than I did back in the '90's. I guess back then you had to use some finessee in your programming to get the performance you needed out of the system. Either that or I'm working with more bad developers lately. I suppose that's also possible.

What if, instead of doing that, we came up with a language that you could use to build your program without a browser? Now stay with me here, I know this sounds crazy, but it could work! Since you're not working with a fundamentally stateless protocol, this language wouldn't need to maintain state externally to itself! All its variables and state would be self-contained! But since you might want to pull data in from the network or a database or something, you could add interfaces to that functionality to your language! Wouldn't that be something? I know, I know, this suggestion has been made, like 12648430 times before, but I think it's a really good idea that could work!

Yeah, we do. And you know what else we do all the time? Come up with new words when we're tired of being pointlessly confused with ambiguous words. Otherwise, we'd spend all day saying pass me the thingy thing, you know the thing by other thing, no the other thing.

Yeah, it would obviously make much more sense to just send every tool imaginable and spare parts for every possible thing that could ever break instead of one small 3D printer. You're so smart! If only NASA had consulted with you first.

One man's /sarcasm tag is another man's political viewpoint.

Docket is a container, but not all containers are docker. I'm pretty sure Google doest down load their images from docker hub.

Which means absolutely nothing because you can't actually use any of that firepower in any conflict short of "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end." That's not to dispute the rest of your points, which are mostly valid, but let us leave the SSBN out of the calculation of modern naval firepower. They have a specific mission: deterrence. The day they are called upon to loft their birds is the day that mission has failed.

There is an argument to be made that we need more ships, particularly attack submarines and surface combatants. The former will prove decisive in any conflict with the PRC and the latter are needed for missile defense, amongst other missions. Unfortunately most of the shipbuilding budget is going to the Gerald Ford CVNs while the looming Ohio replacement is going to consume billions more. Both are needed at the end of the day, so unless we're going to throw more money at the Navy I'm not sure what the solution is. I'd opt for throwing more money at them, since it takes decades to build a modern Navy, and it can't be used (as easily) for interventionist adventures in the same manner as a standing army....

Why the fuck does everyone assume that cyber attack automatically means internet connection? Stuxnet hit the airgapped Iranian nuclear facilities via USB drives.

Not really : "hardinfo" itself is not known or not known under that name, and a report about the installed hardware is a bit worthless (lspci and lsusb do about that).
The Device Manager is not only a unique GUI (stable during two decades of Windows versions), it allows to choose or install drivers and even to configure the drivers. You can do things that are seemingly impossible in linux like limiting a wireless card to a maximum speed (to get a connection "slower" but more stable), or other things. It would be not only having the simple GUI (from times when Windows was easier to use) do lsmod and modprobe kind of work, but also configuring the kernel modules (or kernel), which is something an advanced user is likely to not know about (do I need to set up a build environment and recompile kernel modules?, compile kernel?)

There does exist a useful GUI under linux, the "Proprietary Driver Manager" which allows to switch between nvidia and nouveau (for instance) by clicking a radio button.

Well THAT is fucking offensive, the way you said "codifying" it sounded like "codpiece".

Yes? Well then...

Baldric... Bring me... The Black Russian!