I don't know how other people code, but I put in the most hours and do my best work on MY pet projects, not someone else's. For the mundane stuff you do at a typical job I'm just "good". The code works and is on time but that is what any competent programmer should be able to do.

So if someone is truly a "rockstar", I have to ask why are they working for work? Shouldn't they be writing their own software, running their own company, living off of the royalties? If I hire a "rockstar" to work on MY project, which might not be exciting, will the "rockstar" do his best ever work? Or will he do no more than someone who's good, a team player, but hasn't aspired to write books or go on a talk circuit to get that "rockstar" reputation? Or worse, will the "rockstar" break things, throw out existing code, piss off coworkers, because he knows he's right and everyone else is an idiot?

There may have been a time when there was an Apple ][ in every class room. But there was never a time when there was an Apple ][ for EVERY student. That's the difference.

on every US and UK government employee. Let them become life-time victims of identity theft. Let the Chinese and Russian intelligence agencies have a field day. It's the only hope we have that they'll learn.

With laptops available under $300 (cheaper than many smart phones!) there is essentially no barrier to learning to code.

If they don't have the desire to learn to code on their own they won't cut it in the work place, their resumes will be screened out on the first pass. Why bother?

Hire enough H1-B's and it becomes more likely you'll just outsource the entire project to some contracting company overseas. And those companies also have their own management structure possibly eliminating your own boss' position.

I used to be a news junkie. That was one of the reason we got cable in the home. But then the real reporting kept shrinking while the talk (or rather "arguing") shows increased. It's like 1 hour of fluff news and 23 hours of talking heads arguing for the sake of arguing, just like that Monty Python sketch.

I got fed paying $100+ just to have 100+ channels of zero-value content so my family cut the cord a couple of years ago. When we visit relatives with cable we find we aren't really missing anything. Our Roku with Netflix is more than enough to keep us happy and surprise! we've been going to the library more.

Which is why we should all be wary of the creation of any Federal regulatory body. Once it's in place you'll never get rid of it and it's mission scope and power grows with each administration.

But in my original reply I was addressing the OP's claim that the FCC was a creation of corrupt Republicans. Clearly it was not.

They establishment Republicans have already rolled over with the passing of Cromnibus. I expect that if the push Jeb Bush to the front there will be record apathy among conservatives in the 2016 election.

Term limits.

Career politicians are largely to blame as they will vote which ever way they think will keep them in office. Since campaigning is expensive, the deep pockets essentially run the nation.

It's no so much that Republicans lie. Rather it's more like there are two factions within the party. There's the conservative, state's rights, tea party wing that is in the minority. Then there's the crony capitalist, elite, professional politician wing that only pays lip service to conservative principles just to get the votes to maintain power. These guys spend more time fighting their conservatives that challenge their power than their Democratic rivals. The latter rule the party and pretty much will legislate to maintain power.

The creation of the FCC came under FDR's watch in 1934. Actually FDR formed a commission to study communication regulation. The study recommended that a Federal agency regulate all communications. FDR pushed for the creation of such a body and 2 DEMOCRATIC Senators introduced a bill to form the FCC. The bill passed both Houses and FDR signed it into law.

STEM is a very broad thing - science, engineering, math - so what is your specific interest anyway?

Truthfully if you want a job in STEM, you NEED to go back and get a STEM degree. There are too many people already out there with degrees in the field that you have no hope unless you get some big favors by some very important people.

However, if you want to dabble in STEM type stuff, there is no reason you can't get involved as a hobbyist. Many self-taught people code outside of work on open source projects. There's the whole Maker movement with plenty of resources for the amateur. There's amateur astronomy, rocket clubs, cube sats, and so on. In fact, if you become a guru in any of these hobbies, it may open doors to a technical career.

But it's not the language, it's the domain knowledge I bring to the table. I was hired to write embedded software for scientific instruments. As a former research scientist and current software engineer I can understand the problem, the solutions, and write code to do what the device needs to do. C/C++ just happens to be the tool I use to build the device. Python, Java, and so on just wouldn't cut it.

They won't need a computer. Most will have already blown their subsidy checks on HD smart TVs. Now they just need free unlimited high-speed broadband so they can stream YouTube and Netflix all day and night.