My experience with doctor's offices has been that everything is kept on paper, and they fax things around if they need to transfer the data "electronically"...

Natural-phenomenon news is one of those things that isn't a recent /. change. Random example.

It is now under the primary control of Apple, certainly, but it didn't "come out of the Apple compiler group" as you erroneously stated. It came out of the University of Illinois's compiler group. In addition, Lattner was not the only person developing it there.

It is true that LLVM has been Apple-driven since 2005, but it didn't come out of Apple— they picked it up after it was already out there.

That's getting less common since Debian and Ubuntu no longer have bash as /bin/sh. There are still packages that expect that, but they now don't work on Debian, Ubuntu, or the BSDs, which starts to make it more likely the authors will care about fixing them.

Depends on what part of the government. People on the (American) left tend to be in favor of social spending but against military/police/prison spending; people on the right tend to be in favor of military/police/prison spending but against social spending. With various quirks and exceptions on either side, e.g. rural conservatives are in favor of farm subsidies (a kind of social spending) while some "national security democrats" are in favor of the War On Terror and military/police spending.

There is a small-government strain of the American right, and especially a lot of small-government rhetoric, but in terms of actual policies, the Republican Party generally expands the size of government (and faster than the Democratic Party does, though they also do). The three post-WW2 presidents who expanded government the most are: Nixon (R), LBJ (D), and Reagan (R).

What'd be even better is if Linux got traction with games where you didn't have to install the PoS that is Steam to play them...

Plus they were afraid that if they exposed the U.S.'s fake moon landing, the U.S. would expose their fake Sputnik. ;-)

It sounds like he was also recently employed, though, which is the easy case. Employers generally have absolutely no clue how to screen for competence, so go almost entirely on resume. If the person you're mentioning has 5 years of recent experience with "a large vendor of telecommunications equipment" and didn't leave because he was fired, he's got a nice resume, so won't have problems finding tech jobs.

The people who have trouble are those who have a big gap in their employment history. Even the people who are really good at what they do have trouble finding interviews, compared to the seat-warmer who has N years of experience at a big company.

A lot of AM stations are automated these days also, syndicating popular national talk-radio programs. Any idea how to find out which ones aren't?

The laws of war generally oppose weapons intentionally intended to maim rather than kill. Mostly dates to popular revulsion around the WW1 era over weapons designed to inflict nonlethal but gruesome casualties to hobble the other side by flooding their hospitals and supply chains. As a result, countries agreed to a ban on various chemical weapons, expanding bullets, weapons designed to blind people, etc.

Also true in actual careers like nursing fwiw. There's a nursing shortage (at least in the U.S.), and men are very underrepresented in the field, so nursing schools have been going out of their way to recruit men.

Isn't it pretty explicit that the lights are on? Review of applications isn't some kind of blind-review process.

It seems to be structured as kind of an intro to programming, which is one way CS101 classes (in Harvard terminology, CS50) are structured. Not really an intro to CS the discipline, but a broad intro to computers/programming in general for people who may or may not go into CS. Traditionally MIT took the opposite approach, but many schools took this approach.

Fwiw, you can find the 2013 version of the curriculum here (it seems to have been also co-offered as a MOOC). It does seem a bit like a grab-bag of "random stuff in computers".

Harvard gets far, far more applicants in every area than they can possibly accept to their relatively small student body. So shifts among disciplines and interests almost entirely reflect decisions on the part of Harvard admissions policies. They don't necessarily reflect shifts in either broader society or even the subset of society that applies to Harvard. It's possible they do, but it's also possible Harvard explicitly decided to accept more CS applicants for various reasons.