Yeah, I think I've seen this episode. It's a rerun.

Those large teams of people were hired and paid by them, receiving more than their own talents procure alone without having someone to pay them for them. So yes, while 'self-made' men require paying an army to work for them, any one 'soldier' in the army receives a bonus for the boss having assembled it, and included them in it.

It's funny, that was my first response, before even starting the summary. The writer seems to know nothing of the difference between codes and code. Baby, bathwater, out.

Saving money. Baller (not ballmer)

If you are doing military work, you probably have to worry about ITAR (international trade in arms regulations) which is a LOT cheaper to handle if you don't hire foreigners. This is not to say anything about the competency of foreign workers, it just means you have to jump through the government hoops, which in the case of ITAR means avoiding having to set up a 100% separate network where foreign nationals must have independently trackable/restrict-able access. If you want someone to blame for this inconvenience and inefficiency, look no further than your helpful government.

If, by national origin you mean, "wages at which you receive commensurate service" then you're correct. But you do not mean that. So you're not. If you can achieve a similar result at a lower cost, your customers win. That's business. Start your own if you're feeling victimized. If 85% of businesses fail, that means you only have to do it 6 times before you're a winner. And if you fail, yes, it is your fault. Try again.

+1 Funny. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about here... the idea is not to appeal to coders with geeky heros, it's to get people who aren't coders to code. If will.i.am can talk someone into a computer science degree, great... where's the problem?

er... they have to start somewhere? it's not meant to be fool proof. just better than reading all of them. do you, when you browse the web, look at every single document, following every link, until you get one that is relevant? no, you go to google, put in some keywords, and look at those results. Do you get wrong pages? Same thing. I don't think the government should be reading our emails without a warrant or anything, I'm just saying, logistically speaking, there is nothing wrong with producing false positives, there are many ways to weed them out, even before 'reading' them. there is always the possibility they'd get false positives even just picking emails at random to read too, so I don't see what your issue is... if the moral implication of searching people's email is what you're upset about, then complain about that. But if you're already past that point, and you're going to search them, keywords are a good start. I don't see how that's anything but self-evident.

I see your point, but your example is perhaps a little unfortunate: most of the financial fraud would probably be committed by the accounting department (sorry, couldn't resist.)

They're not auto-matic indictments, they're just keywords to narrow things down when say... you have a tarball of a bazillion emails from wikileaks uploaded to some bitttorrent site. (Yes, I mean for you, not the government to use, it was an example.) Still, one wonders what the FBI, who produced the list, has on their keyword list "warrantless" "we dont need a judge" "wiretap" "domestic spying" "naw, dont' bother getting a warrant" "security letter."

True. I just meant all things considered, and on balance with the ridiculousness of trying to be fair with all the other crap that's available. I'm not even in favor of government funding schools at all, but since this is how it works, and I can't change that, at least there are a bunch of people who will at least learn about something they should know.

good

It may yet be a scientific triumph, but a public opinion flop. Or a thestudio_bob flop.

This is obviously a very scientific study.

lol. I'd vote that up if I could.