Of a job that pays well, because you are expected to be a professional that is continuing to improve your own skillset? There are many, and development is one of those.

This is actually targeting open source. After all, if you can't see the source code, you can hardly say it was "copied" - therefore, you have to protect your software by never letting anyone see the source. Problem solved!

Agreed.

What's the fallacy? Taking three months to become PROFICIENT is way too long for a lot of companies. And doing that PLUS learning how the company works? (and I agree - it can take a year or more) It's too much. So, you can't come into a new company knowing the company (though you can be good at learning new environments), but you can come in as an EXPERT with the specific technology. So, in many cases, it makes sense to look for those experts.

In many cases, it's because they don't want to pay to train you. And that includes paying for your time to get up to speed. There's a lot of time spent already understanding the deployment and development environment. If the company is working with a specific set of technology, then bringing someone in that has used related technology is often not good enough. There are specific design patterns that you use with different technologies, and specific ways of applying them for that technology. And they might not have people internally that have time to help you figure out the best way to do things, or maintain the garbage you build on your own because you don't have experience with these things. Love it or hate it, it's the way things go sometimes. And if you hate it, don't apply to these places. Of course, there are plenty of companies that see this stuff and think that's the way to do it - but don't need it. So, now you have an industry following "best practices" that don't apply to them... do you want to work at these companies?

Ya, but how well does Ingress play on it?

This is an extremely simplistic view. And while the individual facts are right (expensive contractors for areas that the government "isn't allowed to hire"), the conclusion is wrong - because of all the information you leave out. Have you ever worked in a government office? Do you understand all of the crazy stuff that goes on to "protect the department's budget"? One of the people I know working at a government office told me that the government works like this (you'll like the car analogy):

The government has a car which has a flat tire. They bring it in to get another tire, and are told that all three other tires are about to go - would they like to replace them? If so, they can get four tires for the price of two. But the government employee says, "No, just replace the one tire." Why, you might ask? Well, they have a single flat tire, and are authorized to only replace that single tire - no other option is available. Regardless of saving money, protecting the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle itself, or even avoiding downtime.

This stuff happens in bad corporations too, but it is endemic in government - which is one of many reasons people consider government wasteful. There are a LOT of other reasons, and it creates a complicated, somewhat hard to understand situation which is difficult to resolve and systemic. Unlike your picture of the situation, which is easy - throw money at the government, allow them to hire whoever they want, and screw private industry. After all, the problem is only due to the costs of government needed to pay corporations, right?

Are these the same critics that praised the shit out of the most recent Star Trek movie? The movie is all about Superman's journey - not just about Superman himself, but the people around him - and while it doesn't SHOVE the development in your face, it's there. Do people REALLY need everything so obvious and overdone in movies these days that they cannot even recognize character development unless they are told "this is how I am changing and becoming a different person through my experiences"? These people must have REALLY been confused by the "short" life story of the old man in "Up". But they probably don't even know what they missed. I am now very sad - yes, I already knew all this, but I am still sad to be reminded of it.

I thought none of the climate change models allowed for accurate short term forecasting? I've been told not to expect short term forecasting (as in, the next five years, the next year, and certainly not the next few months) to be accurately predictable from the models and predictions of climate change experts. Are we working off predictions made ten years ago? I guess I'm confused as to why 2012 was perfectly on track with predictions.

First, you need to actually GET a girlfriend.

OR as well - I mailed my vote over a week ago, and then had to take my ROOMMATE'S ballot in today to drop it off, 'cause she's too lazy to vote in a reasonable amount of time ;). Took about 15 minutes to get through the line in my car.

It sounds like maybe a lot of people know your wife...

It seems odd to pick the ones by "spending" at this point in the campaign. After all - the spending done so far for the GOP has mainly been to fight the GOP primaries. The democrat's PACs have JUST started spending, to nail Romney.

What are the biggest PACs in terms of how much money they have? Don't you think that matter more? If we want to talk money spent, we probably won't be able to compare fairly until the campaigns are done, correct?

When people REPEATEDLY claim that disagreeing over the origin of the human species means that people "outright reject the scientific thought process", I'd say we've got some serious concerns going on here, yes. Did you even READ the frickin' question in the poll? Your conclusion is not based on the evidence.