In addition to this, I also want: 1) A continuous mapping and quantification of the Military Industrial Complex, complete with relations to people, and businesses up and down the chain. 2) Continuously updated Corporate to Lobbyist to Politician studies, with full exposure. I want to make smarter decisions about the people and companies that I choose to deal with and give money to on a day to day basis. And I can't do that without such clear analysis. These people are only in power because _we_ allow them to be.

So who is running Egypt? Is it the international bankers, the west, islamic nutjobs, or military officials on power trips? At-least in the US we know it's the first group in conjunction with corporations. But with Egypt I'm confused.

No and No. You're forgetting the court of public opinion, which allows Wiki-leaks to occupy the moral high-ground, and that makes all the difference in the world. To add a little independence day flavor, this is the equivalent to stating that the British were justified in spying on American Colonies, because the Colonies had spies on the British side. One group uses the tool in the support of unjustness, the other uses the tool because there is no other defense against that unjustness. I have to wonder how much money, time, and effort is being expended on going after Wikileaks, rather then changing our mentality in how we view the world. But like every single problem that Washington faces, it looks at those as one in which the only solutions in the quickly exhausted tool-box are state terrorism, the military, and espionage. To those playing the long game, this is rightfully a sign of weakness, not strength.

Wonderful news! Does this mean that I'll need to compile all the pre-requisites for the game, and the game itself, just to play the game on this console?

And here I was thinking that it was the number of new buildings, department sizes, tennis courts, landscaping, and quantity of state certified content-crammed courses. What a shocker!

Estimates seem to be driven mostly by the following forces:

Non-Tech Problem Space

In the worst case, this is the equivalent of walking up to a student and asking how long it will take them to solve a problem in both a subject he/she hasn't studied yet, and in a problem with no similarity to those at hand. Any notion of accuracy gets thrown out the window under these conditions.

Tech Problem Space

What tech is needed? And how long will it take to acquire proficiency in this tech? Since tech is a road well traveled by others, this makes the estimation of the learning curve and the tech application easier.

I think the answer lies in patience, instead of demanding estimates that can be produced in the next hour. In many cases, the problem needs to be inspected and possibly specified further to come up with anything approaching accuracy. I have to wonder if this is something that is understood and being communicated effectively to non-engineers and those on the client side. Nevertheless, if businesses chooses to subjugate informed, honest estimates to salesmanship, then none of this matters anyway.

LOL, where do people like you get this notion from? Whatever fairly-land of academic value you suggest, it isn't one in which undergraduates around me currently live. My university for example has numerous courses that serve no other purpose than to make payroll and give students a hamster-wheel like challenge. People are realistic and game the system.

Isn't this precisely what specifications written in formal logic was intended to solve? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_verification

As a self taught guy, people won't code review for free. People may use it, but they won't review it. The only time that people will review your code is if a bug through use is found, or they are trying to learn from it. After having my work taken and used over the years, I just tend to follow the silence is golden rule. And FYI, professors (at-least at my public state university) aren't there to do code review, and the TA graders are often underpaid and under qualified. They are there to check a box to make sure you did the assignment/project. Joining an OSS effort can be an inadvertent source of code review, but this often comes in the form of competing designs and if you're lucky, actual patches to your code. As an example, If my code was understood to the point that someone was able to write a patch, I would consider this an affirmative plus.

Everyone complains about an interest group until they become part of one. What you want is a different government.

He was such an atrociously bad leader _for the opposition party_. There, fixed that for you. I don't think there was an solution that Obama offered where he didn't have to pull Republican's along kicking and screaming, along with foaming at the mouth and wild accusations and so forth. I would like to be proven wrong however.

Arctic Wildcatters

Since parts of the python standard library can dramatically change every x.x release. I found learning to apply and maintain code written in the "standard library" to be cyclical hell in a hand basket. Much of the documentation these days is along the lines of: No, usage of this or that feature was deprecated. No, though not documented, it's done this way now. No your getting this error because.. well.. we don't know, its ether 2.5, 2.6, or 3.0, figure it out. Given this experience, I don't see how a dead tree covering a particular one is of all that much value. To me a selling proposition would be one which provides a continuity in documentation with fully explained use-cases of features after 2.5- for those of us who have had to pick up the language and deal with the mess of non-versioned code. A mess that whether the authors of the language like it or not, do have a hand in being responsible for.

The assumption that I've un-friended someone because I hate them is flat out wrong. To me, facebook is a tool to keep up on real life friends. I don't pretend to keep up or care what the other 50+ people that qualify as weak acquaintances are doing, I just don't have the cognitive overhead for it. Additionally, I prefer to avoid divulging who I am to weak acquaintances that walk the line of total strangers -it's an issue of trust, it has nothing to do with hate, and it is a function of time. Removal is forced because I don't want to maintain what is a dishonest relationship with someone.

And this is why it is still in use. It's about TV specials, movies, and instilling enough fear to protect government IT sector jobs -and thus necessitating the lumping of enough bad guys together to justify contractor expenditures.