More "we want cheap labor trained with tax dollars" whining from industry. If there were a shortage of programmers, salaries would be going up. They're not.
More like a recruiting video to try to hire every last programmer who hasn't gotten drained by addiction to a video game.
Frankly, I've never seen an office as Stepford as the ones in that video.
I don't know any kid who would look at any office I've worked at in the past 20 years & get that excited about it.
So programmers who can get into a country club like that are gonna go there, and the rest of the world is gonna have to pay those four or five companies for our services.
The battle will really be over the non-smartphone users.
This is why iOS will hold on to it's lead while it can maintain the premium smartphone image befitting of its contemporary Mac OS X. That said, "premium smartphone" is the iOS Achilles heal. A cheap, hobbled iPhone won't grab the non-smartphone user either.
BB already lost it's page to Microsoft in the Enterprise market.
More importantly, while MS isn't that popular in the US, it's got a jump on the non-smartphone users overseas... which I bet will only spread. It's got the base OS maturity (security) of Windows 7, the UI consistency of it's contemporary Windows 8 desktop, and the price range to make them accessible.
My wife traded her clunky droid for a WP8, and both our moms (our kids' grandmothers) love their Windows Phones
Another good reason PRO is likely to fail... I've said it before & I'll say it again. Surface is a cloud car.
If I need Intel horsepower on a tablet, I'll remote desktop into a real computer (or cloud-hosted VM). Why pay for Intel in a tablet when the RT version will provide excellent mobile functionality at significantly lower costs (in terms of both price AND power) with the ability to hook up to heavy iron to do the heavy lifting?
The more comments you have in code, the higher risk you have of time sucks and bugs (past, present, and future). Instead, use naming and syntax to make your code as human readable and comprehensible as possible. Bytes are cheap, there's rarely need for clever abbreviations; instead of getting clever with them, get clever with expressing your code closer to plain language. Think about the names of your nouns and verbs (and even adjectives and adverbs), and make sure they make sense to anyone who understands your problem domain.
In my humble opinion, broken code comments are almost as dangerous as broken logic, and should be treated as a bug if it's wrong. It's wrong if it's inappropriate, outdated, misleading, takes more than a line or so, or superficially obvious. If it needs more than a line or so, it should be documented, and the line in your code should brefly identify the problem and documentation location. I'd recommend that it refer to sections within a technical design document.
Just because we haven't explained or observed it doesn't mean it can't be.
Do you believe in a Higgs boson? If so, congratulations... you're a believer. You believe in something that people have spent billions trying to prove the existence of (and still haven't, just yet). If you're not a believer, what is it that you think your mass comes from? Or do you not believe you have mass? Now, if the Higgs is found... that's cool... but what does it get it's properties from? How do you know any of this exists... did you design the LHC and fire it up and make the observations yourself, or did you have faith in someone else's word?
The Bible is full of stories that couldn't be well articulated in the realm of understanding of the audience that originally received it. We had to grow up a bit and start digging into science to discover the deeper meanings of the metaphors.
"Why should we subsidize intellectual curiosity?" -Ronald Reagan