Funny how you never hear the Moon Landing Hoaxers talk about that niggling little detail.

See examples:

servo-skulls
servitors

The artist was just honoring a pious and worthy cat in death!

Well played sir, well played. I shall tip the waitress on my way out.

Yeah go ahead and criticize a company that can actually deliver results, unlike Solyndra and the like. The government did not start SpaceX, took no risk building SpaceX, and deserves no credit for SpaceX's success. They have earned every penny. Be glad the US now has a contractor capable of putting stuff in orbit instead of having to go begging to Russia. The problem with your type is that you think that the government paying for something entitles you to ownership. This infers that you think everyone except you should be working for free.

No, but it doesn't sound much better than any other console shooter. Actually I take that back -- I tried a demo system at Best Buy once. Not a fair shake by any means, but I certainly didn't find anything to be significantly different about the controls than other shooters.

Never had that problem. Instant and precise targeting with no difficulty whatsoever is exactly why I fell in love with it.. All I can suggest is make sure there are no significant IR sources other than the wiimote sensor bar (i.e. the IR LED bar) in the general direction of the TV. At my last place I had to close the blinds on the windows behind the TV, for example.

Oh and of course it's not line-of-sight to the TV that determines where you're pointing, it's relative like a mouse.

I live in an island which is 5km wide and 40km long. Cities and everything else is organized across the 40*1 km range. So the whole cache thing is useless for me.

Why is that? You cache two 10-mile (24 km) squares and you have your whole island cached.

If 10 miles was actually 24km, that plan would work. 10 miles is only a hair over 16km, though, so you'd really need three 10 mile squares cached to cover an area 40km in one dimension and 5km (or anything up to 16km, for that matter) in the other.

What worries me is amateurs getting into coding positions and writing appalling code that probably ends up costing a lot more in the long run that if they'd hired people who had a clue.

The problem, of course, is that lots of people who are hiring programmers also don't have a good ability to detect the ones that have are really skilled -- spending the money that it would cost to get someone that has a clue would often mean they were still getting not-so-good programmers writing needlessly-expensive-to-maintain code, but paying top dollar for it.

When Boeing or Airbus wants to build a new plane they don't hire some kid who's good folding paper aircraft, they hire proper engineers. I don't understand why IT should be treated so differently.

Because most IT work doesn't involve the level of risk associated with garden variety moderate deficiencies in competence that aircraft engineering does. (The IT work that does have that level of criticality often has substantially higher standards, and skilled people applying the standards.)

Yes, patterns often are needed due to the inflexibility of your programming language of choice

Patterns, qua patterns, are only needed due to inflexibility of the programming language. With a sufficiently-flexible programming language, any given "pattern" is instead a piece of library code that needs written once, rather than a template that needs to be reimplemented each time it is used.

Of course, real programming languages aren't perfectly flexible, so any real programming language is going to have patterns that are useful -- but which patterns is going to vary based on the limitations of the particularl language.

Their business is protecting and saving lives

You know who "protects and saves lives"? Medical personnel, doctors, nurses, firemen, police. Armies do the bidding of the most powerful, which almost always means some very bad days for regular people.

You can dress it up with all the lovely rhetoric you want, but if you listen to the sales pitches, read the brochures, of all that great "protecting, life-saving" hardware at a weapons show, you'll hear about killing people, hurting people, depriving them of life.

We say it to make the young men and women who do the fighting and end up dying or being mutilated feel better, but all that business about "protecting liberty" and "fighting for our freedom" is just a canard. What was the last time in American history when we actually fought for our "freedom"? Now, it's about protecting corporate interests (profits) and enriching the people who make all that "overwhelming firepower".

I wonder what was the last time that one single item at that weapons show was actually used for something that didn't end with regular people being dead or displaced.

Do you really believe that only the "good guys" shop at those weapons shows? That they ask for affidavits that the weapons will only be used morally?

I see you haven't read the FAQ on the matter. You'll find "try to respond to another comment" in there, NOT "If you want to comment on something from TFS, make a new comment". If you don't like it, take it up the staff, not us.

This especially goes for topics that get a joke first post. If someone breaks the flow of THAT conversation, that's a GOOD thing.

Oh, BTW, you moderators might want to read the FAQ as well, his comment was not only incorrect, it was offtopic.