In many cases, it probably depends on the workflow that a project uses. You don't get mailling lists on GitHub. Don't laugh at mailing lists--they're important to a lot of projects, including the Linux kernel. Also, Subversion support is still experimental on GitHub. If I had an older, mature project, based around these two things, I'd want to stay on Sourceforge. For example, there are probably lots of libraries dating back to the days when Sourceforge was the best of few choices, and that are nice and stable, get the job done, and require only maintainance. Why fix it if it isn't broke? Infrastructure doesn't have to be cool to be very, very useful.
Sourceforge also provides a means of distributing or completely elliminating download bandwidth needs. http://scipy.org/ is the Web site for important numeric Python stuff (scipy and numpy). But the download links point to Sourceforge. They also use GitHub; for some a mix of services is best.
So, yeah, I'd say Sourceforge is still important to a lot of people. Not all of whom are aware of it.
I don't expect _any_ future president to disband TSA. At least not until the world become a Provably Safe Place (TM), or massive public resistance develops. Any politician skilled enough to be up for the job (or a Senate seat, etc.) is going to see that as accepting a lot of risk. There would certainly be an outcry from those who want the government to protect them from _everything_. If there were another attack afterwards, the politician(s) who were involved in dismantling it would then be toast.
Evidence for progress seems a bit thin. Even a very senior Cardinal has said that the Catholic Church is 200 years behind the times.
I can't agree with either point. Any knowledge of calculus can help you detect situations where politicians or other people with an agenda (even your boss) are trying to pull the wool over your eyes with something that would otherwise sound plausible. Min/max would be an example, and not only for maximizing profit.
CS, OTOH, I don't regard as useful to the general population, which I can't imagine ever having to, for example, select the most appropriate sort algorithm. Computer *usage* skills are necessary, and by that I don't mean simply teaching the latest Microsoft products. Or if that's deemed the most practical means of preparing students for the "real" world, then also teach, for example, how Excel's stat functions can lead you astray.
Ummm, no. They were smart enough that they could basically package *dirt* and sell it.
The people that *bought* them were stupid. There were even Signs in the Heavens, in the form of the ratings services assigning the same ratings to some of these that they were giving to Treasury instruments. And there were *still* buyers, to the tune of untold trillions of dollars. Never underestimate the power of human greed.
What astounds me is that the people at Moodies and the other ratings orgs aren't facing charges yet. I've not even heard that they've had to testify to Congress. Though they well could have been, and I missed it.
I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.