I think you're wrong.

For what it's worth, there are issue trackers offered alongside even the free levels of both github and bitbucket.org (which lets you use both git and hg). Bitbucket's free tier even lets you have a private repo if your source needs to be private (issue tracking and wiki instantiation are configurable via admin there, and should be offered as part of project repo creation). This way you get source control for your personal work as well as an issue tracker. ;)

I vaguely recall that Sourceforge also has some sort of bug tracker as well, if you'd rather use cvs/svn. (It's been a long time since I looked in that level of detail at SF though, so ymmv.)

All of these are "cloud" (blech) solutions that don't require any server setup on your part. If you aren't familiar with source control, that's kind of another matter, but there are quality GUI clients for OSX for most of the common protocols and cvs, svn, git, and hg all have reasonably good documentation publicly available in various forms.

The public drug companies are required to file financial reports with the SEC, which generally detail their budgets (at least to a sufficient level of granularity for this discussion). EDGAR is one avenue of getting at them (10-Q for example for quarterly reporting). But yeah, he's not lying, R&D expenditures are not the majority line item for most large pharmaceutical companies. If anything, Big Pharma has been on the whole aggressively cutting R&D over the past few years.

Just for one concrete example, here's Pfizer's 10-Q from late last year:
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/DisplayFiling.aspx?TabIndex=2&FilingID=8236559&companyid=5709&ppu=%252fDefault.aspx%253fcompanyid%253d5709%2526amp%253bformtypeID%253d13

Click into "Financial Statements" there. I think the given figures are in units of "millions," so they spent about $2.1Bn on R&D during the given quarter, compared to $4.6Bn for "Selling, informational and administrative expenses" (which probably includes marketing) and $3.7Bn for "Cost of sales" (not sure, might be raw materials and manufacturing?).

Best of luck. I've been here since the main use in going to your website was finding the latest news on Enlightenment, and I really appreciate all of your work.

Can't you just look at your Facebook settings to see what information is available to other people who are logged in to Facebook?

The main branch of the NYPL uses the same system, albeit more floors that aren't as tall, and human workers handle pick and place.

An original illustration here, sorry for the ugly url: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_PotguXM3PJk/TKh0YeRyQMI/AAAAAAAAF_c/WiOrMXEWdQc/s1600/nyplstacks.jpeg

"I am, or have as a significant other, a graduate student." ;)

I think you're making a logical error. You are comparing the value of the certificate as a predictor of success (that is, how much - if any - weight to give their degrees and certifications when deciding whether to hire them) and the value of the training process - yes, completely ignoring the certificate at the end - for someone that you've already hired and whose ability is not in question.

The question isn't whether someone with less intelligence or no experience in the subject matter can become an expert on a subject from a training program; the question is whether the smart and knowledgeable person you hired (let's at least assume that you hired someone who meets your standards, and have ruled out potential hires that would not cut the mustard without the certification or degree) can come out with much more and deeper knowledge of the subject.

So E represents 0 and/or 1?

Well, I'm specifically talking about games that push the limits of graphics hardware, and that require a $500 video card to run. The market is very tiny there, but the increase in development costs is - I think - nontrivially larger than the cost of entry into the retail box console market. As a rough estimate, look at the budget for a Pixar movie: Up had a budget of $175M. The quality of art assets and graphics engine programming is going to be a bit lower running on a GeForce GTX580, but not that much lower, and instead of voice acting and writing you have longer runtime (so more assets), game design, and the requirement to do more art "in the round" since you don't have as much camera control as you do in a movie. So... $175M seems kind of reasonable to me as a rough estimate for pushing modern GPUs to the limit in a PC game.

AAA console game budgets are not quite that high yet with a few notable exceptions like Grand Theft Auto 4. So... I agree that the smaller market is a big concern (especially when you restrict it to "people who spent $500 on their video card"), and a reason that console development is more attractive (indie games, strategy games that don't translate well to console, and MMOs seem like the main exceptions here). However, I disagree that the budgets would be similar for a major console title (something getting close to a sales record, pushing the envelope of what the consoles can display, etc.) and a major PC title that tried to push the limit of a modern high-end graphics card.

"Though a $500+ video card is considered top of the line, a $250 one will now play pretty much any game at the highest settings with no problem. (Maybe that’s what everyone wanted?) Pretty soon, however, graphics chip makers won’t be able to sustain their rate of growth because the software is so far behind, which will be bad for gamers on consoles as well as PC."

Making content that looks good at 1080P (or 1920x1200 for some PC monitors) is hard. Some amazingly specialized people spend a lot of time working on it; the more powerful the graphics processor, the more that is possible, but the more art assets have to be created (along with all the associated maps to take advantage of lighting, special effects, shader effects...) and the more programming time has to me spent. Much like the number of pixels increases far faster than the perimeter of the screen, or the volume of a sphere increases faster than its surface area... the work to support ever-increasing graphics power grows faster than the visual difference in the image.

It's not sustainable, but those advancing graphics processors are a big part of why game developers are moving to consoles: a shinier graphics engine costs more money to develop, which increases the minimum returns for a project to be successful. Anyone who looks at the business side can see that the market of people who have $500 graphics cards is much tinier than the market of people who have an Xbox360 or Playstation3. If you're going to spend that much money on the shiny, of course you're going to shoot for a bigger return too!

When it takes a big team to develop something... well, that's generally not where the innovation is going to happen.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that they have standing on their own to request that portions of the trial be closed.