Because it's cheaper.
That depends on what you count. It might be cheaper in the short term to keep patching together an increasingly obsolete and aging system than to develop a new modern one but if you look at the longer term the higher maintenance costs add up. On top of this there is a lost opportunity cost: you could miss out on new, profitable technologies and methods if you have an older, less flexible system which is why banking innovation seems to be increasingly happening in companies outside the sector e.g. things like Apple pay.
COBOL isn't hard to learn, and it can be understood/read/debugged a lot easier than many of the more contemporary languages. Banks that want to maintain COBOL systems need to just hire new CS graduates and give them time to come up to speed on the COBOL language.
All this may be true but why would they do that when, if they replaced it with something developed in the current century, they would not need to. A delivery company could train it's employees to drive horses and then use horse carts to make local delivery runs but why would they? Well perhaps for a sales gimick but otherwise using old technology often gives significant disadvantages beyond the need to train your employees.
Well, I think the point here is by the time THIS game was developed, use of keyboards was a pretty standard thing in programming.
That just shows the only hardship they had to deal with was their own short sightedness by not providing a simple means to program the device using available technology. That's hardly something to brag about.
This really doesn't work if you try to fund it from income tax. Wealth != income.
That's really only relevant if you are just sitting on a pile of cash stuffed into a mattress. However typically wealth earns income if you have it anywhere but a mattress and in Canada even 50% of all capital gains is included, and taxed, as income. While you could just live of savings wile earning no money that would be a really stupid thing to do because unless the tax rate hits 100% you are always better off earning that income from wealth and paying taxes on it.
Is the imbecile who sent the fine won't be fired.
It's not really that imbecile's fault - indeed they might not even agree with the law but still feel they have a duty to enforce it. The problem here is the legal protections engineers have managed to get in place to protect their jobs. If you want to see a really appalling example of this just look to Canada where engineering is operated like a medieval guild where everything is regulated; only existing guild members are allowed to train you and in some provinces making something like an electronic circuit means that you have to be a guild member. It's pathetic to see this in the modern world...and also really annoying if you are a physicist and equally if not actually far better qualified for some of the "protected" jobs - particularly when one of those jobs is teaching engineers physics!
until they talk about Uber creating flying taxis, then the fascination turns to horror.
Look on the bright side: at least it is not United Airlines developing them.
With that said, if they do this pilot correctly it will yield very interesting data.
I very much doubt it will because it is implemented in a way which directly undermines the arguments for universal basic income which is normally taken to mean that everyone gets a fixed income regardless of circumstances. Instead this project reduces that income at the rate of $1 for every $2 earned. Unlike the real deal this provides a reasonably strong motivation NOT to take low paying jobs since you only get a benefit of half the wage you earn. It also means that you now have to start means testing people to see how much they earn which requires bureaucracy and officials and incurs expense.
The whole point of basic income is to cut the administration expense because everyone gets it regardless while also preventing the disincentive to work of typical unemployment schemes by clawing back money when people get even a low paying job. The Ontario scheme fails to achieve either aim and so seems unlikely to work or provide any data about whether such type of schemes could work.
Capitalism is based on the idea that both sides agree to exchange what is promised, not merely something someone else thinks is close enough.
In reality though capitalism is based on the exchange of something which one side can persuade a court is good enough...which is one of the big problems with capitalism because typically one side can afford far more lawyers than the other. In this case what they provided was so far from what they promised that even an army of lawyers could not win the argument that it was good enough but note that they only got 30%, not 50%, of child care and there was zero compensation for the emotional damage to the family.
The next machine doesn't necessarily have to be bigger.
It will if you want to exceed LHC energies. A muon collider would be a very interesting machine though. At one point I know they were worrying about such high neutrino intensities that it would pose a radiation hazard...which is a problem because neutrinos interact so rarely that they pass through the earth so it would be impossible to shield such a source.
I mean confirming the Higgs does exactly what?
It confirms the presence of a new, fundamental field in nature which is all around us. The last time that happened it was the EM field and that discovery has lead to a huge number of applications. You are absolutely right that manipulating the higgs field at the moment requires a huge amount of effort but in the mid-19th century manipulating EM fields was not so easy either (although still a lot easier than the higgs).
If you can't predict it will be valuable, don't fund it all at. Burden of proof is on the person asking for money that there will be some ROI.
That's not really how fundamental science works. It usually takes 50+ years to become useful but knowing exactly which bits will be the useful ones or how they will become useful is completely impossible to predict. However in order to be useful at all you do have to discover something so generally we make funding decisions based on how likely an experiment is to make a discovery which will advance our knowledge.
Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.