The problem isn't what it was, it's what it was promised to be. If you look at every public comment by the creator/team, the game doesn't do any of the interesting things that were promised.

http://press-start.com.au/news...

Even key core features are broken, such as naming undiscovered planets getting "lost" by the server.

A lookup table is the solution I'd use for that sort of problem, but if you're counting the lookup table as 1 line of code then you're sort of going against the spirit of the challenge.

I think you have the terminology 100% backwards.

You are not really a LOW level programmer if you freak out with no IDE or libraries. If you're writing the sort of code presented here I'd say you can easily call yourself a Systems Engineer or Software Engineer (unlike 99% of the people who call themselves a Software Engineer).

However, if you feel the need to write assembly, use code quirks to eek out 1% more performance, and write your own libraries then you have no place in modern high level software development, excepting if you're writing drivers, video games, or embedded code. Anyone doing that sort of BS is likely very smart, but is also a liability to any non-toy project.

What specific issues do you have with MS's corporate licensing model?

-if you own a software license bought outright at any time you own it in perpetuity
-CALs are bought yearly (typically) but are "essentially" the same no matter the platform or age. There are exceptions for this (dynamics CRM end user vs admin licenses, etc) but in general it works this way
-Licenses are separate from support contracts, so you can opt for zero support for zero fee, or have MS premier support on-site 24/7 for a HUGE fee
-You can optionally pay an annuity to get free upgrades for any software you use, but again not required
-they offer bespoke support contracts when needed. An entity I was working with required security and break-fix updates for win2k3, which is out of ANY sort of support lifecycle, but MS was willing to provide them for $XXXX per server (it wasn't cheap, but at least it was available....)

Support contracts and usage licenses are completely different things.

For example, if you bought windows 95 you still have a license and can legally use it, it is just that MS provides NO support for it. Part of my job recently has been doing windows server 2k3 migrations due to extended support EOL, and about 50% of the software on it is out of support contract as well, but is still legally licensed.

No one is trying to force them to support it, but if they will not accept money for the licenses then it's easy to argue that the current license cost is de-facto zero.

The second world is basically Russia and China.... China has it's own issues that go way beyond any ideas of net neutrality, and I have no idea what goes on with Russian internet.

Verizon should upgrade to satisfy THEIR OWN customers.

Why shouldn't it?

I don't think any sizable population thinks apple invented the smartphone. They did, however, make the first mass-market-usable smartphone by refining and simplifying the idea.

Most are interested in having a legal car. States could, rightfully, refuse to allow registration renewal on these cars.

So you want a monitor, not a TV?

It is now official. TechCrunch has confirmed: DevOps is dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered DevOps community when TechCrunch confirmed that DevOps market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all positions. Coming on the heels of a recent TechCrunch survey which plainly states that DevOps has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. DevOps is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive job openings test.

You don't need to be the Amazing Kreskin to predict DevOps's future. The hand writing is on the wall: DevOps faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for DevOps because DevOps is dying. Things are looking very bad for DevOps. As many of us are already aware, DevOps continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

AgileDevOps is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developer/administrators. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time AgileDevOps developers Andrew Clay Shafer and Patrick Debois only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: AgileDevOps is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenDevOps leader Lennart Poettering states that there are 7000 users of OpenDevOps. How many users of SystemDevOps are there? Let's see. The number of OpenDevOps versus SystemDevOps posts on Slashdot is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 SystemDevOps users. DevOps/OS posts on Slashdot are about half of the volume of SystemDevOps posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of DevOps/OS. A recent article put AgileDevOps at about 80 percent of the DevOps market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 AgileDevOps users. This is consistent with the number of AgileDevOps Slashdot posts.

Due to the troubles of Caldera, abysmal sales and so on, AgileDevOps went out of business and was taken over by SCODevOps who sell another troubled OS. Now SCODevOps is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that DevOps has steadily declined in market share. DevOps is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If DevOps is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. DevOps continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, DevOps is dead.