Yes, because we are discussing adding an Easter Egg to the NASA Rover. Get a grip and try to stay remotely on topic lad. Seriously.

You don't sound impressive when you make clearly ridiculous non sequiturs in your rush to try to sound smug. Inferring that I have never written tightly specified and reviewed code just because I know that in the general case that isn't even remotely the case is patently absurd.

"He notes how the Heartbleed bug serves as a counter example to "Linus's Law" that "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow."

He falsely notes that, since Linus' law has absolutely nothing to do with it. He seems to think Linus said: If enough people work on a project, there won't be any bugs.' Linus' Law refer to the ability to track down, understand, and fix a bug once it has been discovered.

And my first thought when I read the title was in line with yours. What a stupid question. Just as with security, the correct approach is a multi-tiered one. Bug bounties are fine, so long as they are just one of the (hopefully many) ways you are trying to improve your code.

It is always a pleasure to see an AC make a poigniant, well thought out, and dead on balls accurate comment. Bravo!

"Then when a subsequent maintainer comes along finds the Santa hat graphic, and since it is not in the specs, removes it causing the software to crash the next Xmas there is a problem."

Yes. The problem is that the idiot removed something, the purpose of which he didn't understand. Your premise that everything in the code is somehow in a spec somewhere is ridiculous. With such an idiot on the project, the least of your worries is that the hat graphic will be missing on Christmas morning.

Your assumption, that I can't spawn an application in a container in a way that literally guarantees it won't affect other code, cuts to the core of your lack of understanding of secure software development practices.

"How would you feel if your plumber painted your walls some crazy color because he thought it looked better that way?"

So long as it normally appears as the color I wanted, and only changes to his color when I open the draw, turn on 2 stove burners and twist the doorknob 3 times, I don't really see the problem.

"Better call your doctor if you get past 4 hours."

Not necessarily. The link you provided quite specifically states that if you have pain and remain erect despite the absence of both physical and psychological stimulation it is an issue. I can tell you from personl experience that if you have the right combination of chemicals in you (e.g. LSD and/or MDMA, ideally combined with copious quantities of THC) and you are indeed putting your erection to good use, one can indeed have an erection for significantly longer than 4 hours without need of a doctor.*

"But this is Slashdot, after all, and we know that unless you're married to your hand it'll be more like 0 hours."

That meme is pretty played out in 2015. ... just sayin'

* You don't need to call a doctor in this case, but you do need to have a plan for getting the woman to leave you alone later / don't do this with a woman whom you are hoping to just have a one night stand.

Yes, it seems like they finally figured out that Rome is burning and no matter how large their army, nothing can save them now :-)

"I'm afraid that's the fine print. "All other things being equal". ..."

Yes. There is no sense in saying "All other things being equal"; that is the point that leads to the fact that it doesn't make any more sense to say "Boring" technologies tend to have a ...". 'Boring' isn't a technology classification. Period. Stop being an idiot and acting like it is.

"UNIX Administrators (notice I didn't say Linux) "

I did notice that, actually. I also noticed that you are either too lazy, too stupid, or too ashamed to log in as you say it :-)

And How!!! Unfortunately I think it may be too late. The industry is flooded with incompetents, as we both know all too well :-(

"Yeah it makes no sense. They have separate categories for Software Engineer, Programmer, and Software Developer."

You wouldn't say that if you were a software developer or a software engineer.

A programmer can take a specification and implement it. For example he can be told: "Create a module with function that takes two arguments from the databse and stores their product back into the database.* He may even be able to take a set of specs and write all the code for the project.

A Software Developer on the other hand knows how to do requirements gathering and analysis, create time lines and cost projections, recommend and implement solid Source Code Control mechanisms (In other words they use git in 2015)

Above that level of competence is the Software Engineer. They understand various development models (e.g. Waterfall, Iterative/Spiral, etc.) and paradigms (e.g. Structured, Object Oriented, Event Driven) , and patterns such as Idempotence, singletons, etc.).

* One other difference between a programmer and the Software Dev or Engineer is that the programmer thinks this is easy, and the latter two know that there can be a lot more involved than you might imagine

II can't imagine what could go through someone's mind that they would even consider that 'boring' vs. 'not-boring' is even something to look at when deciding which technology to use, with the sole exception that all other things being equal clearly the more exciting one will pay bigger dividends due to increased developer interest.

What constitutes a boring technology? Say I agree with you that COBOL is boring; will Johhny down the road agree with us, or will it fascinate him? Now, let's say that we all universally agree that COBOL is some boring ass technology (unless you rode the short bus to school, I think we can :-). Should I really design my new project around it?

OK. Now on to the actual reading of the article:

"Let's say every company gets about three innovation tokens"

OH ... how about let's not and say we didn't. So basically, the author claims to be a skilled software developer, but can't figure out that subjective criteria isn't your best bet when analysing data sets, and who can't figure out that you need a premise that isn't absurd to churn out a non-absurd result.

"What counts as boring? That's a little tricky."

Yes, well that explains why you never actually even attempt to address the question so fundamental to the understanding of your entire theory then, I suppose, isn't it?

"Taking this reasoning to its reductio ad absurdum would mean picking Java, and then trying to implement a website without using anything else at all. And that would be crazy. You need some means to add things to your toolbox."

Can't you use old 'boring' technology in this case? Don't use Mongodb; use Mariadb/MySQL. Old; tried and true; as 'boring' as it gets by this guy's implied but never stated definition.

... and I just went back and read the subtitle under "Dan McKinley", to wit: Math, Programming, and Minority Reports." Sir, if you are reading this, I have no doubt you are far better a Mathematician than I, but you seem to have made the mistake of thinking that being good at Math and being able to write a few scripts has placed you in a position to pontificate poignantly on subject matter with which you have no actual grasp. Please leave the Software Engineering to the Software Engineers, and I promise not to try to write papers in Math journals. Thanks!

Yes, I have to concur. I was complete baffled, trying to imagine what kind of person would be tech savvy and not appreciate the value of autocomlete in life. Then I noticed pattern. Since I prefer not to respond to an AC unless they are saying something truly unique or it is blatantly clear that they are legitimately trying to add to the conversion, I kept reading and waiting to find a good one to which I might respond. Someone logged in or writing something that remotely approaches a rational thought. Perhaps it is coincidence, but I gave up trying to find a dissenter that wasn't an AC, or was an AC that seemed sincere.