In the UK it is:
11(2) The Licensee shall only address Messages to other Amateurs or to the stations of those Amateurs and shall not encrypt these Messages for the purpose of rendering the Message unintelligible to other radio spectrum users.

Australia allows encryption for emergency incidents, but I believe most of the world have similar clauses to the one above in their licence.

Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's legal. In most jurisdictions encrypted telex over shortwave would not be allowed under an amateur licence. Heck, when I get home I could knock up a point-to-point SRTP stream over amateur radio as a proof of concept - but it wouldn't be legal.

The internet is better for communicating with random strangers, sure.

But show me how you can experiment with different modulation schemes using the internet... show me how you can do something as geekycool as bouncing a signal of Venus and receiving it just to see if it can be done using the internet.

In the UK it is "You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court." So no comment, whether it's on the advice of a lawyer or not, may still harm your defence in court.

It is a personal opinion, and that's always subjective.
The fact that the whole user experience is messed up is objective. I expected to hate Win 8 because it was different and I was ready for that. I didn't expect to hate it because of a bunch of stuff that MS should know better than to screw up!

Windows 8 doesn't suck because of the lack of a start button.
It doesn't suck because of a lack of an Aero like interface
The Metro interface doesn't suck

Windows 8 sucks because it flips between the classic and the metro interface seemingly at random. Yes, we computer folks know that it depends on whether the program has been written as a metro program or a classic one, but from the start screen there is no way to tell what interface you'll end up in when you click on a program. And I'm pretty sure that consistency is one of the central tenets of good UI design.

Nope. I thought that was the whole of the story, rather than an introduction.

Watching the animated .gif on the wiki though, the dialogue really has a Waiting For Godot feel about it.

There's another issue mixed in there: only 3 of those systems support clustering - and that's counting OCFS and OCFS2 as different filesystems. So you can add single machine performance vs. distributed performance into the mix. Then there's small file vs. large file performance: if you're only ever storing virtual machine disk images and you could get a 1% I/O boost by using an optimized FS then you'd probably take it. Suddenly the number of filesystems which need supporting starts to look reasonable.

Given a choice of production ready according to (my tests) or production ready according to (my tests Red Hat tests) I'd take the latter every time.

Yes, sooner or later Red Hat WILL miss something. Sooner or later I WILL miss something too. I trust Red Hat to do a breadth of testing which I don't do, and then I do a depth of testing for my specific workload as best as I can model it (and real life has this really annoying habit of finding inventive ways not to conform to my models.)

A more appropriate time would be, y'know, when a North Korean missile is inbound.

No - only people with savings they can afford to risk can invest.

I never have mod points when there's something I want to moderate! This is the thing to do. Get in touch with the hospital's security people. If the scans are causing any problems with IT operations then arrange with them to schedule the scans differently. Otherwise, explain that you've picked up the scans and blocked them per procedure. Ask if they want you to unblock their specific scan so that they can find any issues which would reveal weaknesses you could defend against in more depth.

All this may be unwelcome but it doesn't sound like there's much you can do about it, so treat it as an opportunity.

But he's asking people to disprove that Genesis is literally true. If he is saying that the discrepancies are caused by some of Genesis not being literally true then his argument vanishes in a puff of logic.

I think you misunderstood the GNU/Linux claim.
The GNU people have never (as far as I know) claimed to have built the Linux kernel. They got upset that people were running systems where everything except the kernel was written by GNU(*), and they weren't getting any credit. Referring to the systems as GNU/Linux was an attempt to redress that.

(*): Admittedly, many users would have been running XFree86 and other software not written by GNU as well, but I don't think anyone was running a Linux kernel and not running GNU.

But the Internet has been around since 1969 (and the idea for it since 1962.) The web was just an incremental improvement over Gopher. Nothing about the Internet as in invention in 1990 (or 1995) was surprising to people who knew what had come before. The invention itself contained no surprise.

What surprised Microsoft (and others) wasn't "The Internet," it was people's response to it and the fact that a HUGE network effect meant that an exponentially growing number of people wanted to use the internet.