Odd that. US has no problems with anyone they can call an ally beefing up their military. They complain when we talk about reducing ours (not that I mind - I work for a company that counts the MOD as one of its major clients).

Japan also has a pacifist constitution. They maintain zero offensive capabilities, bar offensive capabilities that could be repurposed. There's not much defensive about a nuclear weapon (aside from MAD arguments).

It amuses me that we (the UK) have actually detonated about the same number of nuclear weapons as China.

Several of those countries probably don't even want them. Germany is even getting rid of nuclear reactors for power generation.

I think my preference would be to always attempt the check and in the case of a soft-fail to indicate that there was a soft-fail so the user can still make an informed decision. Or at least a semi-informed one.

Chrome turns the "check for revocation" option off by default, it seems.

I have two monitors; the sidebar is on the right hand one. It mostly gets used as place to dump things I don't need to look at continuously while working or generally doing "stuff".

These are bachelor's level (undergraduate degrees).

And the Dutch. They even teach entire university courses in English there.

Leave it on a train, probably.

Fluke is common here too. They're generally recognizable without seeing the logo: they're basically all yellow and dark grey.

And brand name actually does matter - it's an indicator of expected quality, both in terms of performance and safety. Fluke are known to make good meters with clear displays, quick display update, good continuity test response, and that won't fail spectacularly. They're not the only people with a good reputation, of course; Amprobe are also good (recognizable by basically all being red and dark grey). The fact that Fluke and Amprobe are both part of the same group may have something to do with that (Tektronix and Keithley are also part of the group).

All the ones in my home town shut down. The last one went when the woman who owned it died; no-one wanted to take over running it.

I believe part of the point of SELinux is that it approaches the problem from a direction of explicit permission rather than implicit. You explicitly have to say a program can do something, rather than the program just doing it because that's what it defaults to.

Also the people are responsible for installing/configuring the system and the people responsible for installing/configuring the software that runs on the system aren't always the same.

Microsoft pretty much always try and go for compatibility. Users get pissy when stuff suddenly stops working.

Not at nine o'clock at night, no.