I believe it was a reference to soma. Brave New World is generally seen as being more "bread and circuses" whereas 1984 leans more towards oppressive governmental control[1] (see, eg, Amusing Ourselves To Death by Neil Postman). Television is fairly Huxley-esque in that it's about people voluntarily distracting themselves from the burden of political involvement, rather than being forcibly put in their place by something like Miniluv.

[1]: That's not to say that the majority of the population in 1984 isn't kept under control by the media, it's just a less prominent theme.

I'm relatively sure "they" has a long history of being used for a set of people without implying they're a specific group with any sort of organisation.

For instance: "Bakers are excellent. They make delicious things for me to eat."

If you think bakers are a more concrete group than Anonymous then you're kidding yourself. Anonymous is simply "anyone who identifies as Anonymous in some context".

I'm perfectly capable of getting upset about Anonymous vandalism and drone strikes thank-you-very-much.

It'll be a V for Vendetta movie reference, more accurately.

Which is sort of derived in part from the whole Guy Fawkes thing, but I bet most of Anonymous have very little idea about anything outside of that film[1].

[1] I initially meant "anything about Guy Fawkes outside of that film", but I'll leave it as it stands.

I do get the impression, though, that you guys have been choosing between death and death.

Frankly, every loss of human life is a tragedy, whether American citizens or so-called "brown people".

I don't think this was an explanation of why older workers aren't as good as young ones... I read it as why they're less appealing to management (who've just learned that the Cloud is the next big thing. Or node.js. Or something).

The whole "that will be obsolete or irrelevant in 1.7 years" makes it pretty clear to me that the poster shares the "new-fangled" opinion.

I would argue that using "theft" for copyright infringement is just as ridiculous, and the only reason it's not "unlikely" is because it's happening.

I propose we try to counter this "evolution" by encouraging the term "culture rape" for copyright itself (at least in those instances where it's excessive).

It was understandable, at least. Although add voice-recognition into the mix and it's a whole different kettle of fish.

Sadly I do not have mod points. But well played, good sir.

Not Michael Jackson. He means Mick Jagger.

Not to mention that if you don't specify a CPU time limit, and you get an (apparently) infinitely running process you have no way of determining a winner short of solving the halting problem -- which may be a little too much effort if you're just looking to have a kids' programming competition.

Could you explain to me how this is a Catch 22 situation? To me it just looks like a difficult moral choice.

Just don't send the scientists, or we'll get a wonderful Ayn-Randist theme park at the bottom of the ocean :P