If you can't make a non-round one that will not be a danger in that regard you lack basic imagination and abstract / spacial reasoning skills.

If I were the hiring manager, I'd expect an employee to know that the question only applies to round manhole covers.

In the software development field we call being "pedantic" in that fashion "not making assumptions", and we "insist on being pedantic" because we know that is really a disorganized and semi-clued persons way of saying: "OMFG! He expects may to say what I mean and know what I am saying! I can't do THAT!!!," while you try to project your incompetence on us. (Next you'll be writing an ARM design spec and complaining because I don't assume a particular endianness)

IOTW: If I knew you would be my "manager" then I wouldn't waste my time showing up for the interview.

"You have no understanding what "mission critical" means. Mission critical means anything that causes a major failure if the component fails. "

There is no mission critical software in Halo you frigging idiot.

" Do you really think there is a place for Easter Eggs in mission critical software?"

Again, my dear moron, nobody is talking about mission critical software but you. Nobody is talking about easter eggs in Central Office firmware, for example. Just accept that you tried to re-frame the conversation in an idiotic way, hoping nobody would call you on it, and instead you exposed yourself to be the moron you are.

"Fewer software makers are willing to embed open source software due to the high risk of including wide open security holes in their products."

Well that certainly explains the vast majority of commercial embedded systems run Linux, then, doesn't it?

"Aside from the reduced security risks, commercial libraries often come with legal indemnification clauses, which bring extra business value."

Are you trolling, or just a moron? Point me to one software product that doesn't leave the onus on the developer. Just one. I can't wait to see your link. Show me just one commercial proprietary product that says "use us and we'll protect you in court when your/our code gets hacked"

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 :-(