Jesus said, "Those who have been saved from much, love much." IMO, this is more an indictment of the years of suffering in Objective C than anything else.

Other than working with interfaces, where C# will build a framework for you and VB will not, I really see very little difference to account for the hatred. In fact, the string functions in VB are actually preferable.

And again, turn off any feature that you don't need. Especially things like public FTP, configuration from the internet, VPN, WPS setup, etc.

I had no issues with Asus except my hard drive (which I was using for file sharing and UPnP) dying. Also, all access to that USB-attached drive was slow and would slow down the router, meaning that any attempt to access a large number of files (such as an in-place backup) would slow everything to a crawl. I recently moved my drive to use an old netbook as a server (14W) and it's much better now.

I used to get 100 Mbps on SpeedTest.net, but the most I've ever seen in the real world is 40 Mbps. I've never seen more from anyone, no matter what. So I recently reduced my internet speed to 50 Mbps and saved $30/month. Why pay for "ludicrous speed" when no company can actually give it to you?

Sony's network hacks were repeatedly done on long-known vulnerabilities.

What part of "Almost all murders happen either in affect, or in a situation where the perpetrator thinks he can get away with it" did you fail to understand? Those two types of murders is not impacted by whether there's a death penalty or not.

A couple of less common murder types are also not affected:
- Those who seek martyrdom. Actually, I think many of those would prefer there being a death penalty.
- Those who seek to go out in a blaze of glory, i.e. never be tried and sentenced.

So what murders, exactly, are affected? Who are those who will kill if there's a life sentence, but not if there's a death penalty? Statistics don't show lessened murder rates for states with capital punishment, so who are those people?

Quite a few. Like when new exculpatory evidence comes to light, like someone else confessing, or recanting the testimony that led to the conviction, or new or improved technologies can determine innocence.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, from 1973 until today, 152 people have been exonerated after being sentenced to death. Unfortunately, many of them were executed before being exonerated.
Without the death sentence, many more innocents would be alive.

Except that one of them is irreversible.
A -> B vs A -> B, X? B-> A

By your comprehension of logic, there is no logical difference between my beating you and my beating you to death either.

And I appreciate that you used appreciate correctly in the lesser known meaning of the word.

Anyhow, there is a case for capital punishment inflating the death toll even when not counting the capital punishment itself. If you face a likely death penalty, there is no incentive for you to not kill others. Killing others, like witnesses, can then be rationalized by it reducing the risk of getting caught, and thus die.
I have a strong suspicion that many mafia murders were done for that exact reason.

I think that the death penalty should be personally executed by the governor of the state that allows it, under a law that makes it murder subject to capital punishment if he or she ever executes an innocent. Since the governor has the authority to pardon a death penalty, he or she cannot claim coercion.
Would Charlie Baker pull the trigger on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev? Possibly.
But would Greg Abbott pull the trigger on hundreds of people in Texas, knowing that 4 out of 100 people sentenced to death are statistically innocent? Very doubtful.

That's irrelevant, as the justice system is not to be a method for taking revenge, but to make society a better place to live in, with less crime.

The death sentence is flawed for other reasons. Almost all murders happen either in affect, or in a situation where the perpetrator thinks he can get away with it. In either case, having the death penalty will have no effect on whether a murder will happen or not. And it might lead to more murders, because if there's a death penalty in place, the perpetrator has nothing to lose by killing witnesses, cops, or anyone else who might get them arrested, now or in the future. The rational decision for them is to do anything not to get caught, including more murders.

Also, the costs of a death row inmate by far exceeds the costs of a long term imprisonment. (This is particularly true in the states that allow prison slave labor - which has a high correlation to the states that allow capital punishment). The many rounds of appeals that a death sentence automatically trigger cost a heck of a lot more than the room and board.

Then there are the cases of people who have been wrongly executed. One case is one too many. And a peer-reviewed study shows that as many as 4% of people convicted to die are likely innocent.
Unless there's a way to bring people back to life again, that in itself should be enough to put a stop to it.
But the unwashed masses want panem et circenses, and revenge, not justice. So the show goes on. And innocent people die.

No, that does not follow. The verdict can have meaning even if the sentencing doesn't.

Too strong sentences can indeed lead to more criminals on the loose, as well as more murders. If you've already killed once, there's then no incentive to stop killing. If the cops are after you, you increase your chance of survival by shooting them. If a witness sees you, you might as well kill the witness too.

And then there's a lessened risk of being turned in. Take family situations, for example. Few are willing to turn in a relative if it means life without parole or a death sentence for the relative. That means losing the relative forever.

Too harsh sentencing and especially harsh minimum sentencing because the foam-at-the-mouth public wants revenge, not justice, is particularly a problem with rape sentencing. There, the perpetrator quite often is a family member or loved one. Who goes free because the sentencing is so harsh that the victims won't turn them in.

Yet there are proponents for the death sentence not only for murder, but for rape. Which is truly stupid - that means that a rapist will increase his chances of survival by killing the only witness - the victim.

And when rocks are given to a lab for dating, they shouldn't be given a "date range" that they are supposed to fall within.