It is very much a bad thing when studying squishy fiction writing is touted as a recipe for better reasoning.

People who don't know anything about science should not read scientists' criticism of shitty scientists.

No, US blames China for every exploit, and China likes to posture. In reality it's mostly organized crime, and there is plenty of that in Russia.

Unrelated to that -- who cares, at least it keeps US from bringing up invasion of Syria or other truly idiotic crap.

And this kis why dual licensing is sucha bad idea -- enemies of the project have an incentive to buy the primary developer and only continue development under the worst of the licenses.

There is no god, and therefore there arte no god-given right.

One may say that government _recognizes_ the right instead of granting it, but the difference is purely cosmetic -- it is government's decision as implemented in law, what is and what is not a right, and someone may agree or disagree with it, but there is nothing objective about it, at best government implements what majority of people believe to be important right. However as history progresses, this changes -- for example, owning slaves was a right in early US, and now it is not.

Powers of the government and rights of the people, not the other way around.

No doubt, in 1998, when the only way to display things in a browser was to run whole applications in a window embedded in a page, and applications insisted on their own controls that did not consider that window may be that small.

So now it came to the advanced PR strategy commonly known as a shouting match -- supportetrs of something extremely unpopular bombard the population with meaningless statements that seem to support their ideas, and insult everyone who disagrees with them. The goal is to present unpopular idea as popular in hope to recruit supporters among the uninformed, until it will become popular.

The reality is, Wayland developers' design abilities are at the level of kindergarten. This is why they claim, it is so hard to extend or update the protocol while providing backward compatibility -- because they are all incapable of protocol design.

Their "answers" are blatantly intellectually dishonest. There is no effort -- none whatsoever -- to provide network transparency for Wayland applications, and the support they promise for X11 applications (that their system is supposed to replace) is at the same level that exists on Windows -- famous for being total crap. Clearly they want to make X11 applications unusable, so everyone will have to switch to their system, and there there will be at best Windows level of remote UI.

And just to pre-emptively answer the hordes of people parroting "But X is so horrible" and "But remote X does not work" bullshit.

Windows remote desktop is not better than remote X11 applications, and anyone who tells this, never actually seen X11 being used. What is not surprising considering that he is a Microsoft marketring contractor.

P.S. Thanks to some of you, now my karma is "Terrible", so I can only post twice a day. Congratulations with your great victory and please die in a fire.
I also ask everyone who wants to support me, or at least to counter-act this bullshit, to mod up my posts.

Well, I guess, Microsoft can start buying land around hospitals and charge ambulances for passing.
Or maybe buy all orphanages worldwide, and turn them into for-profit prisons.

That will keep them consistent and recognizable.

Except, of course, all those things are tied to Windows programming model, and are completely unnecessary on platforms other than Windows, for programmers other than Windows programmers. It's easier to create something from scratch than to port it from Microsoft model, even if you have all kinds of pseudo-emulation and ports -- at best you will get a modern equivalent of MSIE for Solaris (yes, it existed).

Goons pissed off someone again?

Yes, it can. Occasionally and given the conditions that won't cause the picture to turn into a total crap due to simple laws of physics. The point of photo journalism is not to make "great photos", it's to make acceptably good photos OF THINGS THEY ARE REPORTING ABOUT.

What is often in conditions like this, this, this, this or this.

And then amateur (such as myself) is ok, but he still has to use a camera that can handle the lighting conditions, movement, distance and required depth of field, and have minimal clue about taking photos in those conditions. Neither a great photographer with iPhone, nor a reporter with minimal training and DSLR (because really, they have to be delusional to combine a beginner photographer and a camera that only works in perfect conditions) would be able to take them. I admit, I have chosen subjects such as Valencia Street hipster in his natural environment for the heck of it, but journalists don't get such a choice.

Congratulations, you (and possibly your whole team) are incompetent.

It's what the ideas of modules and interfaces are for.

There are no "code monkeys" for the same reason why there are no human calculators and tape operators -- tools reached the point where it makes no sense to dedicate people to implementation because communication of "architects" with those people causes more effort and greater possibility of mistakes than just having the same developer doing design and implementation. Anyone who pretends that this distinction still exists, is a charlatan.