I recall the same thing. "Must have 5 years of experience with Windows 95"... in 1998. I was thinking: "Uh, that's about 6 people in the world, and the all currently work for Microsoft...."

For #2. If the job description says 5 years of C# and you don't have it (and your cover letter doesn't have an adequate explanation why that shortcoming won't be an issue), your resume will be immediately thrown away due to your obvious inability to follow direction. If you're not going to listen before you have the job, what makes me think that you'll listen after you have the job?

You may wish to examine how Ford determined that the potential for fire exists. Likely it's because there were a few cases out in the wild where the Escapes actually did ignite, prompting some sort of investigation as to why they ignited, which lead to the determination that there was a fault in design, which lead to a recall. Since this investigation has determined that a fault exists, Ford is proactively avoiding lawsuits by recalling vehicles that are now known to be faulty.

Do be sure that when calculating the per mile cost on the IC automobile you include the costs of rebuilding the engine/transmission, and the rest of the IC maintenance (timing chains, spark plugs, etc).

Exactly. It also means that a car that gets 4.1 and a 5.9 is also a "5 star" car. Which is probably equally misleading.

Yep. The NHTSA apparently gives the manufacturers the individual ratings in each category, which presumably go above 5 and may be decimal. They may have some sort of agreement that they aren't allowed to publish the individual ratings.

Apparently people aren't reading what's been said. Tesla's press release says: "National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has awarded the Tesla Model S a 5-star safety rating", and "NHTSA does not publish a star rating above 5". Thus Tesla is not claiming that they were assigned a 5.4 since they outright acknowledge that NHTSA doesn't publish a rating above 5. What Tesla did say is that if one were to take the individual scores that were provided by the NHTSA (which apparently includes ratings above 5, and possibly decimal as well) and average those, the resultant number would be a 5.4.
Now what is probably getting the other manufacturers upset is that the clipping of the results at 5 means that the vehicles that just squeaked into the 5 look the same as vehicles which may have blown past the 5. If they didn't like that, why aren't the individual scores also integral and clipped at 5? Then one could not possibly claim (or even appear to claim) a number higher than 5.
So, this whole release is trying to beat up Tesla for something they didn't say. They didn't say that the NHTSA awarded them a 5.4 rating (see the first quote). They did say: "achieved a new combined record of 5.4 stars.".

Then they shouldn't be in the meeting. Here's where the problem is. People calling meetings and including as many people as possible so as to appear important "look how many people I can get to show up", instead of calling the people to which the meeting's content matters. Yes, doing email or making phone calls during a meeting is a bad thing. (Additionally, meetings that just simply go on too long. People who want to rehash the same thing over and over, that sort of thing.)

Neither does mine...

Hmm.. that blog post reads of marketing-speak. It talks about "plan to open-source" and release as a binary module. If it's "open-source", what about the source code? And it talks about "plan to" open-source. Not that they are going to, or already have, but they "plan to" in some nebulous future timeframe, which by then, the plans may have changed. Another statement I find interesting is that the "(IETF) will decide next week" about which codec to use. I'm guessing that he's referring to the IETF 88 meeting happening in Vancouver next week. Too bad nothing actually gets decided at the meeting. Decisions go back to the working group mailing lists for decisions.

This is complaining because code which is already broken is broken more by the compiler? The programmer is already causing unpredictable things to happen, so even "leaving the code in" still provides no assurances of correct behaviour. An example of how the article is skewed:

No, it's not. The language forbids undefined behavior. If your program invokes undefined behavior, it is no longer well-formed C or C++.

Right up until that guy who "didn't actually cause a problem" hits somebody with the corp truck and that results in a lawsuit against the company. Thus the corp cannot condone the truck being used off-hours. Between the two arguments of "It's Corp X's truck, thus they need to be sued for letting the guy use it.", and "Well, the corp didn't do anything about me using the truck, if I couldn't have used the truck I wouldn't have had the accident, thus the corp is liable.", the corp is screwed. So they have to take a hardline against it so that they can defend against those stupid arguments (which they have to spend $$$ on lawyers just to present those arguments).

Irrelevant to the question at hand. The question was about safety, not the environmental impact.

IMHO: This one would be easier to achieve if the cyclists behaved like the vehicles that they are classified as. Such as not riding up along the shoulder of the road (where there are not supposed to be any vehicles), or riding between the lanes (where again there are not supposed to be any vehicles), or any of the other rules of the road. I know I'm not irritated by cyclists following the rules, I'll patiently wait behind a cyclist (with a respectable distance between myself and their back tire... they have a far shorter stopping distance than I do...) who is respecting the rules. That cyclist that shot up in the middle of the lane between us... those I get irritated with. (Though they still get the distance... not worth potentially injuring someone over...)

"noting he's only broken his collarbone twice and hip once in four decades of long-distance cycling"
And in my two and a half decades of driving, I've broken nothing (neither my own, nor anybody else's bones). Does that mean that driving is infinitely safer than cycling?

Reminds me of a scene from Andromeda when Tyr was advising a prince:
Tyr: Trust no one
Prince: Can I trust you?
Tyr (incredulous): No!