The summary makes an an unsupported and unclear accusation against Goodwill. If this submission is a legitimate question it should either eliminate this accusation or cite it and explain what criteria the submitter is looking for.

Submitter: What do you mean when you say they "exploit the related government handouts instead of doing it to benefit those people?" What exploitation are you talking about? My concern here is that it sounds like you would only donate to Goodwill if they refused the government handouts. But since all non-profits get handouts, in the form of tax benefits, I fear that no non-profit will meet your requirements.

They may be about money, but let us be clear that they aren't legitimate companies making money, they are about fraud.

Today, most spam is malware or scams. It's not like 10 years ago when it was businesses paying for "direct mailing." Looking at several people's spam filters, most of it purports to come from Walmart, Amazon, iTunes, Overstock.com, ... These are legit companies who are not sending me free $50 gift coupons every day. The rest are offering stock tips, "adult" services, diplomas, antivirus, or prescription medication.

I keep seeing people claiming that Arnica Montana cream works to reduce swelling. Unfortunately, they also sell Arnica Montana as a homeopathic pill.

First, we have to find funding.
Then, we have to determine which snake-oil to test.

The problem with funding is that many of these remedies are not patentable, so there is no commercial interest in researching a solution. We need either a government entity to do it, or a non-profit. I had the idea of creating a line of herbal remedies, and donating the profits to research to see if the remedies actually work - along with the promise to publish the results and stop stop selling the remedy if it doesn't work. I wonder if people would go for it.

Determining which snake-oil to test is a bit political. Like you say, we really only test things once there is some kind of theory as to how it works. Maybe that is why nobody tests Burzynski's cure. The CNSA then NASA tested the EM drive, but it did have a working theory of operation that was good enough to make physicists go "hmmmm...."

[emphasis mine]

Some people are answering how to make something "compilable" 25 years in the future. That's different from making it "maintainable." A VM will make the project compilable. But it won't make it maintainable. Ex: I can compile MS COBOL code for CP/M, but I can't find developers to maintain it. The only way to make it maintainable is to continue to update to newer operating systems, libraries, and tools over the course of the 25 years. If you are in a regulated environment, there is cost to that. That cost needs to be part of the maintenance budget for years to come.

That is impossible. If management wants you to do this, ask them what the budget will be in 25 years. You can accurately predict the development environment in 25 years with the same accuracy that they can predict the budget in 25 years. The closest you can get to this goal, is to have the source code for everything. When you use closed-source software, then your contracts should require that the source code be released to you when the product is no longer supported. Such conditions are not uncommon in the medical industry. The contract will likely forbid you from using that source code for anything other than maintaining that product since they won't want you become a competitor.

I work for a medical device manufacturer, who does this. We do *not* try to predict what tools will be available in the future. We keep VMs and make sure it doesn't require external packages to run. Ex: all installs, binaries, etc. are available. No npm or nuget required on the build server. Over the course of decades, you will have to move the source into newer repositories (RCS -> CVS -> subversion -> GIT) or keep ZIP file archives since that is easier.

1) The previous Slashdot discussions on Philae include some insightful comments on RTGs.
2) The Forbes article says that the project manager, Stephan Ulamec, cited political reasons for not using plutonium. There is no quote attributed to that, but another forum claims that it is in the youtube interviews of him. If he truly said this, shame on Forbes for not quoting him directly and leaving it uncited.

These have to be considered in a cultural context. The phrase "People like this should be taken out back and shot" is a colloquialism. Really a dysphemism. It may be a jerky, insensitive, and ugly - but there are people who utter that phrase but have never thrown a punch or held a fun in their life. Even the person who changed "should be" to "will be" is just trying to add emphasis.

The Agammamnon5.3.15 statement above is similar to someone posting "I'm going to ream that guy's asshole so hard he can't walk for a week." If you really take it literally, and look at what they said, that is one of the most horrible awful things a human being could ever say. And yet, it's probably uttered daily by a lot of people talking about their boss or a politician, with no intent of action.

Yes, it would have resulted in an error, which is exactly what I needed. It was not "more or less the same result." It was a completely different result that obfuscated the actual problem. When they got the Bing page, I first had to determine if they typed it into the correct box. Then, I had to determine what they typed in and what was wrong with it. But since it erased what I typed, the user couldn't read back to me what they typed.

There is a compromise: If it gave them the Bing search result, but didn't change what they entered into the URL bar, and/or echoed back what they typed in, then I would not have lost valuable information.

I had to include the scheme in this case, and I couldn't mail them the URL because it was the URL to get to their mail. :-) Worse yet, it had a port number.

Please no! Just yesterday I told a client, who uses IE, to go to a URL. They tried it and got a Bing search result. First I thought they used the search bar. But no, it turned out they mistyped something in the address bar, and so it decided "that wasn't a valid URL" and it ran a search instead. It would have been better if it said "server not found" or "hey, you can't have spaces in URLs" or "you forgot the colon after https." But since the default behavior is to run a search, it replaced what they typed with "http://bing.com/search?q=...." so they couldn't read it back to me to fix the problem. Ugh.

Let's see if they were right about that. Most popular extensions

Adblock plus: 20 million users
Video downloadhelper: 5 million users
Firebug: 2 million users
.
.
.
Pocket: 257k users

It is pretty popular. That puts it on Page 4 of the list.

Altering the content is the very core of net neutrality violations. One could, debatably, argue that packet shaping and quality of service is part of what an ISP needs to do to maintain a good flowing network. But there is no excuse whatsoever for altering content, and it is far more dangerous. It is bad if getting to a competitors web site is slow. It is frightening if the competitors web site has different content on it.

This is what extensions and forks are for. Stop adding this into the core browser. I just upgraded to FF 38.0.5 today and I spent the morning reading pop-ups arrows pointing to features I don't want. The most recent one, "Pocket", requires me to sign-up for some 3rd-party service. So basically, someone wanted to advertise their product and they probably paid the Mozilla Foundation to get it added in.

Oh look, there's a bug request to have it removed.

Came here to post this same comment. This is entire article is nothing but vague and potentially misleading information. I like to hate on the TSA Too, but this article is implying that we need to give the TSA *more* powers, because they didn't find something. But it doesn't won't tell us what the TSA didn't find or why they should have found it.

Don't feed the troll. This goes especially for AC trolls.

He attacked me personally "how much are you getting paid" When you pasted the quote he wanted, he does an unsupported ad-hominem against the state of California.

I don't believe you. You are just trying to lull me into a sense of security to make me do it.