But even if they had a good director, they can't just undo the Prequels. They're already out there, and they've already ruined Star Wars.

Some of the fan edits actually make the prequels decent movies.

That story doesn't need to be set in Space, require aliens, Jedi, Sith or the Force, and is told literally every day on the news.

Art imitates life.

Everybody in other countries with an ounce of brains in their heads could reasonable assumed that this is going on, and everybody in America with an ounce of brains can reasonably assume that other countries (including our allies) is either doing the same thing or trying to gain the means to do so.

Not everybody was aware of the extent this was happening, like the NSA trying to subvert encryption protocols and hardware devices. Certainly those well-versed in security culture probably suspected, but the confirmation of how pervasive it is was still surprising.

You're missing the point: our network infrastructure is already DoS vulnerable. A remote DoS is just another drop in a full pool. To suggest that a DoS vulnerability "compromises" the remote system doesn't seem justified.

I'm not referring to any specific DoS, just DoS as a general class aren't necessarily security vulnerabilities, ie. specific DoS vulnerabilities might also be security vulnerabilities, but being a DoS vulnerability does not automatically also make it a security vulnerability.

A bug that allows remote code execution or even a DoS is a much, much bigger issues than fixing the user experience or minor stability issues.

I agree security vulnerabilities are worse than simple bugs. However DoS is not. Our entire network infrastructure is already vulnerable to DoS, so vulnerabilities of this sort are just par for the course really.

Like Slashdot Beta, this is probably being driven by âoeweb designersâ and marketers.

Have you considered that perhaps they're going for more more convenient vertical integration and better workflow to help them supplant Microsoft's enterprise offerings? I'm all for that. Prematurely judging the interface before even trying it sounds pretty silly to me.

If I wrote a book, and you copied all my chapter titles for your book, be certain that I (or rather my publisher) would come after you. I put a lot of work into those titles after all.

You can mirror a table of contents structure without using the exact wording verbatim.

APIs are different though. They are meant to be copied. You can't use them without copying them.

No, you can't implement a version of that API without copying them. Analogously, if you wanted to substitute a textbook around which you've designed a series of lectures based on the chapter structure, you can't without keeping that same structure.

I really don't see why a jury is deciding this. Imagine trying to explain to a bunch of random shmucks about programming languages, interfaces, etc.

It's not that hard with some accessible analogies. An interface is like the table of contents for a book. Is a table of contents alone copyrightable?

Everyone should be armed. Assuming you're not a felon, a weapon should be in every single citizen's possession. Period. No loopholes.

Felons are citizens. That sounds like a loophole.

As languages and tools are fundamentally incapable of "fixing" limitations of the people using them, I guess you are on the left-side of the Dunning-Kruger graphs as well

Computers enhancing human reasoning. Therefore, computers can't "fix" all human limitations, they can only fix some of them. This is true regardless of whether or not you're a bad programmer. A safe programming language can make a bad programmer into a decent programmer, and a good programmer into great programmer (where "greatness" is a measure of defect rate per thousand lines of code).

You might as well argue that we should go back to designing bridges and buildings on pencil and paper, because only people who don't understand civil engineering need to design such things using computers. It's an asinine point of view. Good engineers can design ambitious buildings with computers that could never have been designed on pencil and paper, and the "trivial" buildings and bridges that still need building are left for engineers with more limitations.

The exact analogous argument applies to programming. Computers and safe programming languages enhance human reasoning, and if you don't think so, then I suggest you throw away all of your calculators and computers, because clearly you can get on just fine in today's world without them. Good luck with that.

Unfortunately, bullying is not against the law, its against POLICY. Necessity is for breaking THE LAW. No law was broken so you can't take this route.

Depends. Quite a bit of bullying is physical assault, and it's definitely harassment.

"Scientists" have been caught inflating/skewing their results to increase funding.

I'm aware of plenty of manufactured "scandals" in which no fake or massaged data was ever revealed. In fact, they generally amount to quotations taken out of context and blown to volcanic proportions. Sorry if I don't find this convincing.

The security level of a piece of code with good security is 95% coder competence and 5% language, i.e. language is irrelevant.

Sure, and memory management, and program correctness, and just about any other achievable program property is 95% coder competence and 5% language by this argument. Except the coders that can guarantee 100% that said property is achieved make up 0.001% of the coder population, which means the vast majority of importance falls on the language to prevent memory leaks, out of bounds errors, and the plethora of other program correctness violations and security vulnerabilities.

Language is important for code performance though, but only in the sense that it can kill it.

A language implementation determines code performance, not a language.

This nonsense about the language being capable of fixing problems with the people using is comes from "management" types that are unable to handle people that are individuals.

No, it comes from other programmers who recognize not only their own limitations, but the limitations of nearly every other human being who can't seem to come to the same realizations. Dunning-Kruger all the way.

But no, if they discover something that might counter current scientific beliefs, they might loose funding or even their jobs...

You don't understand how science works. If they discover something counter to what we currently know, they'll get more funding to explore this new discovery.

Furthermore, scientists have standards of conduct, transparency requirements and ethics reviews, but the interests opposing AGW do not. And yet you're more skeptical of the transparent science than you are of the unsupported claims of vested interests?

Also interesting that this whole (alleged) "conflict of interest" argument that's used against scientists, applies more to the people opposed to AGW, and yet the AGW-deniers somehow think the latter is just fine, while the former calls into question the scientific data and the conclusions it implies.

AGW deniers are no better than the anti-vaccination idiots.