The photoelectric effect and general relativity are not the same thing. Please read the GP comment again.

You've managed to miss the point while proving it, which I must say is an impressive accomplishment. The point is that the majority of the population of MX lacks the fiscal resources to purchase Starbucks beverages for precisely the reason you've noted. This is why a reply of "first world problems" is either funny or sad (perhaps both) irrespective of the buying power of a small fraction of the population of any region where a business with relatively expensive products happens to open a storefront. To help reinforce the point, you may wish to reference a list of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita.

What's a former Marine?

You're welcome to implement whatever you want yourself. Incidentally, my original UID (circa 1998) was considerably lower than yours, for whatever that's worth.

My comment was in reply to the posts made by Osgeld and the AC that followed, not to you. Thus, I never said you appear to have a poor understanding of electricity. Quite to the contrary, I was providing a correction for the erroneous statements made by the aforementioned posters. However, I would be remiss if I failed to note that factual observations and contradictions of untrue statements are not intrinsically belittling, although accusations of such intent are frequently made in an appeal to emotional sensitivity by those who wish to deflect attention from flawed positions. I have no interest in taking extraordinary measures to avoid bruising fragile egos, and thus I tend to ignore appeals to emotion and focus further on points which are apparent sensitivity zones. If anything, such areas frequently deserve even closer critical examination.

This is grossly incorrect. The car is a a much better conductor to ground than a human body. Even leaving the metal portion of a car aside, rubber becomes an rather good conductor at the power levels provided by a lightning strike, certainly a better conductor than your body. Where are you getting your misinformation?

Incorrect. While occupying the interior of a vehicle would afford better protection than you'd get standing alone, you wouldn't have to be fully inside the car for it to afford some protection in the event of a lightning strike. Merely being in contact with the door handle would create a condition whereby the car provides a more conductive path to ground than your body. You appear to have a poor understanding of electricity. Incidentally, rubber becomes more conductive at power levels approaching those supplied by lightning strikes.

If you live in MX, odds are good you aren't trading nearly the amount of currency the GP is yielding on a daily basis for that take friendliness. Therein lies the essence of a first world problem.

What do the Village People have to do with this? Is it fun to work at the old CIA?

First world problems.

You seem confused. Please try reading this thread again, starting with the original post I replied to. Also, the counter-example I provided in my last reply isn't Python. Before opening your mouth to speak, you should probably be reasonably certain you know what you're talking about. Cheers.

You just quoted 106 characters to accomplish the following simple task:

print "Hello, World\n";

That's 23 characters to accomplish the same task, but the core issue isn't even really the character count alone. It's the verbosity combined with the requirement that an object be explicitly constructed to perform something that is a fundamentally procedural task.

n/t

As a side note, if our hypothetical programmer merely examines and untaints $ENV{PATH} in the last example, the exploit will succeed, since Perl doesn't do any taint inspection of a string passed to system() unless it interpolates potentially tainted input. Still, a reasonable programmer would hopefully have an "ah ha" moment after being reminded that $ENV{PATH} is tainted and consider the rest of the environment.