Who'd you side with? Your paying customer or some shady business that does nothing for you except cause you work without compensation?

No, it comes down to explicitness is always better than explicitness. There is no case in which yours is better, or even usable code.

Don't worry- Java people are learning how to make up for that by creating whole incomprehensible sublanguages based on annotation processing that make C macros look good.

Totally disagree. If I see

for(int i: items) {
  if(i<10){
    results.add(i);
  }
}

I know exactly what it does. Anyone who has done any programming in any language can guess what it does. Its simple, easy to read, and if you want can be pulled into a function. Your haskell and Python implementations are unreadable and requires the user to think about each line. They're inferior to straight forward programming by orders of magnitude and should never be used.

Know how to hack SBCs? Be reasonable. How many are simply going to toss a random answer in to win something?

If the NSA relies on that kind of junk for data collection, their information level is worse than I'd have expected. And I don't expect anything good from them.

Your jurisdiction, unlike the traffic of the internet, is limited to your own country. And the countries you control. Which is a lot, I give you that, but by no stretch whatsoever it's all.

Also: Money trumps laws. Twice so if corporations are involved. If $evil_bastard_country wants to throw money at whoever sells them $supersecret_technology, corporations will not obey your law, they will race against each other to find the loophole. Which usually ends in the tech involved being developed abroad by those suspicious foreigners and then sold to the $evil_bastard_country.

The net effect for the US of such a ban is a loss of jobs, loss of knowledge and most of all valuable IT security information in the hands of whatever foreign country was smart enough not to be as stupid as you are, putting shackles on your own ITSEC industry.

Yeah, it's "on the interne"... erh... wait, can I start over?

In that case the correct answer would be "moar boosters!"

Not to mention that sometimes the people doing covers of some songs are actually better or at least more entertaining than the original group.

Ya know, I wonder why them terrorists don't do that themselves. Why don't they blow up some nasty corporations instead of, say, subways and running events? They really suck at PR, do you have any idea what goodwill they could harvest if they blew up some corporate HQs?

If movie quality was any reason for a rise or decline in copying, infringing would have hit rock bottom years ago.

ISPs send out threatening letters to those that they find copying. ISPs see a 70% drop in copying.

In other words, a third of the people who got the "you filthy pirate" letter simply ignored it.

Well, duh. When I control your computer, I control what anything running on it can see, including myself.

But you're invited to write the better mousetrap. I'd be delighted to test it.

I do. If that's possible at all. Besides, not always does "disabling" a service really render it secure against an exploit targeting it. That's the whole point behind an exploit, that whatever it attacks does not behave as it should.

Seriously. NetUSB? On a router? WHY the devil would I want that?

But lemme guess: It was cheap to add, it was a feature that we can tack onto the "look, shiny!" list of things the router can do and people simply count down the "features" of a router whether they need them or even know what the fuck they are.

Meanwhile, it becomes near impossible to buy a router that is JUST THAT. A router. And in case you're wondering "hey, why would you want that when you can have $feature on top of it for FREE?", look no further than this exploit. Without the useless gadget that netUSB is, this exploit would not exist!