I remember seeing this kind of notation in my grade school textbooks. (I'm from Denmark by the way.)
Though usually it'd be presented with otherwise marked fields, rather than parentheses, and accompanied by short instructions. In earlier grades accompanied by a drawing representing the kind of problem solving needed, instead of written instructions. Like this:

Fill in the blanks, so both sides are equal:
4 + 3 + 2 = ___ + 2

In later grades, regular equation notation was then introduced, substituting x and y for blanks to fill in. Then you'd get a question like this:

Find the value of x in each equation:
4 + 3 + 2 = x + 2
x = ___

My following argument might not work if you follow it through, but consider it anyway.

Every time you consume a plant, you might deny an animal a source of food or a space for living. What if you eating an apple caused a sparrow to die of hunger, who could otherwise have survived off that apple? In this way, consuming plants might also negatively affect animals.

Huh?

H.264 is not "closed source", it's an open standard with open source encoders (famous x264, everything points to it being the best quality encoder available anywhere) and decoders (libavcodec), it's just that a bazillion companies have patents that cover every corner of video coding. It might be "unfree", but it's certainly not "closed source" or "closed standard" or "proprietary".

Last time I had a 35mm film developed (which was late last year), apart from the negatives, I got digital prints of it. I didn't ask for it, but it's what I got. Naturally the negatives were developed chemically, as that's required, but after that most shops will scan the negatives and produce digital prints from that. And it isn't even cheap. Don't get me started on the price of getting low-resolution (about 5-6 MP JPEG) scans burned onto a CD, it's ridiculous.

So all that stuff about a "tunnel of light" is a lie? It's just infinite blue?

I want my money back.

What about that game "Chess" where you command an army to mercilessly slaughter an entire kingdom? If that isn't brutal I don't know what is.

This is a server-checks-client-security thing, not a Microsoft-checks-customer-setup thing. Refusing to work with known-broken software.

Maybe the reason nobody bothers reading documentation is that they have become used to it being poor to non-existent. It's not even worth looking for so when it does exist nobody bother with it because they assume it isn't there or isn't worth it.

But then what happens when 301Works dies?

File a bug against the application.

Not so in Denmark, I remember seeing operator-sponsored phones since the GSM network was first introduced 15 or so years ago, and I believe they have been SIM-locked as well most of the time.

There's no remote code execution possible with this on XP, only DoS. You can make the system essentially freeze while the packeting is going on but that's it. Only Vista and Server 2008 have remote code execution exploits from this bug.

Also you can only exploit this if the machine has software accepting TCP connections. If you have an (application) firewall blocking all incoming connections with no exceptions (such as XP SP2+ has by default) there's no real problem.