There are a couple of reasons.

1. The USA provided significant material support to Pakistan prior to and during the Indo-Pakistani wars which were to some extent seen as a cold war proxy conflict between the USA and USSR; this support and military cooperation continues in various forms, so India is naturally wary of American actions in the region. Although the cold war is for the most part over and the relationship between Russia and the USA has warmed substantially, India and Pakistan are still constantly at each other's throats; fatal border clashes are quite common.

2. India is a democracy but it is a country that is still plagued by a socially ingrained class system that just won't die. Corruption, strife, and malnutrition are rampant; while literacy is not. Deflecting blame onto distant, untouchable, and largely uncaring foreign entities is a tried and true method of bolstering domestic support.

3. India is poised to be a potential superpower in the near future, so they're naturally trying to shore up nationalism and a we-can-do-it-ourselves attitude. Conveniently rewriting history, or omitting important contextual information is in no way an Indian invention.

Came here to say pretty much the same thing.

UTF-8 is pretty easy to work with from a memory management perspective and will make it easier when upgrading an established ASCII base.

No it isn't. Canadian copyright law allows for one to create or obtain a backup of any multimedia product that one owns as this falls under fair dealing (aka fair use). However, this doctrine is dated and does not make any stipulation on the legality or the source of the backup, although the recent bill C-11 has clarified it a little bit which would seem to make acquiring copies from others impermissible. This aspect of Canadian copyright law has not been well tested in court, which is why many people have gotten the false impression that it gives them the right to download whatever they want as long as they have paid for something similar in the past.
It is extremely likely that a rightsholder would prevail in court by arguing that since a 1080p BluRay copy and a 480p DVD copy are marketed at different price points, they are different products and downloading the wrong one would not be covered under fair dealing even if that method of acquiring the product were itself permissible. In Canada, the burden to prove fair udealing lays with the defendant, so good luck arguing that.

C is a procedural programming language (and a member of the imperative paradigm). The programmer writes statements and flow control that describe changes in state and the compiler translates this into equivalent machine code. Imperative languages do not care what the programmer wants the program or procedure to do, just what the programmer tells the program or procedure to do. Imperative programming is all about describing how to do something without describing what the desired result is. Classic example: C.

Functional programming languages (members of the declarative paradigm) are an entirely different beast. In functional languages, the programmer describes the program using some sort of logic without specifying implementation. Functional programming is all about describing what to do without describing how to do it. In functional programming, the compiler, interpreter, or parser evaluates the logic and figures out how to arrive at the what on its own. Classic example: SQL.

Some languages, especially those used for safety critical applications, support elements of both imperative and declarative programming. A programmer may write a program imperatively which describes how to do something, and then attach formal logic in the form of descriptors, preconditions, and postconditions that can be used by the compiler or interpreter to ensure that the program code does not only what it is written to do, but what it is formally intended to do. This kind of programming takes a very, very long time to do but it will be damn near bulletproof when done properly.

You're absolutely right about that. ICC contains a number of compiler optimizations for linear algebra functions provided by Intel. I rolled my own because for no other reason than to prove that I could, it was a neat day project.

A good example that I ran into not too long ago was trying to get GCC to autovectorize some heavy matrix multiplication operations without using vector intrinsics. No matter how hard I tried and now matter how explicitly I forced the memory alignment (on x86 double quad-word loads into XMM registers require 16 byte alignment) and ensured that all operations were 128 bits wide (SSE codepath) or 256 bits wide (AVX codepath) GCC just couldn't figure it out on its own. I poured through the compiler output and manage to clear up a few ambiguous data dependencies but I just couldn't get it to autovectorize the main loop.

I ended up digging around in the compiled ASM and noted where GCC was failing to unroll and reorder enough for SLP to work properly. I rewrote a small chunk of it by hand and got the results that I expected but doing so for a large portion of the project would have been unreasonable and also would have bound the source to x86. Instead, I switched from GCC to ICC and ICC picked up the optimization right away. For shiggles I tried Clang/LLVM as well but had no luck with it either.

The quality of removable storage media, especially SD cards (and derivative formats) varies drastically. Apple likes to ensure a consistent ecosystem so that all users have as consistent an experience as possible.

Apple wants to avoid cases where users blame Apple for sluggish application performance, skipping music/video, bugs, etc... that are a result of something that Apple can't control or exert influence over.

It's not possible to do any of those.

1. The mechanism that this uses doesn't provide for deterministic results. At worst, rewriting the same row numerous times may result in some of the bits in spatially related rows being corrupted.

2. Address spaces are highly randomized and virtual to physical translation makes it incredibly difficult to obtain even an educated guess as to the layout.

This exploit just allows an attacker to possibly corrupt nearby data. It's a troll tool, nothing else.

Defamation law is substantially different in Canada compared to other common-law countries, especially the USA.

In Canada there is a substantial onus on the defendant to either justify the defamatory remarks (factual truth, fair comment, responsible reporting, etc...) or challenge the defamatory nature of the statement. Probable truth is not sufficient to justify defamation. This contrasts sharply with other common law jurisdictions that place the onus on the plaintiff to prove that the defamatory statement was factually false or malicious.

You're right, it's not a revolutionary step in security. Amplifying and cascading samples of thermal noise is good, but sampling radioactive decay is better. Presumably it would also shift additional security into the warhead itself rather than relying on an external and potentially fallible component.

You're not going to get any argument from me on whether or not these kinds of people exist, because they certainly do. I was just ranting.

Terminating employees often isn't free, nor is hiring new ones. Training existing employees to handle new tools is often the preferred method. I personally would be reluctant to hire someone in the first place if they know jQuery but not Javascript. That tells me that the individual may not be particularly interested in their profession, and may not take their job seriously. I'd be even more concerned if they show no interest in fundamentals.

Knowing what tool to use for a particular job is almost never a part of any job description. It is however a crucial skill to have when it comes to problem solving and failing to demonstrate it can make oneself look like an idiot. An individual that is only capable of performing the bare minimum and is not interested in doing anything else is not an individual that I would be intent on hiring. It's people like these that manage to make the most powerful microprocessor on the market feel like an 80386.

If someone doesn't know more than just JQuery they will be unable to cope when their code doesn't produce the desired result. If the project's requirements change in such a way that it can no longer be completed in baby's first development library, that "developer" then becomes a liability to his or her employer. Furthermore, even if it's all that he or she needs to know, he or she will be unable to assess situations in which JQuery is not used yet may be appropriate, or in which JQuery is used but would not be appropriate. It's an ignorant form of tunnel vision.

We'll end up with more brainless "web developers" who will be able to copy and paste code snippets in Javascript and Python without having any clue about how anything else actually works.

Indeed. Many of the web developers that I know are high-school dropouts.

OP is right though, discrete algorithmic problems are always a fun exercise to solve and implement in any programming language.

You're absolutely right. I'm not defending the company in the slightest. I'm just pointing out that the case at hand is not a clear case of a broken system and not "clear permission to employers to violate all labour standards". The company got caught and fined. The punative fine is not substantial and I'd love to know how they managed to argue it down so much but they won't be able to make the same argument if they get caught again.