Since you are obviously cherry-picking your sources again (which I have pointed out to you before), let me add some recent sources from highly respected journals about the risk of low-dose radiation. Ofcourse, according to Mr. D. all these journals just publish pseudo-science. Reminds me of the old joke with the wrong-way driver.

"... First, it is clear that we have now passed a watershed in our field, where it is no longer tenable to claim that CT risks are "too low to be detectable and may be non-existent" (5). A large well-designed epidemiologic study has clearly shown that the individual risks are small but real..."
Journal: Radiology
Link: http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/...

"...We noted a positive association between radiation dose from CT scans and leukaemia (...) and brain tumours (...)."
Journal: The Lancet
Link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

"Conclusions The increased incidence of cancer after CT scan exposure in this cohort was mostly due to irradiation. ..."
Journal: British Medical Journal
Link: http://www.bmj.com/content/346...

"The study supports the extrapolation of high-dose rate risk models to protracted exposures at natural background exposure levels."
Journal: Leukemia
Link: http://www.nature.com/leu/jour...

And with respect to Fukushima there were recent estimates from a Stanford guy:
"We estimate an additional 130 (15â"1100) cancer-related mortalities and 180 (24â"1800) cancer-related morbidities incorporating uncertainties associated with the exposureâ"dose and doseâ"response models used in the study. We also discuss the LNT model's uncertainty at low doses. .... Radiation exposure to workers at the plant is projected to result in 2 to 12 morbidities. An additional [similar]600 mortalities have been reported due to non-radiological causes such as mandatory evacuations."
Journal: Energy & Environmental Science
Link: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content...

Yes, and isn't great that you can do this?

But should Linux drop X many applications will stop supporting X properly. They will then not run properly on any X server anymore, neither on Mac, Windows, or Linux or elsewhere. Or in other words, your X server on Windows or Mac OS X is only useful, because there is currently a large ecosystem based around X.

If Linux switches to Wayland, this ecosystem will be gone. X currently offers compatibility across different architectures, along time (currently, you can still run decades-old X application just fine), and space (network transparency). X as a standard provides as much value as POSIX. Why do you want to break this?

On the few new Linux-based mobile platforms which currently use Wayland, X compatibilty is alread lost. Just sad.

And what do we gain if we replace X? Will it be faster? No, Wayland has basically the same design as X: Message passing using a UNIX domain socket and buffer sharing for direct rendering. Performance wise, there is not really anthing to gain. X is bloated? Do you really think a few kilobytes of old and unused rendering code needed for backwards compatibility are bloat? The design of X is unfixable? Nonsense, X was designed from the beginning on to be extensible. It would be very easy to add a special screensaver extension, if really needed.

Yes, Ubuntu still uses X. Maybe they are using Mir on their phone OS or something?

This straightforward solution is that time travel does not exist.

I don't think so. I am actually much more afraid that we actually get Wayland soon by default, but gradually lose backwards compatibility to rarely used but hard-to-replace applications (and of course network transparency). I seriously do not see that we will gain anything.

Why would you #ifdef out assertions in production code?

Ofcourse... Dream on.

Exactly. That you should only use ssh to tunnel X and only between trusted hosts is well known. It would be nice if you could run untrusted clients on X (and the X security extension was meant for this), but nobody seems to work on this. This would be vastly more useful IMHO than re-building everything on top of a dumbed down protocol: Wayland.

The solution the Wayland guys offer for remote desktop: Use RDP. As if this proprietary protocol from Microsoft never had security problems....

Also, for a different perspective. Look at this:
http://media.ccc.de/browse/con... ... and don't jump to conclusions based on the title. Just watch and pay attention especially with respect to the comments about security of core X11 vs. Qt. And then maybe don't use KD anymore.

In my opinion, breaking compatibility with the X protocol would be the biggest strategic blunder Linux community coud do. Even bigger than messing with the GUI in stupid ways exactly when everybody using Windows is frustrated with the GUI

Without exceptions, you would put in an assertion which would give you the same debuggability (and the compiler would warn if you completely forget to handle the return code). The only advantage of exceptions is that you can ignore the error on the intermedate level and try to handle it higher level instead. This might be useful, but opens up an entire class of new - and very hard to debug - failures from code which is not exception-safe. RAII helps with this, but has its limits.

I understand RAII just fine.

In fact, what you say seems to be in agreement with my statement: "Provided you never have cyclic mutable graphs" "only some memory and resource leaks go away".

True, because it is basically terrible for everything, it is terrrible also for using it in the same way as C.

Yes, RAII is nice. But only *some* memory and resource leaks go away, basically the ones which are trivial, because allocation and deallocation simply follow lexical scope. Ofcourse, this is only trivial in languages which do not have exceptions. Exceptions make this simple thing very complicated, and without RAII it is indeed almost impossible to avoid resource leaks in C++. But without exceptions, it is not so much of a deal. In other words, RAII had to be invented after the fact to make exceptions usable in C++ because - again - some feature were introduced without much thought.

This is only a tragedy for people who have to use C++ or think they have to. There is nothing more liberaring than to realize that all this complexity of C++ is completely unnecessary.

I disagree that the complexity from C++ is only the result of being the compromise of these three properties. Ofcourse, such a language would be somewhat more difficult than a new language without backwards compatibility to C, but I still think that most complexity in C++ comes from adding whatever feature was cool at the time *without too much thought*. I had to debug my fair share of subtle problems in C++ code (mostly from other people - I stopped using C++ for my own projects years ago) and usually the problems are the new language features that C++ added to C which cause problems. I know excellent programmers who can use them correctly, but most don't. The reason is that they have surprising and hard to understand properties. See, for example, the keynote of Scott Meyer (Effective C++) at the d language conference this year. He lists a lot of arbitrary design flaws in C++.

Please understand that there are many gaps in our knowledge in almost all areas of science. The conclusion that "clearly they don't understand the system" because there are some effects which are not yet completely understood is basically the standard argument brought up by all kinds of people against scentific findings which go against their esoteric beliefs.

For example: "they don't know how life originated, clearly they do not understand life so evolution is wrong and god created the earth 6000 years ago". Or: "they don't know how the brain works, clearly they do not understand anything about it so how can they know that mind does not life in another esoteric dimension where it can commincate with the deaths".

This kind of argument ignores that there is a lot of stuff we actually do know - including the climate. I kindly suggest hat you leave it to people who studied these problems to comment about what "we" know about it and what not and not try extrapolate from your helpdesk experience about something you cannot possible have any clue about from working at a helpdesk.

This is circular reasoning. You can just turn that argument around: If the law says the inventions always belong to the inventor and not to the company, then the salary cannot be compensation for the rights to the inventions. If the company is not happy with this, then DON'T OFFER THAT JOB. See, works either way.

No, as far as I know it runs Wayland. The same as Jolla. I would replace my aging N9 with a new Linux phone with X11, but sadly there is none. We now have Linux phones with no backwards compatibility to Linux... Sigh.

Something like this: http://srp.stanford.edu/links....
I wonder why this has never been implemented in openssh. (There are patches and it is supported by lsh).