Yes, it's possible to do better. But inventing new models is not easy, and it's an uphill battle.

See page 184 of the Unix Haters Handbook, http://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf. That has to be the most obstinate bug in the world.

Helpful comments in the source code:

                if (wtype == w_eol)
                    {
                        if (*p2 != '\0') /* There's no need to be ivory-tower about this: check for
                                  one of the most common bugs found in makefiles... */
                            fatal (fstart, _("missing separator%s"),
                                          (cmd_prefix == '\t' && !strneq (line, " ", 8))
                                          ? "" : _(" (did you mean TAB instead of 8 spaces?)"));
                        continue;
                    }

So they detect it, and they'd rather insult the user. But "no ivory tower", no no, we will just not parse a space when the ATT code only parsed tabs. It's a "makefile bug", not a "make bug". Sure.

And for the fun, I just tried to build make. On MacOSX, supposedly some kind of Unix that I head a few folks actually use to build stuff. Could be a prime citizen. OK, no configure out of the box with the git repository. OK. No makefile, obviously. No install script. Bogus information in the INSTALL that tells me to run nonexistent configure. Well, running the magic incantation, aclocal ; autoheader; automake ; autoconf. Still does not work, missing files like config/compile. Running automake --add-missing. Whatever. Still an error where it's looking for po/Makefile.in.in. Huh?

So to build make, I need not just make, but four other utilities and makefile input inputs? WTF?

Make alone was bad enough. But it was not good enough for portability, so autoconf was added. But it did not work so automake was added. But it did not work, so... And now at version 4.0, we have a system here you need half a dozen commands just to build the damn thing, and it still does not build out of the box. Seriously?

This whole archaic build system is doomed. Go cmake.

Concept programming is the simple idea that the concept is not the code, and that being aware of the differences matters.
See http://xlr.sourceforge.net/Concept%20Programming%20Presentation.pdf for more details.

But the boycott is not about a large group of people not liking the pasta, it's about a minority not liking what the CEO said, and a large group of people being manipulated into attacking him. If it was a boycott of pasta that were made with whale oil by young kids in poor countries, it would actually be a boycott of the product. But as long as the boycott is in reaction to what the CEO said, then it's a totally different matter. It's actually a blatant attempt at silencing an opinion, not an attempt at criticizing a product. And it makes the boycott totally illegitimate. If you pretend not understanding that, you are simply playing dumb.

Unfortunately, gay activists are often violent like this. They all too often launch vicious hate campaigns against anybody who simply voices vaguely anti-gay opinions. Come on, is it a victory that a guy was bashed for saying he does not want to put gay peoples in ads for... pasta?!? What is the connexion between homosexuality and pasta, seriously? Why should I have homosexuals in ads for pasta and not, say, people with blue hair or ugly people, other minorities that are all too often victimized. Why can't Barilla simply promote pasta, instead of being forced to promote homosexuality at the same time?

Let me be very clear. My own company does not intend to run ads with pasta in them. I hope that this won't cause me to be called a pastaphobic by all pasta lovers. I pray this won't cause a massive stir on twitter, a rally to arms of all the pasta lovers I insulted for not intending to prominently promote their lifestyle in my ads instead of promoting my products. And yes, I'm being sarcastic, because this is exactly what happened to the Barilla CEO.

As of me, I'm so tired of this gay activism that I will say "Go Barilla" on this one, and buy more.

About "surrender monkeys", US citizen should remember their history.

September 1st, 1939: Germany invades Poland
September 3rd, 1939: France and UK declare war on Germany to honor their alliance with Poland, counting on their US ally to follow suit.
September 5th, 1939: The US proclaims their neutrality in the conflict, leaving the road wide open to Germany.

If the US had done for France and UK what France and UK did for Poland, chances are WWII would have stopped in 1939.

The fact that a video game company was voted worst company in America is ridiculous and would be laughable if it was not so frightening. Come on! Is there nothing more serious on the planet than botching a game release? Aren't companies that fight like crazy to deprive cancer patients from inexpensive treatments a little worse? Or companies who lie to be free to play with your health in the name of profit? Or companies using child labor to lower the price of smartphones? Or simply profitable companies planning massive layoffs? Or media associations with an agenda built on layers of lies?

Apparently, for the majority of Slashdot readers, getting a perspective chip would be a good idea.

One has to wonder.

The page you are referring to is only trying to validate the testimony of various people from that time regarding one specific photo. The photo was lost, but we have lithographs that reportedly were based on it, like this one. So the investigation is only about checking whether witnesses who claim they saw the photo at the 1906 exhibition were credible. It's not inventing the reports, it's checking them. As for the reports, Jane's writes:

Syndicated reports of Whitehead's exploits contemporaneously appeared around the globe, from Australia to Austria. One, mentioned here not entirely at random, appeared on page 3 of the Portsmouth Evening News of 21 August 1901. At the time, this was the local newspaper of Southsea resident, Fred Jane. As a man keenly interested in technology (and author of four published science fiction novels) it is difficult to imagine Jane not reading the report with utmost interest. However, it would be stretching credibility beyond its limits to suggest that this was the Genesis of the annual now achieving its hundredth volume.

In short, there are numerous articles indicating that Whitehead achieved sustained controlled flight in 1901, and demonstrated a 360 degrees turn in 1902 with a different plane. Whitehead's planes were taking off the ground under their own power, something that the Wright brothers didn't have in 1903.
So why didn't we hear more from Whitehead? It's not a conspiracy theory. To quote Jane's again:

when selecting a partner to commercialise his invention, Whitehead exhibited catastrophic misjudgement....three times over. After two false starts, his third investor proved to be the serial convicted criminal (and, subsequently, lunatic asylum patient) Herman Linde who, early in 1902, attempted to appropriate the venture and had Whitehead locked out of the factory containing his production line of between four and six aeroplanes. To recover solvency, Whitehead turned all attentions to his other great skill: the manufacture of light and powerful engines, which became much in demand by a growing number of aspiring aviators. It is as such that he has been remembered.