You have me completely surrounded with your infallable reasoning.... not.

I rewrote that for you:

Announcing to the world that you've been infiltrated by [major unknown party] is a decision that must be weighed by some enormous number of calculated steps.

If you're correct, you have risk

If you're wrong, you have risk

The only winning move is not to play.

One part of the problem, now, is that cars can't drive themselves away after you use them.

Do you have some actual insight in these processes or are you just guessing?

And, for some background for the non-email-experts: The 'free speech'/censor arguments are often used by spammers. And many non-profit/political orgs do care less about such trivial things as 'optin' ('who could be against saving whales' etc).

No, you mix two arguments. You can still publish a signed copy of a further perfectly open process. And only the signed copy will be accepted.

This.

You would be right in the pre-'Frozen Precipitation' era.

What more do you need?

Fixed that for you.

What is missing is the word 'design'. You may comment why you made a design (or write a paper on it). You may understand the design by reading the code. If you don't it is either too complex (because there is a possibility to write the same functionality with the same complexity with easier-to-read code) or you need to explain the design for it.

They might have to do with the large usage of anti biotics.

What about the case where all java classes are named the same (but in different packages)? I think refactoring would help quality.

Robots of course. I welcome our new Robot overlord!

And here we have Schrodingers cat dilemma. If this comment is true, it has some worth to it. If it is false, it means that many Slashdotters' time is wasted over nothing. Maybe even surpassing the money-limit damage you just mentioned. The things a posting may trigger (pun intended).