As if there is ever a shortage of new exploits. Since security is not the first design criterium in current system design it will not be secure. We don't even know how. Just hope you catch the flukes that surround an actual break-in.

We do pair programming for larger projects without many explicit specs. These projects require you to 'think up' use cases and requirements on the fly to ensure that your code is sufficient, complete and valid. For instance we created a replacement for a parser of complex documents that had to get classified. We had a coder with strong domain knowledge and a strong coder. Not sure what to do when n > 2.

It is like learning history in school. It describes a fundament that started the culture. It is good to see and understand how that mechanism works.

If you mean open source projects community, I might agree. But there are lots and lots of places where people help you using open source tools.

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.