This is actually really interesting technical problem that the Tor and Debian people have spent some time working on. In practice, with most compilers today, if you compile a program twice you get different binaries. There are a variety of reasons for this, from embedded time stamps to non-deterministic shared library reference ordering to embedding the host name of the build machine.

Here's the Debian project's wiki page on the problem that goes into much more detail:
https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds

The very first paragraph of IBMs z/Architecture Principles of Operation:

The architecture of a system defines its attributes as seen by the programmer, that is, the conceptual structure and functional behavior of the machine, as distinct from the organization of the data flow, the logical design, the physical design, and the performance of any particular implementation. Several dissimilar machine implementations may conform to a single architecture. When the execution of a set of programs on different machine implementations produces the results that are defined by a single architecture, the implementations are considered to be compatible for those programs.

Okay. Once and for all. Is it "Here here" or "Hear hear". (or "Hear here"...)

What enterprise class entry level server can you get 'fully loaded', including a supported proprietary operating system and proprietary development tools for $500 to $1000?

Chromium under KDE on linux nags you to set up a kwallet for passwords - I assume Gnome has a similar facility. So I guess it takes the same approach as on Windows - i.e., use the password storage facility provided by the OS. Not a bad approach. Kwallet makes you provide a password to access it the first time (presumably each app that accesses your wallet will ask for this the first time you grant it access. That's not the same as giving your passwords to anything you run as the GP suggested (thought maybe it works that way on Windows...)

So then I guess Christianity has to be forever tarred as evil because of the genocides committed on its behalf.

Not all Marxism is bad, and not all Capitalism is good. Is that so hard to understand? Social Security and highways are Marxist - you'd have to be a pretty absolutist capitalist to find them 'bad' (social security may have some demographic issues, but it's certainly not evil). Enron and Countrywide Financial are Capitalist and far from 'good'.

The WikiMedia Foundation, even though they know that prominent members of the editing community are outraged, still have not realized the extent of the ill feeling they have caused. The compact between the content creators and the fundraisers has been broken. This will be bad for both unless the new Executive Director, Lila Tretikov, can step in and heal the rift. Instead, she is siding with the WMF's development team.

Bah. I forgot the gaming consoles when I did the count in my head, that changes my vote from 7-8 to 10+. It's a 2 person household.

Well, actually, if mobile, the cloud and chromebooks take enough of the market away from the traditional desktop, Microsoft has 2 choices. Either raise the price of Windows to make up for the declining market or lower the price of Windows to fend off the competition. If the price of Windows goes up - and the traditional desktop is only necessary for a limited kind of user, then Linux wins what's left of that market by virtue of the cheap price. If the price goes down, Microsoft may continue to dominate, but they're going to have to make up for it somewhere - in which case LibreOffice wins.

Of course, there's a major chicken-and-egg problem here. And if the first egg doesn't crack (the inability to buy an OEM desktop machine without paying for Windows), the others probably won't either...

What an idoitic statement. First, if something has a 50% chance of happening then it is certainly not 'inevitable'. Second, divorce is not a random event, so comparing it to a coin toss is exceedingly stupid. Passwords aside, we already 'share accounts'. We have joint checking and savings accounts, a joint mortgage, joint ownership of the house, joint ownership of a timeshare, file joint tax returns, etc. What is so different about joint online accounts? Nothing.

I've run into another problem. What if you want to make changes and are willing to give them back, but they aren't accepted - and you still want to use the changed version? Years back, I added a --sparse option to gunzip so that when I zipped sparse files and unzipped them, they didn't grow to consume space for all the 0's that were not taking up space in the original sparse files. I submitted the change, but never heard back and assume it was not accepted. For all I know gzip/unzip does provide a way to preserve sparse files by now. Anyway, I'm still using my version - possibly in violation of the GPL. I suppose it's technically legal as long as I don't distribute it, but I do copy it to clients' systems for my use there...

Haha! Good one! If the speed limits are higher then the idiots will not be juking and jiving. Yeah, right. Can I have some of what you are having?

Fact is, not matter what the speed limit, idiots will think they are too low for their superior skills. They will also always think others are driving too slow, and will do just as much juking and jiving, except at a higher speed. And nothing can go wrong with that, right?

Also, raising the speed limit does not mean people will drive any faster. This has been shown in several studies. So if most people are not going to go faster just because the speed limit is raised that means the superior ones will still be dodging the same people.

You're not making sense. The question is not whether some speed limits could be higher, but whether or not low speed limits are dangerous. If a too-low speed limit makes people ignore it because they 'feel' that it should be higher, and that causes accidents, then obviously someone who 'felt' the limit was too low was wrong.

So your solution to the problem of people who drive aggressively, don't pay attention, etc (ie the real cause of accidents) is to let them drive FASTER? In what world does that make sense?

The low speed limit is not dangerous, the change in speed limit without warning is dangerous.

And learn some defensive driving. Here's a tip: if you are approaching a blind curve (as you claim) where you can't see what it around it, and someone is following you too closely, SLOW DOWN before you get to the 'have to slam on brakes' stage. If you can't see a 'dangerous' speed limit sign, you also might not see people, animals, disabled vehicles, etc that could also cause you to 'slam on the brakes'.