Leaving to one side all the emotional bluster that accompanies this subject, I think it is a very interesting, intellectual challenge. One thought that springs to mind is that a group marriage would be similar to a limited company, or possibly a cooperative, and we already have legal experience with that sort of construct. I imagine the romance and intimacy you can find in a 1-1 relationship might be somewhat sparse in such a 'group marriage', but then I've always been a rather old fashioned sort of person. Other cultures provide examples of both polygyny and polyandry, so it isn't unknown.

I haven't read the article, so I may be totally off here; but isn't it about couples? If you are not engaged in a relatioship comparable to marriage, how is it even relevant to talk about equal right? Usually, when the talk is about equal rights for same sex couples, it is about the right to be legally married, so that they have the same sort of status in case of death, divource and so on.

You mention 'C/C++', and I think you need to realize that the two don't really mix well; in my experience, you go with one or the other, simply. True, you can use C style practices in C++, but then what's the point of using a C++ compiler?

I think there are many, excellent reasons to choose C++ for a project, but perhaps not the ones you list. Things like control over memory allocation, cross-platform and networking may not in theselves be compelling reasons for choosing C++, as they can be handled easily enough in C. Cross-platform and networking is all about following the POSIX standard, really, and getting away from the Windows toolkit. That and separating the presentation layer from the business layer(s). This is perfectly possible in pure C - I have done it many times.

The real reason for using C++ is that it supports design patterns well, IMO. Templates and template libraries like Boost are really about that; and design patterns are about adopting an architecture that is well thought through - they are formalized best practices, in a way.

I don't think so - the real problem is that we produce too much waste, simply. Things are designed to break after a shortish while, or wrapped excessively, or both. Look back at history: only a century ago, most things were expected to last, possibly for generations; but now we are conditioned to think that things like fashion matter, and that it is normal when things just break or stop working. The truth, however, is that the only reason why we produce such obscene amounts of crap, is the idea that our economy must grow, no matter what consequences.

Recycling is wrong - it is the wrong end of the problem, simply.

This is just a marketing stunt, really. Look at strawberry jam, for example - 'No artificial colours' doesn't mean 'All the red in this jar comes from strawberries', it means 'We used beetroot juice' and so on. And of course, 'natural' isn't the same as good either - strychnine and morphine are very natural substances. And 'No added sugar' mostly just means 'We used concentrated something to increase the sugar contect "naturally"'.

But really, breakfast products are no more than cakes and sweet desserts; most yoghurt is nothing more than slightly sour custard. Apparently the only breakfast cereal that is actually healthy, is oatmeal.

Albert Einstein once said: 'Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler'. I think that sums up the most important quality a good developer must have. It is very tempting to try to use every known feature of a programming language, and even in a simple language, the result is not pretty - C++ is far from simple, so you can imagine how ugly it can become.

That said, to master a technology means that you are able to use the difficult features with reasonable ease, when the need arises. That includes all the reviled features in C++, such as templates and meta-programming; there is probably nothing in the language that is simply superfluous, and learning how these features are used is a good idea (and an important part of that is knowing when not to use them).

Are you crazy? Of course it will; the people who slaughter endangered animals like this aren't in it to provide their esteemed customers with a genuine article - they just want the money. They will jump at the opportunity to make a fast profit by cheating. Why endanger youself by poaching if you can just mix up some gunk in a printer?

Good summary, but to elaborate a bit:

- Mono is not quite .NET, so incompatible, and with Microsoft's history of making changes that break compatibility, mono is not likely to ever catch up.

- .NET applications are so often not well designed, in my experience. I suspect it may be because of the combination of poor development skills and an IDE that makes it all too easy to make poor design choices. I don't know if it still is this bad, but last I worked with Windows development, the C++ IDE I used had encapsulated network protocols in classes that could then be placed on the application window. Very easy, but unfortunately the Windows desktop is not re-entrant, which means that it is a very bad idea to, in effect, wire a listener for an asynchronous background activity into it. All you need is two network packets right after each other and a slow update of the screen, and the whole things dies.

- There does not seem to be an obvious need for .NET - we already have Java, which is universally available (IBM have even designed a dedicated 'Java CPU') and highly standardised. Just look at the heaps of acronyms: JMX, JNDI, ...

- There are several, very good IDEs that support Java extremely well: NetBeans, JDeveloper, Eclipse and no doubt loads more. NetBeans, for example, comes with features that nag you into adopting a good programming style.

And so on. .NET looks to me like a dead end. It may not be dead yet, but it is definitely not what you would call sprightly.

So, Anonymous protest against a law that targets hackers by ... hacking? And this will demonstrate to the government and the public that this law is not warranted? Please explain the logic in this, because I can't spot it.

And a corollary to that is that a leader is somebody who goes ahead of the followers. I suspect that Linus has stopped being the one who runs ahead of the development of Linux, and perhaps he is getting a bit frustrated over the position he is in. This is similar to the old problem with revolutionary leaders, in a way: when the revolution is over, there is no longer the need for them and their ability to inspire a great, simple vision; it is time for the grey administrators to take over.

What a nice and pious sentiment; the problem is that sometimes the sewer bursts and we all get covered in shit. When that happens, who is responsible for the repairs, and who is to blame for the epidemics that follow? The millions of people who used the sewer to take a dump, or the company providing the service?

I think this is about freedom under responsibility; the internet company that provides the service makes money out of it, and just as other companies are responsible for the harmful effects of their business activities on society or the environment, so it is for internet companies. Now, please note that I am not saying that people making stupid comments is harmful, just that there has to be responsibility when there is freedom. It still remains to be determined whether harm has followed from the content posted on Youtube or elsewhere; but if it is seen to be the case, then these rules mean that responsibility can be placed with the service provider.

That's a good discussion; to summarize: autonomous AIs should be made safe for humanity, but what does that mean, and how can it be done?

The problem, as I see it, is that even if we could agree on a universal set of rules and somehow implemented those rules in the code, it could still be faulty, and it might not cover all situations to which the rules ought to apply. To solve that, we need to give AIs the same sort of social instincts that we and other apes have, because that is where our ability to make moral judgements and solve ethical problems comes from; history also shows that, despite all our very big failings as humans, we have still over time and on average managed to become more ethical - perversions like ISIS were once more common, after all. It may well be that equipping AIs with social instincts is the best and most stable way to make them safe - eventually.

I think perhaps the things to worry about are more immediate than what will happen if/when AI becomes worthy of its name. Things like using autonomous devices in warfare, for example. Or what if we come to trust autonomous systems to such a degree that most of us no longer have the skills or insight needed to perform basic, necessary tasks? IMO it is not good to get into a situation where we are fully dependent on a technology that might malfunction, and which we can't fix.

There's even a musical about him, I think: Billy Idiot, it's called. About this young boy, Billy, who breaks away from his background in a coal mining community to become a ballet dancer. Something like that, yeah.

Isn't it time we started waking up to the fact that computing and technology isn't about 'cool' or 'fun'? And wouldn't it be better to show that little bit of respect to young men and women, to not expect that the only thing they could possibly have an interest in is 'cool' and 'fun'? Most young, clever people simply want to get to grips with life in a serious way, to develop their skills and feel they are doing something wortwhile. Why else do so many young choose careers that are demanding?

Technology is for the most part demanding, it is difficult to learn and to be successful with, but that is exactly why it is so hugely rewarding. Some of my greatest moment with code had little to do with anything that you could call fun or cool - it was things like writing my first COBOL and FORTRAN programs (how uncool is that?), discovering how good it is to use vi, writing my first Java Enterprise application (a pathetic little thing, I can assure you), installing and IPLing OS/360 on a Hercules emulator.

Good SW Engineers are not people who think it is cool or fun - if that is your approach to life, then you'll probably end up writing worhtless apps with a minimum of effort, serving adverts to an unwilling public, run-of-the-mill stuff. A good SW Engineer is somebody who enjoys doing these things for their own sake, for the joy of discovery.