Because:
1. It's not initially feature-compatible with OpenSSL
2. While there is momentum, it's faster to work apart from the existing project.
3. There's no guarantee the rewrite would be accepted by the OpenSSL team
4. There's no guarantee LibreSSL will work on anything but BSD
5. Theo doesn't control OpenSSL

Personally, my hopes are:
1. This Linux Foundation fund identify LibreSSL as the most feasible solution in the long-term, and provide support for both projects.
2. Important bugs identified by both teams are ported to patch the current OpenSSL release.
3. LibreSSL gains feature parity with OpenSSL.
4. LibreSSL becomes OpenSSL v2, under the stewardship of a healthier OpenSSL community.

The information in those demonstrations is trivial and hardly helpful once put to the test. People will panic and that means that little boring sermon will mean almost nothing where it counts.(as always happens)

Perhaps we should be campaigning for people to undergo aircraft-emergency simulations?
You're right that people panic, but people only panic because the situation is unusual. If people regularly experience "emergency" situations without the danger/fear (especially throughout childhood), they can be trained in what to do enough that handling a real emergency becomes routine and practically instinctual.

So what do you do about colleagues in other time-zones? Or on other shifts? Are they not allowed to email you outside of the times you're both at work - assuming there is any overlap at all?

Email is not IM; it's not designed to require or expect an immediate response. Nothing about sending an email necessitates that it must be acted upon immediately.

For storing and querying arbitrarily-structured data, which is what the submitter seems to be wanting, a traditional relational SQL database is not necessarily the best way to do it.

And if anything, MongoDB is easier to start using than any relational database, IME. No need to create databases, schemas, or tables (collections) beforehand - you just install MongoDB, start writing data, and it gets stored.

MongoDB has indexes.
MongoDB also lets you store and query arbitrary data, in addition to any "key fields", without having to pre-define all the possible fields. Which it seems is what the submitter asked for.

Where has this idea that "NoSQL" means "not a database" come from?

Short version: They have a perfectly working computer with all their stuff on it. Why should they have to throw it in the trash and go through all the pain/expense of an "upgrade"?

Not to mention that, for many people, Windows XP is the only desktop operating system they've ever known.
XP has been around for 13 years. In consumer technology, that's an incredible length of time. After so many years of consistency, of course there are going to be people - millions of them - who don't want to face change.

I like Redmine, I do, but it has no support for actually being a source control server. On its own, browsing local repositories is all you get.

In the end it will also not matter, because when these people reach the distant location, there will be no compatible civilization on earth left.

People don't generally think of multi-millennium cryo-sleeper journeys as a "there and back" deal, so the state of any civilization on Earth would be pretty much moot once they wake up at the destination.
That is, unless Earth has advanced so much that FTL Earth ships arrived at the destination before the sleepers did. In which case; "welcome to the world of tomorrow!"

There is no point in deep space travel as long as we are not able to go faster than light or at least close to light speed.

Perhaps no point for those staying behind, no. But for the pioneers, however long the journey takes, they may well become the first humans to explore and colonise a new planet and star system. If you honestly think that such an amazing achievement is entirely pointless, then I think you might be on the wrong website.

So an "official" SN account has denied this being the "real" SN.
The question I ask is: Why didn't that "official" account post a denial for each of the other times someone has been suggested to be "the guy"? Why does this Satoshi Nakamoto get a denial, and not the others?

Methinks he does protest too much.

Thought experiment: Remember that guy at Tiananmen Square? If you're not Chinese, you probably know who I mean. Would you consider it "ethical" for an American newspaper to publicise his new identity, location, family, etc.?
What if it then turns out that wasn't the guy after all? Do you consider it "ethical" to publicise all the details about some random citizen, and - at the very best - turn their life upside down, just because some journalist thinks they're probably someone important, due to finding some circumstantial evidence?

"In the public interest" is not the same thing as "interesting to the public".

Perhaps about the same amount that isn't being reflected from those areas of the world where snowfall has been at a record low this winter. Like here in the arctic.

So the real story is that the Police Department in question had an outstanding arrest warrant against someone whose address they knew (the court had sent her several certified letters), and they did nothing about it for nine years?

That's the point of a protest though; to get the attention of people who might otherwise not notice that there is a problem.
They are effectively picketing slashdot; inconveniencing the normal readers like you and I, to put pressure on the management to take their protest more seriously, and offer something more than just platitudes and empty promises.

jQuery is the PHP of Javascript frameworks.

As someone who touch-types Dvorak at home, and has to switch back to QWERTY at work, I think I can safely say my experience trumps your few symbol keys moving around...

I'd argue that no, it actually doesn't trump it.
IME it is *far* easier to switch between two completely different systems, than to switch between two systems which are exactly the same, except for one or two minor parameters.

Consider a Brit, who fluently speak both English and Russian, conversing with two people; one of whom speaks Russian, and only Russian; the other speaks US English, and only US English. When speaking with the Russian, the Brit's brain need switch to and maintain Russian only once. When speaking to the USian, the Brit can speak in their native tongue - except when certain words come up, which the brain must anticipate, and engage to translate those to US English.