Well then, with that argument absolutely every exploit on the commandline becomes a remote one. That should show clearly that this is not an useful definition of the term "remote exploit".

It is. Still, this is _not_ a remote exploit in bash. The exploit in bash is quite local and only gets to be remote by insecure programming practices in CGI, for example.

If this ruling sticks then a major adjustment in AAPL's price is coming down the tracks. Should be good for roughly a 15-20% drop. At 16, AAPL's p/e is looking a little pricey in any case. Other tech perps are no doubt peering anxiously over their shoulders but AAPL is the standout bad actor.

Correction: it's that and death.

Production, of course, has been reduced

Hence the earlier peak and hence people reading too much into it. There may be another larger peak, but for the moment peak production was 2008.

Bash does not have network connectivity. The only thing possible is that there may be remote code execution vulnerabilities when bash is used in connection with a network service like a web-server or ssh. Maybe try to have a minimum of accuracy in these stories?

I'll state it again. Wind power in Germany is run as much as possible

That is not a correct statement and waving a few graphs around that do not prove it one way or another does not make it correct.

"wind power generation is reduced at peak times to compensate"

WTF?
You've really hit the bottom of the barrel when you are putting words in my mouth and pretending they are a quote. You've really let down whoever educated and trained you with such behaviour. What a disgusting little political animal you are.