Perl 5 pretty much satisfies everything you're looking for. What's the problem with Perl again?

Thank you!

The summary makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. So the people who wrote the law don't think there are any costs of compliance? I'm sure that's not news. That right there is a HUGE problem with government solutions.

1 in 10 deaths, huh? That's a bold statement considering the huge qualifications on it:
* 22-64 years old
* preventable

So the actual number is much less than 1 in 10, not much more as the summary says.

Not "incentivizing". "Inciting".

Neither "incent" nor "incentivize" are words. Using them makes you look illiterate.

I'll say we're tuning it out. With AdBlock we don't even receive it.

I was asking about this on the OVH forums just the other day, in fact:

https://forum.ovh.us/showthrea...

We already have "incite".

And in what way would migrating to this new thing be any easier than IPv6? In either case, it's an entirely different protocol.

Exactly. Like, for example, in the title of this article.

But in the case of the title of this article, "whom" is entirely correct.

Exactly what definition excludes those people from your assertion that "everyone upgraded appropriately"?

That's not necessarily true. People may have "panic upgraded" who were using a supported and up-to-date (and not vulnerable) 0.9.8. People may have "panic upgraded" by building and installing the latest OpenSSL, not knowing that their distribution had pushed out a patched version of the version they had been running. Now, their OpenSSL might be totally outside of package management, and they could really be in trouble for this one, unless they're paying a lot of attention (which they aren't, or they wouldn't have screwed up in the first place).

Although this study is good for grabbing headlines, the analysis seems a little bit shallow. For one thing, the focus is on STEM (Science, Technology, Mathematics and Engineering) disciplines, As someone who teaches at the college level in both a STEM field and a traditional humanities field, I am well aware that different areas require different methods. For instance, if one is teaching the basics of computational cognitive modeling, then some interactive segments are necessary. However, things work entriely differently if one is teaching, for instance, the history of the philosophy of mind. Another issue I have with the study is (as best I can tell -- I cannot access the original paper) that they do not control for lecturer effectiveness. To put it simply, we all know that some people are better at lecturing than others. That being said, even when teaching say, Cartesian Dualism, there are steps that can be taken to make lecture classes better. For instance, it is widely known that most humans have an attention span of between 10 to 20 minutes. So, it is simple enough to give everyone a break every twelve minutes, or so and tell a story, or some historical anecdote. Similarly, the Socratic approach, asking for input from students throughout the class and then encouraging discussion, can also make lectures much more effective and enjoyable. These are some of the things I do. That being said, I have known people who just drone on in a monotone, in lecture classes. Folks such as that can be utterly tedious. My point here is that unless the effectiveness of the teachers is taken into account, this study cannot be trusted.

I hope the percentage of criminals who get caught for bragging is high... Because if for every one of these guys in the article, there's one who can keep his mouth shut, then we may be in trouble.