You make some interesting points, but you clearly have some very strange ideas about British pronunciation :) For example, the vowel in "cat" (in "standard" British English - what, for example, most announcers would use on the BBC) is nothing like the vowel in "father". And many British accents are rhotic, too!

Do you have a credible source for any of these so-called rules? In particular:

• There's nothing wrong with starting a sentence with "so", even without a comma.
• In the extreme is a perfectly valid phrase.

Actually the package managers can handle it just fine (well, I know RPM can, and I *think* dpkg/apt can too); usually the problem is that the libraries are packaged in a way that doesn't support this. If two versions of a package share no files (e.g. if you provide "libxyz.so.1.0.0" in one package, and "libxyz.so.1.1.0" in another version of the same package, RPM can handle having both versions of the package installed with no problems at all. This is used, for example, to support having multiple kernel versions installed on RedHat-type systems. What becomes a problem is if you have (say) binaries in the same package, with the same name in each version, but different contents: naturally RPM will report a conflict if you try to install both.

I dunno, I find most anti-science hard to believe! ;-)

No, that's completely wrong. The new version will run if the package upgrade script tells the daemon to re-exec itself. Which (at least in the case of RHEL7), it does.

I propose this; namely using variables to keep track of the state of resources, and then cleaning up based on the values of those variables. In my experience this is much less error-prone than the "goto" equivalent - for example, reordering the code is much less likely to break the cleanup.

Wrong - Gigabit ethernet (over copper) does have a form of error correction.

It would, except that users having Admin access is much more common on Windows systems. (Being an Administrator on Windows does not (in theory, at least) have the complete "game over" privileges that "root" traditionally does on Unix-based systems, so there are still further privilege levels to be escalated to.)

Why would IT get called in? After the user's entered their password, you just display a simulated BSOD and then reboot into the genuine OS; no user will be remotely suprised ;-)

It's hard to tell the difference from here ;-)

Adding a registry entry to remap keys is pretty trivial, too... as, for that matter, is running a different OS which doesn't treat Ctrl+Alt+Del in a special way! Thus any extra security provided is minimal. Which is fine - as you say, security doesn't have to be perfect in order to be useful - but in my view overselling the effectiveness of a measure is counterproductive.

Alas that is exactly what Microsoft claimed for years (possibly still claim?)...

I think you're confusing the user vs administrator distinction with the userland-vs-kernel-mode distinction... but never mind...

What I'm saying is that the "Ctrl+Alt+Del protects your password" claim is overblown; the suggestions you give only amplify that, as they are even more ways to circumvent it...

I think you possibly mean ad nauseam?

This. Or the fact that there are registry entries that allow remapping of any key to any other, including (as far as I remember) the Ctrl, Alt and Del keys. The "security" of Ctrl+Alt+Del has always been over-hyped :-)

Or x could be an array... in which case the called function can modify the value of the variable. The point you're making is valid, but C isn't 100% consistent in this regard :)

If body of the "if" (or "while" etc) is a single (simple) statement, then "begin" and "end" are optional - so you can write either

if cond then
begin
do_stuff()
end

or

if cond then do_stuff()