Table saws have safety features that are not perfect but at least make it less likely to lose a limb. One could easily define a subset of C that also would make it far less accident-prone. Converting existing code to this subset would be painful but healthy.

It may be true that the vulnerable functions are called from other languages as well, but that does not necessarily mean these languages are also vulnerable. They may do sufficient memory management and/or parameter sanitation to avoid the vulnerability.

Exactly what are you angry about? The article under discussion is from Kaperski researchers who are describing a relation they discovered between two different strains of malware. One of the strains of malware happened to be mentioned in a der Spiegel article about a recent Snowden revelation, but that is it.

So be precise: who is claiming something based on an unproven document? What is it that they are claiming? Where do they do that?

'We play both kinds of music here: Country and Western'. (From the Blues Brothers)

Probably not. This kind of society is one of the oldest, and they didn't need fancy words to describe it back then. It came natural.

Yes. Does it matter for the point I was making?

Although s/he did not phrase it very well, I think the point of the AC is that a communist country does not necessarily have a dictatorship government; a country can also decide democratically to organise itself based on communist principles. The Scandinavian countries are pretty good counterexamples.

I'm sorry, but you'll now really have to come up with some proof. Even your new toned down description still sounds like a poor caricature of real Environmentalist positions.

Nobody sane (including Environmentalists) is against `all forms of power generation', claims that current organic farming can cover all our food needs, or claims that recycling is always a good idea.

Isn't this the exact same argument that has been ridiculed a few posts back about voting on whether climate change is a fact or not? Facts are not subject to majority votes.

The funny thing is that I have seen plenty of people right here on /. take the conservative position almost literally, but I have never, ever seen a real person argue anything approaching the supposed Environmentalist position. The real Environmentalist position is far more moderate.

That can't be right, because it obviously predates the 2nd amendment.

If one person takes up arms against the US government he's a lone wolf, a crazy, an incident. If one hundred people do, they're an extremist organisation (under a certain threshold of skin darkness) or a terrorist organisation (over said threshold). If a hundred thousand people do this, they are a political movement, and they may as well use political means, because organising a hundred thousand people will have required a lot of politics anyway, and it is better to just continue.

Can anyone name a successful change of politics in US history through second-amendment means?

And why is that? Any civilised nation must have a government. Why not be happy that is works? This whole `all (federal) government is evil' position is very immature.

That's actually a good example of Linus' point. You can not easily parallelise pagination, because you need to know what fits on one page before you can paginate the next page. Sure, you can do some heuristics (every page contains exactly 1000 words), which is dangerous and at best lowers the quality of the result. You can also try to be clever and for example paginate chapters in parallel and then do the exact numbering afterwards in a separate pass, but before you know it you have turned a fairly simple algorithm into something highly complicated and fragile. And for what? A few corner cases.

And exactly what should they produce then? What do you consider results? And why should we listen to you?

NASA has produced results. Perhaps not the results you like, perhaps they were not as profound or as glitzy as you would like, but they got results. Including a smooth-running ISS, a mars rover that goes on and on and on and on and on, and a new launch system.

Now, I understand that proving that you are a hoopy frood by slagging of NASA on /. is too tempting for some people, but that doesn't mean it is a sane point of view.