As an American, it has become increasingly clear that neither side has a real agenda outside of protecting the interests of their financiers (big business on one side and unions/the entertainment industry on the other). Both sides choose a handful of issues to rattle their sabers about during elections, but neither actually want to get what they argue for or they will have to find something new to stir people up with.
Obama ran on a platform of protecting civil liberties and then stood up in front of the nation and defended the NSA spying on each and every citizen. Bush ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism and then spent far more than his predecessor.
Modern American politics consists of distracting the public while you sell their rights to whoever funded your campaign. Championing one side or the other is naive.

By your logic a single potato will be "enough" so I guess energy is a solved problem. Great work everyone, we can all go home.

Thank you for your honesty. You know, you seem like a pretty nice.... OH MY GOD WHAT HAVE I DONE!

This has to be the work of... wait, who benefits from removing criticism about C++ again?

Whether or not wikipedia thoroughly badmouths a language you don't like boils down to a spat between fanboys, which is not at all comparable to a paid service that helps you hide criticism of your organization from consumers.

So you give them the information they need to decrypt your hidden partition of porn and they send you on your way, never realizing you have a second hidden partition full of seditious text.

But do those advantages have anything to do with genetic modifications? Food crops have been selectively bred for thousands of years. The result of hybridizing a wild strain with a strain that has been carefully cultivated is all but guaranteed to produce something superior to the wild strain. Why assume those advantages are a result of the direct modification of genes rather than plain old unnatural selection?

If you are traveling at 800mph on a cushion of air I suspect that bathrooms will be the least of your worries when it breaks down.

Right, because HP wouldn't have backdoors...

There aren't many situations where this vulnerability is relevant, but here is one:

You are logged into your Office 365 account in a coffee shop with unencrypted wifi. You happen to glance at another patrons computer only to realize that he has hijacked your session by sniffing the unencrypted session cookie that you are sending to the server every time you load a page! You quickly hit the logout button expecting your session to be invalidated, but the logout button only deleted the cookie local to your device. The guy who hijacked your session is still logged in and proceeds to send an email to your boss calling him a "nub".

Had Microsoft's service invalidated your session token on the server when you hit logout this disaster could have been avoided.

Wikipedia is one of the interactive internet's biggest success stories. You do realize how content gets into Wikipedia?

Taking advantage of stored procedures does not necessarily mean you are locked in to a provider. You can always write your procedures in pure SQL and still get the benefits of making query logic available to multiple applications.

Most typed languages consider anything that isn't 0 to be true. Try something similar in C and you will get the same result.

The point is largely irrelevant anyway. Would you be comfortable allowing strangers to look into your bathroom while you use it even if you could guarantee they couldn't take a picture? If not, then why does it become OK as soon as the strangers wear a shirt that says TSA on it?

Anyone who is panicking about a theoretical future where someone might be recording them with a pair of eyeglasses is out of touch. Cameras that are the size of shirt buttons have been readily available for years. Every person you walk past on the street might be recording you right now and you would never know. What makes Google Glass so special?

# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/mem