Perhaps not as well. If people are following the coding standards for the organization then the code for the most part looks far more similar.

When I am working with a development team, I will tend to adjust my unique style to better match what everyone else is doing. Even if it means doing coding methods that I will normally disagree with.

If the code tends to use a bunch of Goto's instead of Procedures or classes. I will use those GOTO not for my benefit, but for people who will maintain my code later on, so they won't have to change their mindset and debugging strategies to see what the program is doing to do future corrections.

I will go full Object Oriented if the group of people that I am working with do their coding full OO.

My personal style would be more procedural, than OO. Not due to lack of knowledge or not realizing OO advantages and disadvantages. But if I am to code on my own, I code in the way that My Mind handles the requirements, and how I feel would be easier for me to change and fix my code in the future.

I think this method is best for ID based on personal code, vs group corporate code, where a lot of your particular style is hidden.

In terms of a server OS, Linux has good security. The lock screen on X11 in order to keep other out of your logged in session, workstation/desktop usage. It isn't ideal.

the NT Alt-Ctrl-Del is a Workstation thing. Its security is low level to prevent applications from accessing it.

Ethics and Morals are based on the cultural norms.

Taking a bribe is consider corruption in our culture. In another it may be considered payment for expedited services. In America we Tip our servers, the size of our tips are based on what we figure was the quality of the service. This motivates the server to try to exceed expectation. The only difference between this and a bribe is payment after service is performed and not before.

There are the obvious fads. But there are plenty of times where a Fad can endure vs just go away, sometimes it could just be something disruptive that changes its path.

We had the rails fad. Ruby on Rails got rather popular in the early 10's then it just kinda faded away. Technically it was fine, however mobile apps development took over which made Web Applications development seem less popular, so the existing Web Apps were just maintained with PHP, JSP or ASP.NET. The need to try to make an ultra rich interface for web applications somewhat paused, when they realize they just need to focus on the PC, and no longer put effort in Mobile HTML with the new input methods.

OS/2 Vs. Windows 95. There was a lot of buzz around OS/2 Warp replacing Windows 3.1... However IBM really bombed its marketing while Microsoft did a stellar job.

During our careers I am sure the best of us, had jumped onto the wrong fad, or made a bad choice. Then the next time you didn't change your criteria and you made a good choice.

However the real question should be. As the parent pointed out What does it do, and will it actually benefit me/my organization.

There is nothing simple about ethics with international business.
Things that ethically right in one culture can be a huge issue in an other.
Many European countries have laws about Hate speech.
The US has against with Pedophilia.
In some countries bribes are just part of doing business. In others it is quite illegal.
Countries will tax you for things that other countries would consider as overstepping bounds.
Some countries lets things go by without legal controls that others find monstrous.

If you are going to be doing international business, you need to be sensitive to your own ideals, as well as the ideals of your new customer base.
Our American Ideals of nearly full freedom of speech, vs. Turkey ideals of limited speech. Are clashing. So if Zuckerberg just said no. They will not operate in Turkey, and the users will be loss of a medium to spread the areas of free speech that they do enjoy. If Zuckerberg agrees then Facebook stays operational, and while taking heat from the culture who doesn't like to see any speech censored, is allowing the culture to have better tools to share the free speech that they are entitled too.

Especially now that most of the data is transmitted digitally. This was a necessary evil before digital distribution, because an analog signal took up a full bandwidth having too much will cause interference. With the data being distributed digitally a lot of competition can go across the same pipeline without affecting the other. TCP/IP is kinda neat that way.

You're assuming that the task of crossing the Atlantic in the 17th Century is a feat comparable to a more advanced civilisation travelling dozens of lightyears in space. We are a more advanced civilisation - and not only are we still doing pretty badly at human space exploration, we're staring to form pretty successful scientific theories that show the task will be very, very difficult - and could be impossible. You're basing your argument on the (non-falsifiable) notion that an advanced civilisation will develop technology indistinguishable from magic - in an age where science is capable of asking quite a few awkward questions about magic w.r.t. little things like causality and the laws of thermodynamics...

At that time, travelling to America may have not been a picnic, but was still "only" a matter of months. Ships were readily available (the Mayflower was just a garden variety merchant ship). Coming back was unlikely (for the majority of the passengers) but not impossible. Trade with the old world was still feasible (much of the exploration of the new world at the time had a view to bringing resources back to Europe) and the climate on the East coast of America may have proven to be a bit nippy, but you could breathe the air, drink the water, eat native plants and animals and be reasonably confident that your seeds would go.

So, the question is, would the pilgrims still have left Europe for America if it meant a shipbuilding programme that made Apollo look like a science fair project, then spending the rest of their life on a ship, never seeing land, in the hope that their great-grandchildren would finally arrive in America - and then face the task of another generation or two on the ship terraforming the land before they could start ploughing and planting?

Especially given that, if you could buy a ship that could survive for many lifetimes in the middle of the Atlantic without support, wouldn't it be a hell of a lot easier just to build a big raft and park it sufficiently far offshore that the people you were running from wouldn't bother you?

Then, seriously, what do you think the chances are of a bunch of religious fundamentalists crewing a generation ship without overpopulating, schisming, squandering resources, killing each other and regressing to savagery (the 56th law of Science Fiction)? Yet in a society without the tendency for people to persecute each other in an argument over the colour of the sky fairy's wings, their motivation for embarking on the journey wouldn't have existed...

IT security is about tradeoffs.
The idea of 100% security while possible, it impractical.
Your argument about Blackphone is the fact they are not supportive of the OSS mind set, So you judging the quality of the technology based on what type of license it has.

Ok a flaw was found, and they put in a fix for it, what else do you expect from them?

Nah - I think the "skeuomorphism considered harmful" movement comes from form-over-function graphic design numpties who were tired of actual content, meaning or useful visual cues for functionality polluting their minimalist design and stealing valuable screen area that could be used for whitespace, irrelevant generic images of shiny happy people or corporate identity guff. It was showing up on websites etc. (Slashdot's Bucking Feta was fairly late to the party) long before Apple went flat. Google have been going down the same route for some time, too.

Apple didn't help by coming up with some appallingly bad skeuomorphic UIs shortly before they went flat: someone had completely forgotten that the point of making something look like, say, a physical book is to suggest to the user that it works like a physical book (e.g. with data arranged in pages). Apps like Contacts and Calendars looked like books, or flip-over calendars, but didn't work remotely like such things, leaving the user with a load of totally misleading visual cues. (Subsequently copying them from iOS to OSX, where the mouse-based interface made them work even less like the physical object didn't help, either). Now, the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater, and we're left with "mystery meat" UIs with nothing to distinguish the controls from the content.

There is an art to programming. However I am more of a visual person I tend to compare it to painting. Where I use Mathematics, Logic, and understanding of the Systems engineering to replace brushes, paint, and understanding of the textures of the material.

When you teach someone to code, (especially from a non-coder) it is like showing them how to hold a pencil, and write some letters, and words. It will take experience and working with real coders to learn the finer arts to programming.
It isn't about knowing how to do the actions... But how to put yourself in the mindset to create.

Historic Storm!
Here Ye Here Ye. Run the shops and get your Toilet Paper in Bulk. Be Prepared to live like a caveman for year!

What I would like to have seen.
Estimated snow fall ranges.
Average expected snow fall to get
Standard Deviation of your estimate.
Confidence interval.

We get a lot of this talk during the political season. So the general public does seem to have at least a rudimentary understanding of such statistics. Why can't we get this for things like weather. Other than trying to make us panic about every freaking thing.

I want News, not sensationalism .

How does your kernel preference affect the quality of the user interface?
Actually Most Unix designs over exaggerate the problem I have stated.
I want to run a program that does this.
Well I /usr/bin or /usr/sbin/ or /usr/local/bin or /usr/local/sbin I sure hope the command lets me know what the heck the program does.

MWM, FVWM, CDW (the classic interfaces) tended to give you what you can have the rest was via command line in Xterm.
Windows 8 UI stole the Ubuntu method in a lot of ways as well.

You are dealing with these issues, it is that you got use to them and don't realize how bad off you are.

Well if you live in a City. And you happen to be in a place where you cannot stay for shelter. Then you will need to be able to get to a place of shelter, your home, a hotel... If Cabs, Busses and public transportation isn't meeting demand, then you may need a personal driver go get you to the proper place of shelter.

Econ 101 yes. However during cases of emergencies, demand may not be rational, as the value of their currency is less than the value they are trying to protect.
If you are freezing to death and the only thing that can save your life would be using that check in your pocket for a million dollars, you would burn that check, in order to save your life.

In short during an emergency people need to focus on the short term and not the long term. So Supply vs Demand breaks down, as the value of money, is only as valuable as everyone agrees it is. However during an emergency, its value drops to the practical value of the paper,coin, plastic.

That is why there are anti-gouging laws. Because it isn't an aggregate rational supply and demand, but a mad rush for services.
Now for Uber and other services, Being their computers are not programmed to think in terms of an irrational market, they will just assume there is a perfectly rational demand jump so the prices will rise. The long term effect would be customers being felt ripped off will avoid such services in the future.

If I can take one thing away from what's being said without managing to actually get to the point it's that apparently what we really need is to do a better job of teaching mathematics.

I mean, that's really what it all comes down to.

Programming is ultimately just an application of that. The reasons for needing to teach it universally ultimately seem to fall back to the simple fact that current methods of, and the areas of mathematics teaching are currently failing kids.

So rather than recognising that giving students a book with 40 math problems to shut up and solve in silence which is far too prevalent still it seems what we really need is to give them real world problems to solve and explain how to use mathematical underpinnings of modelling, logic, and philosophy to achieve that.

Unfortunately the people coming up with these ideas of coding for all themselves never managed to self-educate in mathematics to see past the flawed system of teaching it upto the age of about 18 and don't realise that's what they're basically asking for.

Teach kids a broader understanding of mathematics than just how to repeat algorithms blindly without truly understanding the what's, why's, or how's and everything from making a logical argument in politics through to doing programming will come easily.

Keep teaching maths in the shoddy way it's often currently taught though and it wont matter how much half-arsed coding you've taught, you still wont have gotten anywhere.

Frankly even history as a subject could be made far more useful if kids had to do a module on the history of mathematics and the evolution of mathematical achievements - you don't even need to cover the math itself, just explaining who came up with what, and why is an eye opener in itself and ties in with some important advances in human philosophy, physics and other key milestones of humanity too.