Which certainly doesn't claim 5000+ researchers per capita. The highest possible number of anything per capita you can have is 1 (one). Sweden has 5000+ researchers per 1 million capita (to put it like that).

and experience it. Since the end of your life is the end of experience, the "punished" doesn't experience the punishment.

Capital Punishment is vengeance, no more, no less. A civilized society doesn't do vengeance. A civilized society is governed by logic and reason. Sadly that hasn't been the case anywhere in the US since at least the late 1970s, and since the 1990s it's been all about Jesus, God, Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy and other childhood fantasy figures.

Lots of people deserve to die. Capital "punishment" is not punishment however, given the fact that the "punished" just stops existing and is therefore no longer neither punished nor capital. This is why the base difference between a civilized society and a non-civilized society is whether the government engages in acts of vengeance (capital punishment). No civilized society engages in vengeance. It's for the mentally deficient.

The USA though stands shoulder to shoulder with Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and The ISIS in supporting capital punishment.

Execution is vengeance, not punishment. A civilized society doesn't engage in vengeance. Simple as that. The US in this regard is about as civilized as Saudi Arabia and The ISIS.

The question was specifically how to deal with people who only offer criticism and do not contribute anything themselves.

Criticism is a part of development or any creative effort. Development is an iterative process and requires feedback and input from lots of people.

However the person who should leave the team is the person who does not have anything to offer. If someone's only "contribution" is to suggest how other people "should" be doing the work, that person is not really contributing.

There is an old Chinese saying that is tangentially related here. "The person who says it cannot be done should not bother the person who is doing it." Similarly, the person who says it should be done another way should either demonstrate that by doing it themselves, or STFU and leave the team alone.

Open Source is developed by and large by volunteers. While critical individuals are able to offer their criticisms, the people are doing the actual work are equally able to ignore them. Either a person is contributing code, contributing to the effort through things like documentation, wiki support, what ever... or a person is just a hanger on leeching off of the efforts of others. If that person is the worst kind of hanger on; the topping from the bottom, back seat driving, wanting to be in control but lacking the talent to do things themselves type of hanger on... well then fuck them.

If a person is living an area of the world that lacks the bandwidth to view online videos, are they really the kind of person who will be accessing content about how to build and deploy multi-tier applications into a IaaS stack?

Thank you for the laugh.

While this might not be the most subtle way of handling things, it could be quite effective to repeat the same question every time they are critical. "What have you contributed?"

Just ignore their arguments and ask them what they have contributed. Over and over and over again.

They will either go away, stop posting so much, contribute, or perhaps realize that the whole point of the movement is to contribute actual code and functionality.

On the Internet, ignore them. In real life, talk about them every time they open their mouth and complain. "Oh there goes Joe again, whining and NOT CONTRIBUTING." Then return to your regularly scheduled activities of doing things.

How do you deal with things like re-tests and conflicting priorities for remediation? For example, client wants vulnerabilities patched in one week but the next maintenance window is for two weeks.

We are in the same situation and we have data centers spread around the globe to deal with data privacy and jurisdictional considerations.

I could have made that more clear. We license Rapid7 and use their tools to conduct internal tests of the systems on a bi-weekly basis.

I am curious about this as well. What are the potential risks of maintaining focus on a point a few inches away from the eye for hours upon hours?