What's wrong with using them?

They are not helpful. Automatic proof, or automatic proof-verification is a research field, and has been so for decades, and has still YET to come up with something helpful to anyone doing real mathematical proofs. They have only barely reached the ability to help with play-thing problems handed to high school students, and even them the computer generated result (or input), is obtuse and stupid - not helpful in any way.

What?! Did you just try to turn, living in your moms basement, into idealistic philosophy?

jesus christ did someone actually use 'exponentially' correctly on the internet

Nope. The energy involved in the crash which determines the damage done increases quadratically with speed. Similarly the safety margin for errors decreases quadratically with speed. So while it is super-linear, it is not anywhere near or related to exponentially. I am sorry; you will have search harder to find someone use 'exponentially' correctly on the internet :(

There is a difference between online passwords and offline password. First of all there are so many weaknesses online that your password is not going to be the weakest link, secondly online services will typically have system that severely slows down online attacks.

Offline attacks will often attack the digest, and not give a shit about guessing passwords.

Contestants on the top, judge on the bottom. Take 3 second and you can guess whether the robots are on the left or right. If you take more than that you are a bot yourself :P

The tivo clause for one. Apple ships DRM and uses EFI. Lock in is part of their ecosystem. It also causes great problems with iPhone and iPad development.

That is irrelevant for a compiler. The GPLv3 clauses would only be a problem if it is shipped as an integral part of a product Apple sells.

*Cough* bullshit. BULLSHIT!

Simple proof: GCC has precompiled headers, and is in some ways more modular than Clang, separate precompiler for instance? What clang has is better API for the code analytics where GCC's modular APIs are either too high level (precompiled source), or too low level (intermediate GIMPLE code).

GCC was in blind alleys before. No real reason for them not to survive this one. Another EGC can happen, to pull GCC in future.

GCC is doing just fine and there is plenty of cooperation between clang-developers and GCC-developers. As always, the war only exists in the minds of the fanboys on each side.

Btw, the latest improvement in GCC is to move new development to C++ which will allow for much cleaner and more maintainable code.

Yep, the only way this makes sense if they want to test dangerous or potentially dangerous technologies without humans getting in the way. If it was really just wireless networks and automated appliances, they could just hand out/install the new bleeding edge technology out for free in a volunteer test city.

The problem is that if you remove the rabbit ears, the icon to the television become a lot more ambiguous. There is a lot of things that are rounded rectangles with another rounded rectangle inside of it.