...funnel money to donors who then go bankrupt shortly after...
I'd be surprised if a random member of the public could even define what free software is. They'd probably think it's connected to the cost of the software rather than its freedom giving properties.
That said, I think that the view that with enough eyes all bugs are shallow is false. Given that bash is used in millions and millions of servers and the bug took decades to root out, we must think of a better way to get eyes on the code.
The whole stack needs a line by line review by security experts. That will cost tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars but my view is that it's probably worth it. Then we have to make sure all changes get reviewed in the same way.
The result of this process would be a super-hardened version of OpenBSD. It would come with a nice fat government certification and if you want to do business with the government, you have to use that distro.
That might rub people up the wrong way but I think that's what's ultimately going to happen eventually. A lot of this infrastructure is so critical to the modern economy that we can't just run any old code anymore.
Without a top-down bureaucracy calling the shops, states can try 50 different methods to control the pandemic, and compare results to see who has the best one. They're not stuck mindlessly doing what Washington has dictated, even if it's wrong.
The CDC is swearing up and down Ebola can be transmitted by airborne infection, but what if they're wrong about this strain?
The federal government is much more likely than the states to continue a wrong course of action long after it's been proven a bad idea than the states. See also: Welfare, agribusiness subsidies, the food pyramid...
...because it might put favored liberal policies or politicians in a bad light. That's why Sharyl Attkisson resigned.
Leaving out Boeing would be budget suicide for NASA.
No one should be left out because there should be no contract. Instead, NASA should be fostering a spot market for launches. They should have a separate bid for each launch: "We want X satellite in Y orbit, and insured for Z dollars." Then give the launch to the lowest bidder. That way each company can work continuously to cut costs and improve services, knowing that if they leapfrog the competition, they can win the next launch, instead of being locked out for years.
That is not feesable. It take years to be trained to fly in a spaceship - whether the lifting body like the Shuttle or Dream Chaser, or a capsule such as Soyuz, CST-100, or Dragon V2. You have to build not only the rocket, but a tower to carry the crew to the top of the rocket along with an arm to get the astronauts into the vehicle (which is not compatible/spacecraft). Escape systems need to be installed. It's very expensive, and it would never be built without assurance that the demand is there. At this time, there is no market for launches except from NASA or ESA. Cosmonauts would ride Russian spacecraft, Indians and Chinese are developing their own systems, etc. The public demand is too little at this time. Without a long-term contract, NASA is not enough for your proposal.
I would stick to Objective-C for the moment as there are more learning resources online.
I agree with this. As a new user, for the moment, Objective-C is likely the way to go due to their being more documentation out there. Swift documentation though is rapidly increasing.
As a developer in both Swift and Objective-C, the primary advantage of Swift is it is slightly faster to do many things as it doesn't require strict classing of variables, so you find yourself not having to spend as many lines of code swapping strings to integers as that kind of thing and end up with slightly more readable code.
However, these advantages likely aren't as important for a new user as having a wealth of documentation to learn from.
Unlike the above books, it's non-fiction, and people were actually killed for the crime of reading it. ("In Soviet Russia...")
Michael Totten did, and he found a police state overseeing wrenching poverty, complete with shortages for essentials and goods of retched quality.
In short: Communism.
Let's not forget that the best estimates for the death of communist regimes killing their own people is right around 100 million people. Both The Black Book of Communism and R.J. Rummel's Death by Government come up with roughly the same number of people killed.
Communism is incompatible with both human rights and a healthy economy, and never has, never can, and never will meet the needs of its own people or offer better lives than those under capitalism.
Embargoes have nothing to do with it...