I enjoyed Star Wars, though I don't consider it a very good example of "science fiction". Star Trek succeeded in many ways, particularly if you embrace the idea of post-scarcity resulting in unified humanity that is pretty well NOT at war with itself. Too optimistic for some, but I'd like to believe it possible.
Babylon 5 plays out more like a David Weber series. Since I'm a fan of David Weber's work, I mean that only in good ways. Babylon 5 spent more time with the politics of interplanetary/intergalactic travel. That humanity would get its act together in the face of interacting with older/younger space-faring races, but still have underlying tensions.
Also, I don't think I ever saw a spaceship become stationary on Babylon 5 simply by cutting its engines.
I think rational debate would be solely sufficient to shut down his campaign for cryptographic backdoors.
Unless, by "rational debate," he means everyone who disagrees shuts the hell up...
I'd rather send Microsoft my dick size than go to Apple.
Why would either be interested in something so insignificant?
Because, based on both companies behavior, size matters?
Doubtful. Pretty sure Google updating their product and changing functionality (the ability to block ads isn't an advertised feature
A) You aren't forced to use their browser, at least, not by Google
B) You presumably agreed to Google's terms and conditions / EULA when you installed/used Chrome
C) The product is provided free of charge and you didn't pay Google a single cent for it.
Honestly, this was my first question while reading the summary (read the article? Bah!). It's possible that this person availed themselves of AshleyMadison sometime in the past and has since improved his relationship with his spouse; however, it sounds more like rationalization, as such improvement presumably precluded 'fessing up to his indiscretion.
Unfortunately(?), he relied on a third party to assist with the hook-up. Remember: Two people can keep a secret, so long as one of them is dead.
Otherwise known as soft links or symbolic links, which DEC and RDOS have had since 1978.
No, not the same thing (though similar in purpose). A shortcut is a file whose content is parsed by the software/OS to determine the location of the target, while a symbolic/soft link is a filesystem object that points to target.
One type is more elegant for most purposes (imo), and the other is/was heavily used by Windows.
If it's worth hacking on well, it's worth hacking on for money.