You seem to forget that the banks' "insurer" was AIG. And they insured total crap in huge amounts, essentially betting against a collapse of the housing market (collapse which was pretty much assured thanks to the banks' practices). Oh and they also let people "insure" other people's property, giving the banks additional incentive to make their practices worse and WANT a collapse.
I still consider The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time to be the best video game ever created.
People with no job conspire and fail in trying to shave off a few millions out of a bank's billions?
Get arrested, thrown in prison for years.
Work for a bank, conspire and succeed in destroying the global economy and cheat your customers out of trillions of dollars?
Get the government to give you even MORE money.
Not saying these guys here should not have been arrested. But the worst crooks in the story are working inside the bank, not outside.
Indeed, what was it that made those 1400 deaths so much worse than the 100 000 previous ones?
I'll support your suggestion too, I've been installing Zabbix for a lot of my customers, especially since version 2.0 came out it's a really strong product that does everything you could want from a monitoring solution.
Oneof the major issues wit 4.0 was how they switch the video drivers to ring 0 for better performance, but most video drivers in those days were total crap. Things have gotten better.
DLL hell wasn't as bad in 2k and XP and is almost entirely gone now since Vista thanks to SxS.
This is mostly FUD.
Regarding external certificates, most certification agencies (at least those that are members of the https://www.cabforum.org/ have stopped issuing certificates for invalid domain names for any date posterior to November 1st 2015. They put this policy in place on Nov 1st 2012. Any such certificates that might be marked as valid beyond that date will be revoked on October 1st 2016.
Now, there may be a concern with internal certificates for such domains, but that is for the internal policy of businesses to fix in time. It should be easy to implement redirecting policies to new domains for any internal web site or system that could collide with gTLDs before they're actually implemented. It is certainly NOT a serious security concern in my opinion.
You talk as if the "government" was a monolithic entity. Its left hand very often doesn't even know its right hand even EXISTS, much less care what it does. Even worse, it may very well be that they don't want other government employees to patch those systems so they can spy on them, too!
There's no 3D Mario, no Zelda, no Metroid game.
Those are the reasons I buy Nintendo consoles. I have a Wii U only because I won it at a trade show, otherwise I would not yet have bought one until at least one of those is released.
What about online-only games? Will historians in 100 years be able to play WoW and see what the game was like?
I'm getting 31ms average ping from my wired computer. I'm on Videotron cable, in Canada. Wireless system is a bit slower.
Just for fun, I tried with cell phone connection (Bell 3G), and got 121ms average.
It's doable to ensure a program does exactly what its specs say it should do. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_verification.
It's not often done because it's extraordinarily time-consuming; the time it takes to do goes up exponentially with program length/complexity, I believe.
That would be illegal and probably unconstitutional in most western countries.