And does the numeric value of that option dictate the degree of JIT-time optimization performed?

I can see the use for options to specify heap sizes, and to tweak latency vs. throughput of the GC. These are critical for memory-constrained and timing-constrained applications, respectively. I presume the other options are performance related, but how effective are they really?

Point is, how the hell do you come up with ideal state and goals that narrows down to the morality answers he's after? Math?

Ethics is entirely dependent on discrete math, aka logic, so why the skepticism? In any case, the 'working definition' defines ethical principles simply as those principles that allows entities to thrive. What allows them to thrive is entirely contextual and subjective, in recognition of the fact that value is subjective, and value often reflects need. Where this is not the case, we simply document the exceptions in the hopes of devising a more general model, just like we do in other hard sciences. You start with a working definition, and refine it over time.

The point is, modelling a system absent empirical evidence tends to reduce to semantic circlejerking.

He may say he does not take stock in any major philosophical work from the last century or so, but that only make him a stupid philosopher.

He's not trying to be a philosopher, he's being a scientist addressing the problem of ethical relativity.

I think you should be more skeptical of your understanding of the science of morality. Neuroscience is merely one tool that can inform our ethical decisions, as you say, but you then imply that it cannot answer moral questions, as if any other arbitrary basis for ethics possibly could answer such questions in a way that is more satisfactory.

The problem with ethics, and indeed many studies of philosophy, is that they are too obsessed with semantics and deduction, and insufficiently interested in knowledge, which is the domain of science. It is sheer hubris to consider a subject beyond epistemic inquiry. Consequentialism as a whole predicates ethical choices on their effects, and so inherently depends on science.

The scientific method falls flat on its face on several subjects - a good one would be "I have terminal cancer - do I have a right to die at a time, place, and method of my choosing?"

I disagree, science can and indeed has been applied to the study of ethical questions. Google the Science of Morality.

HTTP pipelining just magnifies the DoS vulnerability that all HTTP servers inherently have.

Fuck you for thinking you know better than The People.

The People don't have the time to properly inform themselves on every issue. That's why being our elected representatives is a full time job. Direct democracy isn't effective for this reason alone.

This is a huge power trip

I think a lot of people are jumping the gun here. Did it occur to anyone that this sort of move might be an Apple-inspired move to simplicity? HDMI can carry digital audio stream, so motherboards could consolidate around a single HDMI for both audio and video instead of providing SPDIF + DVI + 5-7 1/4 inch analog connectors. It's just more cost effective and simpler for consumers.

Yes, taking down sharing sites is bad. But vigilante attacks at a time when the government is already itching to censor the internet are fucking silly. It's like protesting the TSA by putting bombs in your luggage.

These attacks really aren't so different from public protests that disrupt traffic and businesses in cities. Except the penalties for such "protests" online are as bad and sometimes worse than major felonies. There's a bit of a disconnect there.

I have to think that they just -increased- the odds of draconian legislation being passed to help contain outbreaks just like this.

You can't contain these sorts of attacks using legislation or the current web infrastructure. It's just pissing in the wind, and you're only going to get wet. Solving DDoS attacks requires a switch to content-centric networking, or something like it.